Mayor Pete Tweets Christmas Day Lies About Jesus’ Birth

Mayor Pete Buttegeig shows the “acceptable” way to politicize Christmas, on Christmas Day, and be factually/biblically wrong on every single point.

On Christmas morning, Buttegeig, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, tweeted this:

“Today I join millions around the world in celebrating the arrival of divinity on earth, who came into this world not in riches but in poverty, not as a citizen but as a refugee.

No matter where or how we celebrate, merry Christmas.”

(Excuse me a moment while I search for a cement wall to bang my head against.)

You see, what Mayor Pete is saying is that if you don’t support the government taking your money and giving it to other people who the government deems in need; and if you don’t approve of letting in everyone who says the magic word “refugee,” then it’s just like you’re doing it to JESUS!

Except he’s wrong on every count, like his fellow travelers every Christmas, or every time these debates erupt again. And I mean every count.

Jesus did not come into this world in “poverty.” Neither was he homeless, an annual Christmas false trope of many on the left. Joseph, his father, was a carpenter, a tradesman. That would have made him the very rough equivalent of middle class in the context of his time, which was before our concept of a middle class that developed after the industrial revolution. He had a home and quite likely a wood shop from which he built and sold his craft, as there was a thriving need for carpentry. He was in essence a small businessman.

(And if we take a purely biblical view, Jesus “home” was in Glory as part of the eternal God-head existing before the creation of the world, which he voluntarily left in order to save mankind. So in no way at all was he born a refugee.)

Neither was Jesus born homeless, which Buttegeig did not claim but his fellow travelers normally do either this time of year or when the homeless debate comes up and they stumble across a Christian.

Jesus was born in a barn because the government (Rome) demanded a census for the purpose of making sure everyone was taxed. The Romans conducted the census by requiring everyone to return to the town of their House. Joseph was of the House of David, so that meant he had to return to Bethlehem. But they arrived late, and everything was full, hence the barn. With Mary’s pregnancy reaching the point of birth (of course we know what Mayor Pete defends as Mary’s “right” even up to this point  in her pregnancy) Jesus ended up born in the stable.

Nor was Jesus born a “refugee.” He had a home and his father had a business. The above story explains why they were in a barn the night he was born. Joseph was following government dictates for tax purposes. Now, Jesus was arguably a refugee in Egypt for some undetermined amount of time when young, but that was fleeing an evil king who was killing every baby in his age cohort because of what the wise men said and the prophecies foretold. Then Jesus returned home.

So, to recap:

  • Not born in poverty.
  • Not born homeless.
  • Not born a refugee.

It’s not just that Mayor Pete did this, and that so many people on the left do this every year. It’s that we now live in a society where a leading presidential candidate, and the most preachy Christian politician, feels the need and the potential for political gain to lie about the story of Jesus’ birth to pander to his base — on Christmas morning.

And here I thought Christmas was about celebrating the birth of the Savior of the world.

But hey, Buttegeig’s lies got 32,000 likes. So he was right in one respect: Some portion of the Democratic base is totally onboard with this set of lies. They will be repeated next year. And we’ll be here to correct them with the truth.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Hope Of America’s Founders Still Shines
Lawless Mexico Kills 1,000 Times More Americans Than Terrorists Do
Impeachment be damned, Trump judicial appointees roar on at record pace
The Constitutional Remedy To A Bad Impeachment
Impeachment Implosion: Wave Of Polls Show Swing Toward Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Persecuted and Forgotten? Defending Defenseless Christians

Ines A. Murzaku: Jesus was the protomartyr, and Christians across the globe are being martyred today. But the West is too frightened to call evil by its name.


A few days ago, I went to my trusted Lebanese-American mechanic for an oil change. The Christians of the East have always had a penchant for discussing theology, politics, and race – and as far as theology is concerned, the Easterners have all the theology they could want to discuss and contest. My routine car service, therefore, usually turns into interesting discussions on theology, Church history, and – most recently – the state of persecuted Christians in the East.

I guess this is one of the benefits of my being a Church historian. It happens that my mechanic was fresh back from Lebanon, which he had visited for his mother’s funeral. He had a lot to tell me about the persecution and harassment Lebanese Christians are suffering at the hands of the Muslim majority and about recent protests  –  Hezbollah is currently the major political force in the country.

He and his family are Christians by birth, so they are officially allowed to worship freely. This is not always the case in practice, especially since the number of Christians in Lebanon is progressively diminishing and referring to Christians as a discrete minority has become the norm. According to statistics, in 1970, Lebanon was 62 percent Christian. By 2010, the Christian population in Lebanon was drastically reduced to about 36 percent. Maronite Catholics make up the largest Christian group, excluding the recent addition of Syrian refugees. Islam and Muslims have become the country’s major religion and religious group, respectively.

Well, the conversation continued, and one of the main points my mechanic made was how the people of the West, and especially the Holy See and the Holy Father, have forgotten about the plight of the Christians in Lebanon and their fight for survival. Instead, the Vatican has been far more interested in climate change and other political issues than the extermination of Christians in the Middle East. He kept repeating: “We [Christians] are being erased,” and the West has been turning away.

Long after I left his shop, I couldn’t get over this conversation. The Church in the West has been going through sexual scandal, financial corruption, the Pachamama controversy, financial raids at the Vatican, political intrigue, controversy over the viri probati, and the ordination of women to the diaconate. Meanwhile, the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated to such a point that Christian brothers and sisters from the lands that gave birth to Christianity might be extinct in the next few years.

As the celebration of the controversial Misa por la Tierra Sin Males (Mass for an Earth without Evils) was going on, and the Pachamama was being displayed at Saint Mary in Traspontina Carmelite Church, an important event was happening in the Basilica of St. Bartholomew on the Tiber Island in Rome – though few have heard about it.

The event did not get the same attention the Pachamama and Amazon Synod received in the media. The pontifical foundation Aid to the Church in Need issued a new report “Persecuted and Forgotten?” focusing on Christian persecution between 2017 and 2019. As that report amply demonstrates, Christians are the most hunted and persecuted religious community in the world.

It presents four case studies and twelve country profiles detailing Christian persecution in Burma (Myanmar), the Central African Republic, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Sudan. The data are alarming, detailing accelerated persecution of Christians worldwide – a trend that does not seem to be changing course.

In July 2019, Islamists killed four Christians in Burkino Faso, and threatened to murder others, too, if they refused to convert. In India, “police in Uttar Pradesh’s Jaunpur district charged 271 Christians with ‘spreading lies about Hinduism’ and using drugs to induce people to convert.”

Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, who presented the report, urged people to have the courage to call “the evil by its name” – the evil that rages in the hearts and destroys houses churches, feeding hatred and revenge.

Story after story rings alarm bells: Christians are being chased away from their lands; Christianity is being uprooted. In Iraq, for example, “the Christian population continued to decline. Christians had numbered 1.5 million before 2003 and yet by summer 2019, Christians in Iraq were ‘well below’ 150,000 and perhaps even below 120,000. This means that, within a generation, Iraq’s Christian population has shrunk by more than 90 percent.”

Why are Christians persecuted and why are they forgotten? Obviously, Christians are persecuted for the very fact of being Christians and for following the prototype of martyrdom – the Son of God on the Cross. The world, which did not recognize God, persecuted Him. The same can be said of the world today: the secular, Godless and gutless, post-Christian world turns a blind eye to their plight and persecution.

Few stories of persecution filter through to the secularized West, which has almost turned into a conspiracy of silence and silencing. It seems that everything else is more important than the plight of Christians. The secularized West is too scared to call the evil of Christian persecution by its name.

Like my mechanic, many wish that the Church leaders would pay less attention to Pachamama and longterm climate change and more attention to an immediate threat: persecuted Christians who are on the brink of extinction. The Church could spend a great deal more of its energy on giving voice to the voiceless. The evil of Christian persecution and Christianity’s forced disappearance from the Faith’s ancient homeland should be called by its name, even if it is politically incorrect.

Defending defenseless Christians might not be fashionable, even in the Church these days, and may even lead to tensions with other faiths and various regimes. But it is the evil that is most neglected and, therefore, most cries out for action at this moment, not only by Christians but by the whole world.

COLUMN BY

Ines A. Murzaku

Ines Angeli Murzaku is Professor of Church History at Seton Hall University. Her extensive research on the history of Christianity, Catholicism, Religious Orders, and Ecumenism has been published in multiple scholarly articles and five books. Her latest book, edited and translated with Raymond L. Capra and Douglas J. Milewski, is The Life of Saint Neilos of Rossano, part of the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. Dr. Murzaku has been featured frequently in national and international media, newspapers, radio and TV interviews, and blogs.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

New York State Blocks ICE and Border Patrol Access to DMV Database

Cuomo’s gift to ISIS, the drug cartels, and human traffickers.


On December 17, 2019 Democrat & Chronicle, a publication affiliated with USA Today, published this extremely worrisome report: ICE, Border Patrol had access to NY’s DMV database. With a new license law, now they don’t.

Here is how that report begins:

ALBANY, N.Y. – Federal immigration and border officials have been blocked from New York’s DMV database, a move that keeps them from accessing data that can be used to help determine whether a vehicle owner has a criminal history or a warrant for their arrest.

New York’s Green Light Law took effect Saturday, allowing those without legal immigration status to apply for driver’s licenses in New York.

But the law also included a provision prohibiting state DMV officials from providing any of its data to entities that enforce immigration law unless a judge orders them to, leading the state to cut off database access to at least three federal agencies last week.

Among them were U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP — which patrols the U.S.-Canada border in New York — and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

Providing illegal aliens with driver’s licenses is reckless beyond belief, and reverses a previous policy that had been implemented in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

I detailed some of my more salient concerns about the dangers inherent in providing illegal aliens with driver’s licenses in my earlier article, “New York Will Provide Illegal Aliens With Driver’s Licenses.”

Now I want to call your attention to a paragraph from the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.  Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups. With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

It is clear that bogus identity documents can serve as camouflage for criminals and terrorists and that providing illegal aliens with official identity documents when their true identities may be unknown and unknowable directly undermines national security and public safety.  It is in direct conflict with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Then there is this brief paragraph from that report:

Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

The unavoidable fact is that an illegal alien terrorist was able to rent the truck that was used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and another illegal alien terrorist drove that bomb-laden vehicle. For terrorists around the world, motor vehicles have become their weapon of choice for deadly terror attacks. Consider the August 20, 2018 CNN report, Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts.

New York City experienced such a deadly terror attack on October 31, 2017 on the Westside Highway just block from what came to be known as “Ground Zero.”

Ironically, on October 31, 2019 CBS News in New York reported, 2 Years Later, NYPD Says Halloween Terror Attack Along West Side Highway Still Fresh On Its Mind.

While it detailed how, in response to the attack Westside Highway terror attack, barriers were being erected to protect pedestrians from future such attacks, we now see that barriers to the driver’s seat for possible terrorists have been willfully removed even though the 2017 Halloween Terror attack is still “fresh in the mind of the NYPD!”

But it has gotten worse — unfathomably worse. The so-called “Green Light Law” not only requires that DMV personnel issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, but also prevents any and all information contained in the databases of the New York State DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) from being provided to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection), compromising and obstructing their ability to carry out their vital duties.

On December 19, 2019 USA Today published a report, New York law lets undocumented immigrants apply for driver’s licenses, blocks ICE access that included this explanation for the “reasoning” behind the decision to block ICE and CBP from accessing the DMV database:

The law reversed the state’s post-9/11 policy of denying driving privileges to immigrants without legal immigration status.State lawmakers inserted the data-blocking provision into the bill a week before it passed, when immigrant organizations and Cuomo expressed concern that ICE and CBP would be able to easily obtain information about immigrants seeking a license, perhaps making it easier for them to be deported.

Specifically, the provision says DMV “shall not disclose” any records or information to “any agency that primarily enforces immigration law.

“The only exceptions are if the DMV commissioner is served with “a lawful court order or judicial warrant,” according to the law. Even then, the DMV has to notify the person at the center of a federal agency’s inquiry within three days.

This “Green Light Law” will obstruct criminal investigations and aid and abet alien and drug smugglers and human traffickers.

ICE agents also conduct vehicle stops as part of their investigative assignments to combat a wide variety of serious crimes that include, but are not limited to, violations of our immigration laws.

Criminals who engage in human trafficking and/or drug smuggling virtually universally own and/or drive motor vehicles as an integral part of their crimes. Indeed, under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 – U.S. Code, transporting an illegal alien is a felony comprehended within the statutes concerning alien smuggling and harboring.

DMV records are vital to determining who the co-conspirators are in human trafficking and drug-smuggling criminal enterprises. Without DMV records the owners of vehicles used in these crimes will be shielded from ICE and Border Patrol agents and thus escape detection and prosecution.

This law has the potential to get Border Patrol and ICE agents badly injured or killed.

Border Patrol agents patrol the borders of the United States and, in their mission of interdicting illegal aliens and narcotics and other contraband, routinely stop countless vehicles along the northern and southern borders of the United States. Motor vehicles stops are among the most dangerous activities that law enforcement officers do. I have been involved in numerous vehicle stops and I can attest to how risky such stops are, although they are a routine part of law enforcement work.

ICE agents also conduct vehicle stops as part of their investigative assignments to combat  a wide variety of serious crimes that include but are not limited to violations of our immigration laws.

Any time police officers or federal agents prepare to make a vehicle stop, they radio in the license plate and description of the vehicle to determine if the plates match the car, to determine if the registered owner has an outstanding warrant, or to obtain other relevant vital information. If, for example the registered owner is the subject of an active warrant or the vehicle has been reported stolen, the officer will likely call for backup. Without that vital information, the Border Patrol or ICE agent making that stop may be walking into a nightmare scenario that may cost that agent his or her life!

There is another important matter to consider: CBP agents and ICE agents frequently encounter individuals who are the subject of active warrants by the NYPD or other law enforcement agencies. When such individuals are located, they are taken into custody and held for the law enforcement agency that posted the warrant in the database.

In fact, many of the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” are encountered by other law enforcement agencies doing car stops.

Without access to the database such fugitives, wanted by the NYPD, New York State Police or other police agencies within the state of New York will not be stopped and continue on their way, perhaps to commit more crimes and kill or injure more innocent victims.

But this is clearly of no concern for New York Governor or legislature. I guess they think of dead victims as “collateral damage,” or perhaps speed bumps on the road to their corrupt political objectives.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Joe Biden, the “Two-State Solution,” and Peace Through Strength by Hugh Fitzgerald

At the recent debate among Democrats running for President, Bernie Sanders was predictably the most anti-Israel of the candidates. He said he would not, hesitate, this “proud Jewish person,” to withhold aid from Israel to force it to do American bidding, which in Sanders’ view includes removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank. After all, he has previously said that “Jewish settlements in occupied territory are illegal.” He called Netanyahu a “racist,” though he provided no examples of such “racism.” Sanders explained, in his contribution to the squaring-the-circle problem, that “the US should craft a foreign policy that is favorable to both Israel and Palestine.” Sorry, can’t be done. “Israel has the right not only to exist, but to exist in peace and security,” said Sanders, who spent time on a kibbutz in Israel as a young man.

It’s nice of big-hearted Bernie Sanders to grant Israel “the right to exist.” He even grants it the right to exist “in peace and security.” But what if Israel cannot exist in “peace and security” unless it holds onto those supposedly “illegal settlements” in the West Bank, which provide it with the necessary strategic depth against invasion from the East? What if every military man who has studied the matter, beginning with the American military men sent by the Joint Chiefs to Israel in 1967, on President Johnson’s orders, and produced a report on the territory which, as a matter of military necessity, Israel would have to retain. They included most of the West Bank, and all of the Jordan Valley and the Judean Hills. We all know that Bernie Sanders spent time on a kibbutz; too bad he didn’t spend time in the IDF. Military matters are not his strong suit.

Given the vast buildup in Arab militaries since 1967, to expect that Israel could once again pull off its victory in the Six-Day War is to ask that country to entrust its security to another such miracle. Israel could not reasonably expect to survive if it were squeezed back into something like the pre-1967 lines – that is, the 1949 Armistice Lines – which Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a famous dove, correctly defined as the “lines of Auschwitz.”

On what evidence does Sanders think that the Muslim Arabs have given up their desire to eliminate Israel? Did Hamas change its charter, or the views expressed every day by its leading members, fighters, clerics? Has Mahmoud Abbas shown a sincere willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, or has he repeatedly turned down the offer of such talks, as he does even today? Why would Sanders expect him to behave any differently in the future? Abbas is a Slow Jihadist, willing to use the salami-tactics of creating an ever-smaller Israel through “peace agreements,” but his ultimate aim is the same as that of the Fast Jihadists of Hamas: no more Israel.

If Sanders, who refers constantly to his Jewish heritage and the fact that he once spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, a transparent way to defend himself against charges of being anti-Israel, had taken the time to study the history of the Mandate, he might be surprised to learn that the entire West Bank was part of the territory assigned to the future Jewish National Home, and that Israel’s legal claim to that territory never lapsed; when Jordan managed to possess the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, it did so as the military “occupier.” When Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of the Six-Day War, this did not create Israel’s legal claim; that already existed. It merely put Israel in a position to exercise that pre-existing legal claim to the territory.

Sanders not only has little sympathy for, but also no understanding of, the plight of the Israelis who have to secure their tiny state against many would-be aggressors. There is Hamas, sending hundreds of rockets into southern Israel from Gaza, and constantly attempting to breach, with Molotov cocktails, grenades, and incendiary kites, Israel’s security fence. There are Islamic State elements that have regrouped in Sinai; for now their main target is Egypt, but at any time they might attempt to send terrorists into Israel. There is Hezbollah, with its terror tunnels snaking into the Galilee, and its 140,000 rockets stockpiled in southern Lebanon. There is Jordan, where King Abdullah has to keep the lid on his own people, who increasingly demand that the peace treaty with Israel be ended. There is Turkey, where President Erdogan has published a plan for a pan-Islamic military force capable of overwhelming the Israelis and destroying their country.

And most menacing of all is the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, which never fails to remind Israel, and the world, that it can destroy the Jewish State. To this end, it has already supplied Hezbollah with those 140,000 rockets ready to be loosed upon Israel.

Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have joined Sanders in leaving the door open to using US aid to Israel as a means to leverage Israel to change its policies on the Palestinians.

But one Democratic candidate does not think aid to Israel should be used as a weapon. Joe Biden, alone among the major candidates, has said he would not use aid as a weapon to force Israel to change its policies. Some have hailed him, not quite accurately I’m afraid, as a “pro-Israel” candidate. The bar for being “pro-Israel” has been set very low this year. He may not call Netanyahu a “racist” as Sanders does, but he has described his behavior as “outrageous.” What does he mean? Is it outrageous for Netanyahu to have the Israeli military prevent Hamas from breaching the security fence on the border with Gaza? Has it been “outrageous” for him to have those soldiers first use tear gas and rubber bullets to stop the participants in the Great March of Return, and if the fence is about to be breached, by those throwing Molotov cocktails and grenades, then to allow those soldiers to use live fire? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to allow the IDF to kill the northern leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Abu Al-Ata, as he was planning a major terrorist operation against Israel? Was it “outrageous,” after PIJ fired 450 rockets into Israel, disrupting life in southern Israel, with everyone having  repeatedly to rush to shelters, for Netanyahu to have the IDF retaliate against PIJ offices, launching pads, and weapons storehouses? What should he have done? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to welcome the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem? Is it perhaps his muscular policy of replying promptly to every Palestinian attack that Biden founds “outrageous,” though he does not explain, because he cannot, what he would have had Netanyahu do instead? It would have been good, in the face of Sanders’ absurd claim that Netanyahu is a “racist,” if Joe Biden had gone on the offensive, and said “Bernie has called Netanyahu a ‘racist.” This is a preposterous charge, and he knows it. I’ve known Bibi for a long time. We have our policy differences, but he hasn’t a racist bone in his body.”

Joe Biden did distinguish himself from Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg during the debate on the subject of aid to Israel. Unlike them, he has repeatedly said he would never use the withholding of aid as a weapon with which to force Israel to do America’s bidding. Biden has, however, repeated the phrase, the formula, the mantra, of what he and many others s call a “two-state solution.” This already assumes what needs to be proved: is there a “solution” to the Arab war on Israel? And if there isn’t, should that be cause for endless doom and gloom, or is there another way to see things?

Let’s state what those who have studied Islam already know: it is impossible for the Muslim Arabs to permanently accept the existence of Israel, whatever its borders. It is unacceptable for Unbelievers to possess land that was once possessed by Muslims; such land must forever belong to Muslims. It is especially maddening when those Unbelievers are the much-despised Jews, who have managed to stave off repeated attempts by Muslims, the “best of peoples,” to snuff out the Jewish state’s young life. And Israel exists, just as maddeningly, smack in the middle of the Arab world, separating North African Arabs from those in the Middle East. Israel is likened by the  Arabs, because of its shape, to a “dagger” thrust into their heart; another favorite metaphor is that Israel is a “cancer.” You don’t pull a dagger only part-way out of your body; you deal with cancer by removing every last cell of it.

Of course those who believe in the “two-state solution” assume that there is some giving up of territory by Israel that will sufficiently placate the Arabs so that they will beat their swords into plowshares. The reverse is true: any further withdrawal by Israel, which in returning the entire Sinai to Egypt has already given back 95% of the land it had won by force of arms in the Six-Day War, will merely whet, not sate, Palestinian and other Arab appetites. Were Israel to give up the West Bank, it would again have an eight-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would have the highest length-of-border-to-enclosed-territory ratio of any country on earth – hellishly difficult to police all of that long border. The “Palestinians” see any future agreement with Israel as a way station on the path toward their final goal, which remains, for both the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of the Palestinian Authority, the end of the Jewish state.

And the “Palestinians” have powerful allies to help them in this task. There is Iran, whose leaders never fail to claim they are quite capable of destroying the Zionists. There is Turkey, which if President Erdogan has his way, would also participate in some kind of pan-Islamic attack on Israel. The “Palestinians” of the “moderate” PA speak among themselves about the destruction of the Zionist state; to the outside world, Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi, and Mahmoud Abbas soothingly refer to the “two-state solution.” They find it goes over quite well.

Let’s replace that word “solution” and speak, more realistically, of how this Arab war on Israel can be “managed.” The answer is that it can be managed in exactly the same way that the United States “managed” the threat from the Soviet Union: deterrence. The U.S. remained sufficiently, and obviously strong, so as to deter Soviet aggression. We – Israel, America, the entire West — cannot change the Qur’an, with its commands to wage violent Jihad against Infidels. But by helping to ensure that Israel remains overwhelmingly stronger than its enemies, America can promote a very long peace.

Three trends should be noted that will only improve Israel’s ability to deter its enemies in the future. First, Israel’s technological superiority over the Arabs will continue to widen, as it has been doing for the past several decades. Second, the most important weapon of the Arabs and Iran remains their revenues from oil. But oil demand is static, and may soon decrease: electric vehicles, and the increasing use of solar and wind power, are steadily reducing oil’s share of the energy market. This means less financial support for the Palestinians, affecting their ability to wage war. Third, demography is not, as everyone seems to assume, on the side of the Arabs. With an average of 3.1 children per woman, Israel has the highest fertility rate in the OECD by a considerable margin and much higher than the OECD average of 1.7. Over the past decade, the annual population growth among Muslims in Israel has fallen significantly, from around 3% to less than 2.2% by 2013, and continues inexorably to decrease, while the overall Jewish growth rate rose from around 1.4% to 1.7% in 2013 and continues, just as inexorably, to increase. If present trends continue, fears about a “Muslim population bomb” in Israel can be laid to rest.

Say it a dozen times a day: there is no “solution” – whether one-state, two-state, or n-state — to the Arab war on Israel. But Israel will be able to manage that conflict, while it goes from strength to strength, technologically, financially, demographically, through deterrence. “Peace Through Strength” — remember? That is good enough. That’s more than good enough. Now let’s try to get that message to Joe Biden.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former French Prime Minister: “The fate of Eastern Christians and other minorities is the prelude to our own fate”

UK: Muslims slam Muslim boxer for celebrating Christmas

Iran’s President urges Muslim nations to deepen financial and trade cooperation to fight US “bullying”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. It’s time to look to a new philosopher, like Ayn Rand.


Dear avocado-toast-eating brethren,

We need to drop Karl Marx like we dropped cable TV.

We’re a generation that’s sick of wars (and threats of wars), mass shootings, and media sensationalism. As the ambassadors of the sharing economy and investors in cryptocurrency, we hold innovation and entrepreneurship in high esteem.

Karl Marx is not who we think he is. His philosophy doesn’t align with our values at all. We need to look to somebody more in touch with what’s important to us — someone like Ayn Rand.

Here are 3 reasons we should kick ol’ Karl to the curb and pick up Ayn Rand instead.

We hate the constant stream of wars the US gets involved in. Whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan, or the threat of the Islamic State or North Korea, we’re just tired of it all. Why can’t everyone get along? Why do we have to topple regime after regime and flex our muscles on Twitter? Don’t even get us started on the mass shootings. It’s 2017, for crying out loud! This violence needs to stop.

If only Karl Marx felt the same way. But unfortunately, he says that the only way to bring about the ideal political state is through violent revolution:

“In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

Oh, brother… Please: No. More. Wars.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is not a proponent of violence. She says violence should only be a means of self-defense. If someone invades your country, you can retaliate. If someone punches you in the face, you can retaliate. If someone tries to steal your stuff, you can retaliate. But there’s no reason you should employ violence other than if you or your stuff are attacked.

“A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx appeals to your emotional indignation.

I groan every time a Boomer rants about “entitled Millennials these days.” We are not entitled. We are not lazy. And when they try to guilt us into going to church more or playing video games less or buying a house or getting married “while we’re still young?” Puh-lease. Emotional appeals are the worst.

And don’t even get us started on media sensationalism. We’ve had enough of the red, shouting faces, the blatant lying and fear-mongering, the “Wars on Christmas.” The media is constantly trying to pit us against each other.

It turns out that Karl Marx uses the same “Us vs. Them” hysteria as CNN and Fox News. He appeals to pathos and emotional outrage to – like we discussed above – try to get us to start a war.

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

We’re not having any of that though, are we? We’re done being manipulated by outrage and hysteria. It’s time to change the channel to something a little calmer, more grounded, and personally empowering.

Ayn Rand, fortunately, has the peaceful empowerment we’re so desperately missing. While Karl Marx wants you to blame others (the bourgeoisie) for your plights, Ayn Rand wants you to introspect and perhaps reassess your values. Rather than encouraging you to camouflage yourself into a “union of workers,” she wants to empower you as an individual to create a meaningful life for yourself. Mass hysteria, be gone!

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx wants mankind to rest on its laurels.

Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation.

At least, according to Karl Marx.

If Marx had his way, all incentives to improve and create cooler things would be stripped out of our lives along with our private property. Following the logical progression of his communal philosophy, when we’re all slaving away for “the greater good,” and the highest achieving members of society are having the fruits of their labors redistributed to the lowest achievers (insert flashback to the freeloaders of group projects at school), that’s what will happen. Innovation would cease to occur under Marxism.

“The claim that men should be retained in jobs that have become unnecessary, doing work that is wasteful or superfluous, to spare them the difficulties of retraining for new jobs—thus contributing, as in the case of railroads, to the virtual destruction of an entire industry—this is the doctrine of the divine right of stagnation.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

But with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, our stuff will always remain ours. We don’t have to share our Nintendo Switch with our little sister (who drops her phone 10 times a day) unless we want to. We can rest easy knowing that if we take a big risk (and invest in cryptocurrencies while our parents mutter “Ponzi scheme” under their breath), we have the opportunity for a big reward. And best of all, with Ayn Rand’s philosophy reaffirming our desire to be great and create great things, maybe someday we will have JARVIS, jetpacks, and flying hammocks.

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. If it were up to him, we’d be starting more violent wars, we’d be widening the gap of distrust between one another, and we’d strip ourselves of all incentives to make the world cooler than it already is. So it’s time we adopt a new philosopher. Let’s look up to people like Ayn Rand.

COLUMN BY

Leisa Miller

Leisa Miller was a marketing coordinator at FEE. Driven by a desire for adventure, she moved to Warsaw, Poland in 2015 to work for a serial entrepreneur she met on the internet. 15 months and several hundred pierogi later, she came back to the States to hone her marketing skills at a tech startup in Charleston, South Carolina, before eventually making her way to Atlanta and joining the FEE team. In her free time, Leisa enjoys listening to 20th century classical music, learning languages, preparing Gongfu style tea, and swing dancing. You can follow her writing and personal projects on her website.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump: FBI must reveal what it knows about Saudi government getting its citizens out of US to avoid prosecution

Much needed and long overdue. May this be the beginning of successful efforts to make public all the Saudi involvement in jihad terror activity and interference with counterterror efforts.

“With stroke of Trump’s pen, the FBI has 30 days to declassify Saudi fugitive intel,” by Shane Dixon Kavanaugh, The Oregonian/OregonLive, December 20, 2019

President Donald Trump on Friday signed into law a bill that forces U.S. intelligence officials to disclose what they know about the Saudi government’s suspected role in whisking its citizens out of the United States to escape criminal prosecution.

The legislation, introduced by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, was part of a $1.4 trillion spending deal passed by Congress this week to avert a government shutdown.

It requires the director of the FBI — in coordination with the nation’s intelligence director — to declassify all information in its possession related to how Saudi Arabia may have helped accused lawbreakers leave the U.S.

The agency has 30 days to do so, according to newly enacted measure.

President Donald Trump on Friday, Dec. 20, signed the Saudi Fugitives Declassification Act, which was part of a $1.4 trillion spending deal reached by Congress.

“It is long past time to stop treating Saudi Arabia as if it were above the law,” Wyden, a Democrat, said in a statement. “My bill will finally force the federal government to cough up any information it may have about how the Saudi government may have assisted its citizens from fleeing beyond the reach of the U.S. justice system.”

The action in Washington comes nearly a year after an investigation by The Oregonian/OregonLive found multiple cases where Saudi students studying throughout the U.S. vanished while facing sex crime and other felony charges….

RELATED ARTICLES:

WSJ condemns “new war” on Christians in Africa which is “massive in scale, horrific in brutality”

The Company Elle Keeps: Linda Sarsour Is “A Woman To Watch”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Pelosi’s Impeachment Gamble Is Unconstitutional

One of the Constitution’s clearest provisions is also one of its least-used: the process for removing the president for serious misconduct. Some politicians and lawyers, however, are trying to complicate this straightforward constitutional process, inventing things that simply aren’t there.

The Constitution’s impeachment process has two steps: Article 1, Section 2 gives the House of Representatives the “sole power of impeachment” and Section 3 gives the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.”

The House did its part on Dec. 18, adopting two articles of impeachment. All that’s left is for the House to appoint a few members to act as the prosecutors and, as the Senate’s trial rules put it, notify the Senate that these impeachment “managers” are “directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate.”

If this sounds a little familiar, it’s not really different from the indictment and trial you might have watched on any episode of “Law & Order.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., however, appears to be making up a process of her own. She says she won’t appoint impeachment managers or send the articles to the Senate until the Senate agrees to conduct its trial the way she dictates.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


In other words, Pelosi is holding the impeachment for ransom, keeping the count[r]y in impeachment limbo.

The House has impeached, but the Senate cannot conduct a trial unless it agrees to Pelosi’s demands or is able to change its impeachment trial rules (which requires a two-thirds vote) so it can at least start a trial on its own.

In response, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, who argued strongly for impeachment as one of House Democrats’ hearing witnesses, wrote an article objecting to Pelosi’s gambit. President Donald Trump, Feldman insists, is not actually impeached until the House sends formal notice to the  Senate.

Feldman is wrong. He claims that, in the past, “‘impeachment’ occurred—and occurs—when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial.” But asserting this is all he does. He offers nothing to suggest that America’s Founders designed impeachment this way. His claim actually contradicts the language of the Constitution. While the House has the “sole” power of impeachment, Feldman says that impeachment cannot occur without the Senate.

Feldman tries to blur the lines by saying that “impeachment is a process,” but that’s not really true either. Just like there is a process that results in an indictment, there is a process for producing an impeachment, a process that occurs entirely within the House of Representatives.

But an impeachment itself, like an indictment, is a thing. The Constitution, after all, gives the Senate the power to “try all impeachments.” The Senate’s impeachment trial rules refer to “managers of an impeachment” and their first trial responsibility as “exhibit[ing] articles of impeachment.” In other words, the articles of impeachment adopted by the House are the impeachment.

The House itself agrees. Its website includes a list of “individuals impeached by the House of Representatives.” The first name on the list is Sen. William Blount of Tennessee. The Senate literally refused to recognize the impeachment as valid, choosing instead to expel him. The House still says he was impeached.

The list also includes U.S. District Judge Mark Delahay, who is listed as being impeached even though the House appointed no impeachment managers and the Senate conducted no trial at all.

Feldman’s claim is like saying that, though a grand jury has voted to indict, a criminal defendant is not really indicted until that action is presented to the trial jury.

To his credit, Feldman is correct that an indefinite delay in appointing managers and sending notice that they are ready to participate in the impeachment trial “would pose a serious problem.”

The House impeachment process, and the impeachment itself, were purely partisan. Now that the impeachment is finished, however, trying to manipulate how the Senate conducts its trial would only taint this whole drama even more and further distort the Constitution’s impeachment framework.

Since Feldman is such a strong Trump critic, he likely came up with this novel theory to push the process ahead toward, he hopes, Senate conviction and Trump’s removal from office. His ends, however, do not justify his means.

The House has done its part by impeaching Trump. The House must appoint managers and notify the Senate not because doing so is necessary to complete the impeachment, but because it’s the House’s clear obligation under the Constitution.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Liberals Rewrite the History of the Clinton Impeachment

The Voter Purge Myth

Here’s How Bad San Francisco’s Poop Problem Got in 2019

Virginia’s Would-Be Gun Grabbers Likely to Face Blowback


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

Will you take a moment to learn how you can do your part today?

LEARN MORE NOW >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Mother of Islamic Terrorist Wants her Son’s Life Insurance—Whaaaa!

That would be the mother of the San Bernardino Christmas party slaughterer.

She says she is entitled to the payola since she didn’t know what her son had planned (or so she says).  Tell that to the 14 families who lost their loved ones forever!

From Alpha News (Hat tip: Dragon’s Lair):

(The story was at the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago, but I missed it.)

Mother of San Bernardino terrorist trying to get money from Minnesota Life Insurance

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook, is trying to cash in on her son’s $280,000 life insurance policy. Here’s the Daily Mail:

“Rafia is battling the Justice Department over Farook’s $280,000 life insurance policy of which she was the primary beneficiary. Insurers Minnesota Life Insurance paid out shortly after the attack but the funds were held by court after the Justice Department attempted to have the cash seized as proceeds of crime.”

It is unclear why Minnesota Life Insurance paid out money because of the death.*** However, it is possible that the money was paid out to reduce legal exposure for Minnesota Life Insurance, especially since the Justice Department would surely seize the money once it was paid. Minnesota Life Insurance is a subsidiary of Securian Financial, which is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. Four years ago Rafia Farook’s son Syed, and her son’s wife Tashfeen Malik, shot up a Christmas party at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health, where Syed was an employee. As a result of the attack, 14 were killed and another 22 injured. Both Malik and Syed Farook were killed by police while they fled the scene.

The Daily Mail continues: “Rafia is continuing to fight attempts by the federal government to retain the payout. She says that because she did not know her son was going to commit an act of terror, there is no reason for the money not to be paid.”

But Rafia Farook has other problems. Her other son Syed Raheel and his Russian wife are in trouble for immigration fraud.

That’s because Syed Raheel tried to get his wife’s sister into the country via a sham-marriage with Enrique Marquez Jr., who is currently serving 25 years in federal prison after admitting to purchasing guns that were used in the Farook-Malik terror attack.

*** Someone should see who runs the Minnesota Life Insurance Company!  Do you follow my meaning!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

A Trojan Horse in the Pontifical Biblical Commission

Fr. Gerald E. Murray on a Pontifical Biblical Commission book that suggests the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is antiquated.   


In his 1967 classic defense of the Catholic Faith against modern errors, Trojan Horse in the City of God, Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote: “With a religion the only question that can matter is whether or not it is true. The question of whether or not it fits into the mentality of an epoch cannot play any role in the acceptance or the rejection of a religion without betraying the very essence of religion.”  He continues: “Even the earnest atheist recognizes this. He will not say that today we can no longer believe in God; he will say that God is and always was a mere illusion.”

Von Hildebrand reminds us that truth is eternal. It is discoverable by man in the natural order, and is revealed by God in the supernatural order. To know the truth is man’s vocation. To preach the truth is the Church’s mission.

This truth admits of no change. The Church’s understanding and exposition of truth will, by God’s grace, be deepened and faithfully developed over time. But that truth can never be cast aside and replaced by new “truths” that contradict the truth as taught by the Church. Von Hildebrand writes: “It is of the very nature of Catholic Christian faith to adhere to an unchanging divine revelation, to acknowledge that there is something in the Church that is above the ups and downs of cultures and the rhythm of history.”

The push by some in the Church to update the Faith, meaning to change the teachings of the Faith, is a disastrous fruit of a relativistic mentality. It is said that truth is not eternal, but rather subject to change. What was true once is no longer so in a new historical era. And, of course, the current era, in which these claims are being made, is a better era because it happily prompts us to see how the “former” teaching was wrong and in need of revision.

Von Hildebrand writes: “Enamored of our present epoch, blind to all its characteristic dangers, intoxicated with everything modern, there are many Catholics who no longer ask whether something is true, or whether it is good and beautiful, or whether it has intrinsic value: they ask only whether it is up-to-date, suitable to ‘modern man’ and the technological age, whether it is challenging, dynamic, audacious, progressive.”

This prophetic critique comes readily to mind when we consider the latest outrage by misguided churchmen that plainly is aimed at giving sanction to homosexual activity. The Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a book entitled What Is Man? An Itinerary of Biblical Anthropology.

In this volume the topic of the Bible and homosexuality is treated, but in a corrosive way that is destructive of the truths taught by the Church concerning the inherent immorality of homosexual acts. The harm springs from the one-sided discussion of modern theories and opinions that reject the biblical teachings on homosexuality.

As reported at Life Site News, the book states that the:

anthropological approach of scripture, as understood and conveyed by the church in its normative aspects. . .is judged to be a reflection of an archaic, historically conditioned mentality. We know that various biblical affirmations, in the cosmological, biological and sociological spheres, have been gradually considered outdated with the progressive affirmation of the natural and human sciences; similarly – it is deduced by some – a new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive value of heterosexual unions, in favor of a similar acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being. What is more – it is sometimes argued – the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned, also because it is often unduly confused with other aberrant sexual behavior. It therefore seems necessary to examine the passages of Sacred Scripture in which the homosexual problem is the subject of homosexuality, in particular those in which it is denounced and criticized.

Notice the long list of criteria of judgment used against the Church’s traditional understanding of the Biblical teaching on homosexual activity: it is “archaic”, “historically conditioned”, “outdated”, lacking a “new and more adequate understanding of the human person.”

Officials of the Pontifical Biblical Commission have claimed that the text offers no opening for homosexual activity. But the modern justifications get considerable space; the traditional teachings only perfunctory mention. In effect, despite disclaimers, the text invites us to consider whether the truths taught by the Bible can change over time. Why?  Because ecclesiastics honor modern errors conferring on them a patina of legitimacy, labeling these errors as current “science”.

We need to ask why is there no citation of schools of thought, grounded in scientific knowledge and serious philosophical reflection, that contradict the affirmations here cited, and defend the Church’s traditional understanding of the Biblical teaching as the most “adequate understanding of the human person.”

Since when is it the practice of the institution, founded by Pope Leo XIII to promote knowledge of the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures, to cite widespread and grave errors without clearly condemning them? Should erroneous notions that would attempt to use the Bible to justify “homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being” be offered to the faithful for a thoughtful consideration of their possible legitimacy? Should not such offensive impostures be refuted and anathematized?

To concede, as possibly legitimate, claims that God intends man to commit sodomy by citing those claims as being the respectable fruits of scientific progress is a repudiation of the Commission’s purpose. It is a cause for scandal and furthers the climate of confusion and doctrinal uncertainty in the Church.

In the face of this grave harm to the mission of the Church, we need to reaffirm our belief in the changeless truths of the Faith, rejecting all attempts to weaken and destroy what God has revealed and the Church has always taught.

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

INTEL REPORT: Whether Saudi Arabia?

In late 2019 a student pilot from Saudi Arabia committed a terrorist attack for Allah on the U.S. Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, while a couple of  his Saudi colleagues filmed it.  This has caused a recycling of all the accusations against Saudi Arabia over the last couple of decades:

  • Saudi Arabia has been accused of spreading extremism and jihad ideology across the globe.
  • Saudi Arabia is responsible for the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.
  • Saudi Arabia has been accused of being responsible for 9/11.
  • Saudi Arabia is equally responsible for the Pensacola Naval Air Station attack.

I will respond to these accusations at the end of this essay, but first we must point out some of the internal contradictions within Saudi Arabia:

  • Saudi Arabia’s current leader has endorsed modernism, and moderation in religion.
  • Saudi Arabia’s current leader has pushed for an end to mandatory prayer calls which close businesses.
  • Saudi Arabia has been hosting a months-long music and performing arts festival bringing in performers from all over the world, of all denominations, and visitors from all over the world in violation of long-standing traditions and the prophet Muhammad’s edicts.
  • Yet Saudi Arabia’s current leader, billing himself as a reformer and modernizer, attends international conferences overseas dressed in traditional Saudi garb in contrast to the more “modern” customs of his predecessors.

So, what gives with Saudi Arabia?  Are Muhammad bin Salman’s reforms for real?  Or is this just an artificial veneer hiding increasing extremism underneath.  And, is Saudi Arabia really responsible for the accusations leveled against it at the top of this essay?

SAUDI ARABIA:  THE ORIGINS

To understand the constant contradictions in Saudi Arabia, we have to have a brief grasp of its history.  The Aal Sa’ud clan originated in the rich Qatif oases in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia.  In the 15th century, the Shaykh of Qatif arranged to have his son married to the daughter of the Prince of Riyadh, a small town in central Arabia.  The Prince of Riyadh then gave his daughter the tiny town of ad-Dar’iyyah as her dowry.  Ad-Dariyyah is located in the fertile wadi Haneefa area about five miles north of modern Riyadh’s ring road.

So, the young Mr. Sa’ud and his new bride settled in there for their married life.  Their offspring inherited the place and continued to rule it generation after generation.  For the next several centuries the place remained nondescript except for the fair amount of wealth it produced from the dates and other agricultural products it grew, and sold to passing caravans and customers outside of the region.

In the middle of the 18th century, the then ruler of ad-Dar’iyyah and scion of the Aal Sa’ud, Muhammad bin Sa’ud, befriended a religious scholar by the name of Muhammad bin ‘abd al-Wahhab.  ‘Abd al-Wahhab had originally come from another tiny Wadi Haneefa town a little further to the north called called al-‘Uyaynah.  Before hooking up with the Aal Sa’uds, ‘Abd al-Wahhab, himself the son of an Islamic Qadhi, or jurisprudent, studied Islamic theology in Mecca, went to Iraq to study from Islamic scholars there, and dabbled in some Sufism.

After all of this, and much study of the Qur’an himself, he returned to the Wadi Haneefa convinced that they all had it wrong.  Muslims were in bad need of a reformation, and none more so than those in his home town, and neighboring towns whom he believed had fallen into paganism by venerating the tombs and graves of their ancestors, and other sins.  However, his attempts at returning the people to what he considered was the original Islam of Muhammad and the Qur’an, was rejected by the people of each town he preached in, including his home town–even by his own family.

He was rejected each time he tried preaching in a new town, until he ended up in

ad-Dar’iyyah.  Homeless, rial-less, and friendless, he found refuge in the home of Muhammad bin Sa’ud.  The two hit it off right away, and talked religion and politics for hours on end, and days on end.  They became so enamored of each other, and Muhammad bin Sa’ud so convinced that al-Wahhab’s interpretation of Islam was the absolute correct one, that they formed a pact that was to change the world forever.

THE FAUSTIAN PACT

According to their pact, the male descendants of Muhammad bin Sa’ud would forever be the head of the political entity.  They would be the temporal rulers.  And, the male descendants of Muhammad bin ‘abd al-Wahhab would for ever be the religious leaders of that polity.  They would be the spiritual rulers.

With that pact in place, they gradually began to gain some followers and eventually formed an army led by Muhammad bin Sa’ud with which they extended their rule over all of the Wadi Haneefa towns, including even Riyadh.  And their movement grew.  More and more people bought into the religious views of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab, and as Muhammad bin Sa’ud increased the size of his realm, he obtained his religious legitimacy from Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab.

By the end of the 18th century they had conquered and converted most of the Arabian peninsula, including the Hijaz region in the west where the holy sites of Mecca and Medina are located.  To this day, the descendents of ‘abd al-Wahhad comprise the ‘ulema’ (religious leaders) of Saudi Arabia, and the monarchy is headed by descendents of Muhammad bin Sa’ud.

The mid 20th century oil boom and Saudi Arabia’s sudden thrust into the modern world had put strains on this Faustian relationship between the Aal Saudi rulers, most of whom have become corrupt and worldly, and the Wahhabi clergy, yet the relationship endures.  The Saudi rulers, at least up until the coming of the current Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman bin Aal Sa’ud, have always felt that they derived their legitimacy from their relationship with the Wahhabi clergy.

WAHHABI INFLUENCE GROWS

Throughout the 20th century the Saudi rules, no matter how worldly, and how corrupt, were able to maintain this stamp of religious legitimacy from the Wahhabi clergy by using their oil wealth to serve Islam.  They served Islam by building mosques–not only throughout the Arabian peninsula, and not only throughout the entrir Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia, but also throughout Europe and American as well.  They then staffed these mosques with radical Wahhabi Imams and preacher and/or with Imams and preachers from the international Muslim Brotherhood whose ideology is nearly identical to that of the Wahhabis.

Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), is considered to be the intellectual godfather of  all Sunni terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS.  And, Qutb’s views on jihad were identical to those of the 18th century Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab.  This was only natural since both men based their views of jihad entirely on the Qur’an and the actions and statements of their 7th century prophet Muhammad.

Thus, it was also only natural for the newly wealthy Saudis to pick up the funding of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) from the NAZIs after WWII up until 9/11, when the Saudis found it necessary to wash their hands of the MB.

The Taliban of Afghanistan fame are alums of religious schools called “madrassas” built and staffed by the Saudis.  Up until recently as many as 80% of all mosques in the U.S. were built and staffed by the Saudis.  So, looking back in history we can see how that mid-18th century pact between Muhammad bin Sa’ud and Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab, starting from very humble beginnings in a tiny mud-hut village in central Arabia, grew to become an influence that spans the globe.

That 18th century pact has been responsible, either directly, or indirectly, either partially or in whole, for nearly every single act of terrorism in the world conducted by Sunni Muslims over the last half century.  Therefore, many people assume, and proclaim, in the West’s “War on Terror” that Saudi Arabia should be target number one.

Not so fast I say.

THE WILLFUL BLINDNESS BEGINS

Many, if not most of the upper echelons of the Saudi royal family have used their wealth to insulate themselves from Wahhabi teachings for the most part.  They live in elaborate palaces walled off from the outside world, and what ever mosque attendance they indulge in would be in a mosque within the palace grounds staffed by an Imam of their choosing who would preach an Islam compatible with the sensibilities of the palace’s patriarch.

Now, as many of these wealthy Saudis began sending their sons off to college in western countries, and then they too, built their own self-contained palaces to raise their off spring in, the dichotomy between the “Islam” of many of these upper-level royal family members and the real Islam taught by the Wahhabi preachers out in the regular society has increased significantly.

THE RUPTURES BEGIN

The first major schism between the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi clergy came in the 1920s when the founder and patriarch of the current edition of the Saudi dynasty was reconquering most of Arabia in the aftermath of WWI.  King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin Aal Sa’ud began to use motorized vehicles to transport troops, supplies, and himself to the various scenes of battle, and to use the new western-invented radio technology for military communications, the Wahhabi clergy protested vehemently believing that these modern inventions (since they came from outside of Islam) were instruments of the devil and should be banned from the kingdom.

The more radical of the clergy formed a group called the ikhwan (which in Arabic means “brothers” but should not be confused with the later group formed in Egypt called al-ikhwan al-muslimeen, or “Muslim Brothers”).  King ‘Abd al-‘Aziz had to fight a brutal civil war, exterminating most of the ikhwan before peace and unification could return to the kingdom.

While the clergy refrained from ever trying again to oppose the Sau’di rulers militarily, they retained their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.  Thus, the dichotomy between the palace and the clergy became entrenched, with few exceptions.  Even the royal “family” itself is divided on the issue of “Wahhabism” (or fundamentalism), and modernization.

When I was in Saudi Arabia in the late 90s there were 2,000 princes, all receiving stipends from the country’s oil profits.  Now, there are probably double or triple that number.  Only a tiny fraction of these numbers serve in the government.  Most are content to live out their lives as party animals off of the largess, drinking, fornicating, and breaking every rule in Islam.  However, there are always some who take their religion seriously.  And, therein lies the rub . . . or I should say, the terrorism.

A prime example was the takeover of the “holy” mosque housing the Ka’aba in Mecca by a “disgruntled” prince, back in 1979.  This was an individual who had come to believe that the ruling members of the royal family, as well as all of the other rulers of Islamic nations, had become corrupt and were no longer following the precepts of the religion.  So, he, and his followers, thought that by their taking over the Ka’aba in Mecca during the Hajj it would lead to massive uprisings across the Islamic world and a restoration of true Islam.

9/11 DID THE SA’UDIS DO IT?

One can hardly blame the government of Saudi Arabia for that act of terrorism (storming the “holy” mosque in Mecca) by a member of the royal “family.”  The same has to be said for the alleged Saudi involvement in 9/11.  I spent from the summer of 1997 to the summer of 2000 in Saudi Arabia and can personally vouch for the king of Saudi Arabia at that time, King Fahd, his Crown Prince ‘Abdallah, and the next guy in line, Minister of Defence Prince Sultan.

King Fahd spent his early years as a party animal, and in his later years was suffering the medical complications of that.  He was also strongly pro-western, and anti-jihadi.  In fact, during the 1980s war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, he had the government of Saudi Arabia purchase tickets for any of their young men who wanted to jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  These were one-way plane tickets.  The ruling click figured that sending jihadi wannabes off to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets was a good way to get rid of potential trouble causers at home.  And, of course, they didn’t want them to come back should they survive the war–hence the one-way airline tickets.

Minister of Defense Prince Sultan was firmly in America’s back pocket, and even the Crown Prince ‘Abdallah, was a reformer, and best anti-terror friend America could hope for–though all of our “experts” in Washington were oblivious to ‘Abdullah’s real views.

That being said, there have always been, and still are, wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia, both within and without the royal family and within and without certain levels of the government who have sympathized with al-Qaeda and donated to it.  So, for an official sitting in a Saudi consulate out in California to have provided aide to individuals who later turned out to be 9/11 conspirators does not mean that King Fahd and his heir apparents plotted 9/11, or even knew anything about it until it happened.

TO SUM UP

So, have the Saudis spread extremism and jihad ideology across the globe?  Yes.

Are the Saudis responsible for the emergence of the Taliban?  Yes.

Are the Saudis responsible for the emergence of al-Qaeda?  Partially. (I say partially, because as most of the world, including the Islamic world, was pointing fingers at the Saudis for 9/11, the Saudis were pointing their fingers at the Muslim Brotherhood.  And, there is a great deal of truth to the Saudi’s claim, as explained in the book listed below.)

Are the Saudis responsible for the emergence of ISIS?  Partially. (Certainly, the Wahhabi ideology and history played a huge role in ISIS ideology and practices, but ISIS was founded under Turkish auspices and was a tool of Turkey’s foreign policy, and its founder, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a Muslim Brotherhood alum.)

Are the Saudis responsible for 9/11?  Yes and no. (Here is where the answer has to get more nuanced.  As explained above, there is no way that the Saudi government itself was responsible.  However, there is also no doubt that the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi royal family had coddled for hundreds of years played a huge role in 9/11.  It is also quite possible that individuals within certain levels of the Saudi government, and even in the royal family itself (though not those of high position) may have played a role in facilitating the 9/11 perpetrators.)

Are the Saudis responsible for the Pensacola Naval Air Station incident?  Yes and no. (As in above, the belief system that caused the Saudi student pilot and his friends to conduct this terrorist action on U.S. soil, was the belief system that they grew up in, and that was taught in the mosques and religious schools of their country.  However, this act was done without the knowledge or approval of the Saudi government.)

SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE?

The problem stems from what I describe in the book listed below as “Disneyland Islam.”  Many Muslims, after the European colonization of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the overwhelming “modernization” of the entire globe from the last half of the 20th century into the 21st, have adopted a westernized “Islam,” almost a pseudo “Christianity” which they mistake for the Islam of Muhammad and the early Caliphate (even though the Islam of today’s moderates has not even the remotest resemblance to the 7th century Muhammad’s Islam).

Many of these Muslims, and this would include state leaders such as the upper crust of the Saudi royal family, have convinced themselves that Islam is a religion of peace and toleration.  Their state-controlled media outlets continually mouth those phrases.  And, as mentioned above, most of the higher, wealthy Saudis of today have grown up in sumptuous palaces totally isolated from the real Islam preached in the mosques outside their palatial compounds.  Thus, it is quite possible that the leading Saudi government officials are actually as ignorant of real Islam as are the vast majority of America’s academics.

This “Disneyland” mindset then causes them to ignore the real Islam of the mosques and the Qur’an, or to convince themselves (even against the evidence) that the real Islam of the mosques and the Qur’an doesn’t exist.

I have maintained over and over in my writings, and my speeches, that this “Disneyland Islam,” and the profound insistence of moderate Muslims across the globe (including the Saudi Royal family) to believe that this “Christianized” Islam is the real Islam not only prevents them from attacking the real problem (which is Islam itself), but also causes naïve westerners to believe that this “Christianized” Islam is the real Islam which then in turn creates an environment whereby the real Islam of prophet Muhammad, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS, can ride into western societies on the coattails of the “Christianized” Islam of the moderates.

WHAT NOW?

A prime example of this mindset of a “Christianized” Islam parading as the “real” Islam is the current Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman (MBS).  Early in his rise to power when he began to hint his intentions on social reforms such as allowing women to drive, a western reporter asked him:  “What about the Wahhabis?”  (The implication being that the clergy would strongly object to any sort of reform.)

MBS’s answer was:  “What Wahhabis?”

This answer was an indication that MBS was fully imbued with the fantasy of “no real Islam here.”  By pretending that the Wahhabis don’t exist, he had to be pretending that their ideology preached every single Friday for centuries in every single Saudi mosque doesn’t exist.

As further proof that MBS lives in this fantasy world divorced from the reality of real Islam is when he claimed that the original Saudis were “moderate” and “tolerant” and that it was the Iranian revolution of 1979 that led to the radicalization of the Saudi and other Sunni youth.  While the Iranian revolution and the fundamentalist propaganda coming out of that regime did give encouragement to fundamentalists across the Arab Sunni  nations that they could do the same thing in their own countries (i.e. foment a revolution and install a fundamentalist Islamist regime), that Sunni fundamentalism was already well embedded in the Sunni societies due to a host of reasons as explained in the book listed below.

Also, to set the record straight, the “original” Saudis, that is the Saudis of the 18th and early 19th centuries who were operating as true believers under the pact made with the Wahhabis, behaved exactly as ISIS behaved in this 2nd decade of the 21st century.

At first I wondered whether MBS was playing the “moderate” card (by allowing women the right to drive, opening the country up to some forms of tourism, etc.), for the purpose of fooling westerners into thinking that reform was coming on one hand, while the other hand furthered the cause of the greater Islamic jihad.

If he was such a modernizer and reformer, then why does he continue to always wear the traditional Saudi garb when he travels overseas to meet with foreign dignitaries and/or attend international conferences?  Previous Saudi crown princes, and even foreign ministers, always dressed up in western style suits for these sorts of functions in foreign countries, though they always wore traditional Saudi garb when in Saudi Arabia.

After having followed Saudi Arabian affairs for over two decades, and now observing MBS since his rise to power, I have come to the conclusion that his attempts to modernize Saudi Arabia and to de-fang the Islam its clergy preaches . . . is sincere.

The final piece of the puzzle that convinced me of MBS’s sincerity in reforming and modernizing his country was the several-months long mausom Riyadh (Riyadh season). Mausom Riyadh has been a never ending party of musical acts, dramas, and even such things as Hulk Hogan and the WWE, entertainers coming from all over the world, as well as Saudi Arabia and the Arab world, and it has even had unveiled female performers–even those from Saudi Arabia itself.  These acts are performed at venues in a giant entertainment city that MBS had built on the outskirts of Riyadh for the purpose of opening up the Saudi citizenry to the outside modern world, and to introduce the outside world to the “new” Saudi Arabia.

Some of the critics of Saudi Arabia have called this a “bread and circuses” act to distract the kingdom’s younger generation from the regime’s totalitarianism.  But, I say there’s no going back now.  Once the citizens of Saudi Arabia have seen the sexy female version of WWE . . . that’s something that you just can’t “unsee.”  Saudi Arabia will never be the same.

At the same time, MBS has been arresting and tossing in prison many of the more radical preachers in the country.  There are rumors (based on news reports from al-Jazeera) that he has even executed some of these preachers.

As for MBS’s traditional garb at foreign gatherings, I think he’s doing that to deliver a message to the traditional Arab mentality in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, and to the world outside, that traditionalism and modernism can go hand-in-hand.  This, perhaps to diffuse potential traditionalists resistance to his modernization efforts on the one hand, while with the other hand he uses brute force to impose his version of a “Christianized,” “Disneyland” Islam on the populace.

So, the question now is, will it work?  Without taking serious second looks at the Islamic “sacred” scriptures, including the Qur’an, and debunking and/or jettisoning great parts of  these works out of the Middle Ages, no attempt at “Christianizing” Islam will work indefinitely.  The Wahhabi clergy will continue to pump out fundamentalists and jihadi terrorists, even while the regime continues to pretend that it is a “tolerant” modernizing country and that its Islam is a “tolerant” religion of peace.

The American position should be one to continue good relations with the regime because they are an important ally vis-à-vis Iran, and their current jihad against the MB and terror-supporting states like Turkey and Qatar, as well as Iran, is an important contribution to the future of human society on this planet.  At the same time efforts should be made to nudge them along the path re-evaluating the ideology of Islam and their relationship to it via the techniques discussed in the book listed below.

Confessions of an (ex) NSA spy:  Why America and its Allies  are Losing the War on Terror

© All rights reserved.

Peloton ‘Scandal’ Shows How Mentally Unfit We’ve Become

We are fast approaching the end of 2019, and as we close the book on a turbulent decade, nothing summarizes the state of our culture and our unhealthy relationship with contrived outrage quite like the Peloton ad controversy and the wave of hysteria that has followed in its wake.

Imagine if we could channel that outrage instead into addressing our nation’s obesity crisis.

If you are not familiar with the ad or simply cannot believe that America—land of the free, home of the brave—is full of adults who are distressed over an exercise bike, a quick Google search will fill you in on the situation.

You will also find columnists in highly read publications and joyless hordes on social media claiming to be offended by Peloton’s latest ad, in which a husband dares to gift his already-slim wife a Peloton stationary bike for Christmas.

VIDEO: The Gift That Gives Back.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


The commercial has been described as sexist, tone deaf, body-shaming, and reflective of outdated social norms—with every new critique against it more fantastical than the last. The backlash against the ad has been so severe that the exercise equipment company lost nearly a billion dollars in market value since the spot’s release.

This widespread hysteria is beyond absurd on many levels.

First, it serves as yet another shining example of one of our society’s worst qualities: the endless search for conflict in any and everything. It highlights our uncanny ability to turn a positive into a negative, a neutral into a catastrophe. What surely started as a creative and unassuming idea in Peloton’s marketing department has been stripped of its intention and extrapolated to fit the narratives and agendas of radical extremists.

Second, the people claiming the ad is sexist are actually doing their cause more harm than good. Making much ado about nothing and targeting a company in bad faith is not an effective way to move the needle on any agenda. It inserts offense into an otherwise harmless scenario and detracts from legitimate claims of sexism that surface.

Fake news falsely alleging prejudice only serves to create an air of skepticism around these types of accusations; it is akin to crying wolf.

Instead of manufacturing dissent about a milquetoast fitness ad, imagine if those screaming the loudest dedicated a fraction of the same energy to combating the country’s alarming and rising obesity epidemic. It is now estimated that 71% of Americans are overweight, with nearly 40% qualifying as obese.

Americans should be cheering for the growth of Peloton and its clear benefits rather than waging a search-and-destroy campaign against the company for a trivial commercial.

One positive aspect of this whole ordeal was Peloton’s early response to those claiming to be offended. Peloton did not grovel and capitulate and apologize to the mob like so many others before them. Instead, they issued a blanket sorry-you-feel-that-way statement.

In this age of overwrought indignation and attention-seeking fits of rage, too many brands and businesses immediately apologize and run for cover. Ironically, this rarely earns them forgiveness for whatever alleged offenses they have committed and only invites more finger-wagging and exaggerated claims of wrongdoing.

Ultimately, this Peloton saga is a tempest in a teapot, but it does signal where we are and the danger that lies ahead if we don’t make some healthier choices. Through constant needling and media-spurred mania, we have arrived at a place where we Americans are as flabby mentally as we are physically.

The age-old expression “a sound mind in a sound body” underscores the intrinsic connection between physical exercise and mental dexterity. Given the abysmal physical shape of our citizens, it is not surprising that we would have an equally abysmal mental state as well.

It is time to shake the dust off our gym shoes and get back to a healthy routine—if not for our physical benefit, then at least for our collective sanity.

If anything, Americans should get off Peloton’s case and instead get onto one of the company’s bikes.

COMMENTARY BY

Armstrong Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and host of “The Armstrong Williams Show,” a nationally syndicated TV program. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

Will you take a moment to learn how you can do your part today?

LEARN MORE NOW >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

These Historians Challenge New York Times’ Dubious 1619 Project

What makes America exceptional?

Undoubtedly, most Americans would say our long-term commitment to self-government and the rule of law, and our extraordinary embrace of liberty.

Not so, according to The New York Times’ 1619 Project—named for the year in which African slaves were first brought to the English colonies in North America. The various New York Times authors apparently believe America’s unique quality is slavery.

The 1619 Project defines itself as an effort to “reframe” America’s history to define the nation’s “true founding” as one rooted—at its heart—in slavery rather than liberty.


Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. Defend your principles before it is too late. Find out more now >>


It’s 1619 pitted against 1776.

America, according to this narrative, has been and always will be exceptionally and perhaps irredeemably racist.

As I wrote in my book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past,” this is a deeply misleading description of our history, but one that is becoming all too common in both popular culture and in American classrooms.

Yes, there was slavery and racism in our country’s history, and certainly the American people and our leaders have not always done the right thing. That’s something we should acknowledge and learn from, today and in the future.

And yet, America is still worth celebrating and taking pride in.

You don’t just have to take my word for it.

Historians from across the political spectrum have come out against the 1619 Project as bad history wrapped in a destructive ideology.

Allen Guelzo, a renowned historian and professor at Gettysburg College, called the 1619 Project a “conspiracy theory” based in part on the drive to “tarnish capitalism.”

In a recent appearance at The Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club meeting, Guelzo explained that the 1619 Project aims at rewriting the narrative of American slavery:

Not as an unwilling inheritance of British colonialism, but as the love object of American capitalism from its very origins. Not as a blemish, which the Founders grudgingly tolerated with the understanding that it must soon evaporate, but as the prize the Constitution went out of its way to secure and protect. Not as a regrettable chapter in the distant American past, but the living, breathing pattern upon which all American social life is based, world without end.

Guelzo is hardly alone in his criticism.

Two of the most prominent critics are Gordon Wood, a famed historian of the American Revolution, and James McPherson, a highly respected Civil War historian.

Both criticized the 1619 Project in recent interviews.

Wood said he was surprised that a major project from The New York Times could be “so wrong in so many ways.”

The interviewer noted that the authors of the 1619 Project seemed to be taking up the ethos of pro-slavery radicals who also denounced the Declaration of Independence as little more than fraudulent hypocrisy.

Wood responded:

That points up the problem with the whole project. It’s too bad that it’s going out into the schools with the authority of The New York Times behind it. That’s sad because it will color the views of all these youngsters who will receive the message of the 1619 Project.

McPherson was equally skeptical, saying that the project “left most of the history out” and he was “unhappy with the idea that people who did not have a good knowledge of the subject would be influenced by this and would then have a biased or narrow view.”

What’s particularly interesting about this criticism of the 1619 Project is both the prominence of the critics as well as the origin of the interviews.

Both were posted on the World Socialist Web Site, which is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskyite socialist organization.

They haven’t just published these interviews, but also offered their own blistering critiques.

A recent article on the World Socialist Web Site called the 1619 Project “a racialist falsification of American and world history,” adding:

Despite the pretense of establishing the United States’ ‘true’ foundation, the 1619 Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal ‘identities’—i.e., gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race.

The Trotskyites appear to be unhappy that traditional Marxist ideas about class conflict have been replaced by racial and identity conflict; they are even more unhappy that this ethos has been melded into Democratic Party politics with what they see as little more than the nihilistic ends of categorizing Americans into immutable and hostile racial groups.

Despite the sudden attack from a wing of socialism, it would be a mistake to think that the 1619 Project and identity politics as a whole are not being used for traditionally socialist ends.

As I observed at a major socialist conference in July, mainstream socialists have merged identity politics with traditional socialist ideas in spite of this leading to philosophical contradictions.

Undoubtedly, one can see the socialist influence in the 1619 Project itself, which published one essay specifically linking capitalism and slavery as inherently intertwined.

And that’s certainly not all.

One of the more bizarre and wildly inaccurate claims from the project’s headline essay is that the American Revolution was fueled by the colonists’ desire to preserve slavery.

This peculiar theory has been linked to historian Gerald Thorne, a pro-Soviet apologist who once wrote a letter to the editor in The Chronicle of Higher Education that was headlined “Stalin Was No Worse Than the Founding Fathers.”

So, should Americans now embrace the Trotskyites to counter the Stalinists?

Elliot Kaufman, writing in The Wall Street Journal, explained that the Trotskyites have some extreme ideas as well—their positive spin on the Russian Revolution, for instance—but these ideas are less likely to be “turned into lesson plans for schoolteachers.”

And the message that The New York Times is spreading across the country is that America is not only unexceptional, but exceptionally bad. This is deeply misguided.

America is exceptional not because it was simply perfect at creation; it’s exceptional because generations of imperfect human beings created and cultivated a nation that has brought genuine human flourishing to millions.

Despite those who say otherwise, the United States continues to be a shining city upon a hill, especially for those who see the world at its darkest and long for the pursuit of happiness that we take for granted.

Today, as new and potent threats to liberty emerge in our world, it is essential that Americans come to understand and deepen their appreciation of our history, reject the noxious identity politics that threatens to shatter the concept of e pluribus unum, and embrace an inclusive Americanism that can unite this country in the face of its challenges.

The war on American history—escalated by the deeply flawed 1619 Project—is a lost cause and provides little but dead ends.

COMMENTARY BY


A Note for our Readers:

As progressives on the far Left continue to push for greater government control under the disguise of “free stuff,” our lawmakers need conservative research and solutions to guide them towards promoting your principles instead.

That is why we’re asking conservatives to unite around the key values of limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong national defense by making a special year-end gift to The Heritage Foundation before December 31.

Next year, absolutely everything is on the line. The Left won’t pull any punches. They stand ready to trade the principles of the American founding for the toxic European socialism that has failed so many times before.

That is why finishing this year strong is so critical. The Heritage Foundation is challenging you to rise up and claim more victories for conservative values as we battle socialism in 2020.

Will you take a moment to learn how you can do your part today?

LEARN MORE NOW >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Moore: White Guys Who Voted For Trump ‘Are Not Good People’

In a video interview with Rolling Stone magazine published on Tuesday, documentary propagandist and anti-white racist Michael Moore stated that white men who voted for President Trump were “not good people.”

“I refuse to participate in post-racial America,” Moore said. “I refuse to say because we elected Obama that suddenly that means everything is OK, white people have changed. White people have not changed.

“Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump,” he continued. “That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street towards you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.”

Moore is one of the left’s most hateful demagogues. Apart from the fact that Trump supporters are the ones being assaulted all over the nation, not the ones doing the assaulting, this is pure, ugly racism — the kind only leftists can get away with saying in the media.


Michael Moore

76 Known Connections

In his 2001 book, Stupid White Men, Moore proposed that Congress should give Israel 30 days to end its use of military measures against the Palestinians—measures, he neglected to point out, that were in response to the massive wave of terrorism associated with the Second Intifada. By Moore’s reckoning, if Israel failed to put an end to the bloodshed in the region within the 30-day period, the U.S. should promptly terminate all funding for the Jewish state. He also explained that state-sponsored terrorism (a reference to Israel) was worse than the brand of terrorism practiced by the Palestinians. Further, Moore declared that the Palestinians should not only be given their statehood, but should receive twice as much economic assistance from the United States as Israel received.

In 2003 Moore was honored by the Muslim American Public Affairs Council, for “his courageous commitment to social justice and uncovering the truth.” MPAC believes that “Israel was established by terrorism” that “involved the unjust and illegal usurpation of Muslim and Christian land and rights.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

Lawless Mexico Kills 1,000 Times More Americans Than Terrorists Do

A series of major events in recent months have revealed just how lawless and uncivilized the northern provinces of Mexico have become. Since these form the actual border with the southern United States, this causes a direct threat and makes the case for the wall even more urgent.

The highest profile incident was the military-like strike by one of the Mexican cartels against American citizens traveling in a convoy just south of the American border, slaughtering 21 men, women and children.

But that was a single incident that got our attention because they were Americans. The reality is that this is life in the provinces of Northern Mexico, where the federal government only makes forays and local government and police are hopelessly corrupted by cartel money and threats. Honest politicians and police have very short lifespans, hence there are few.

An in-depth article by the Louisville Courier Journal, journalism the way it used to be done, focuses on the biggest cartel leader, but paints a portrait of an entire region that acts as a country within a country, with its own brutal rules that is devastating millions of Americans. It is an enemy of the United States through its operations, but operating with a sort of umbrella protection from attacks by the American military by technically being Mexico.

The Investigation estimates than since 2013, about 300,000 Americans have died directly from illegal drug addictions. And the vast majority of those drugs came from Mexico. About 300 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks since 2013. That’s a 1,000 to 1 ratio.

The article tags Rubén “Nemesio” Oseguera Cervantes, also known as El Mencho, the leader of Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, better known as CJNG. He has a $10 million reward on his head and is on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Most Wanted list. But it would require a full-scale military operation to get him, and considering the cartel infiltration in the Mexican Army, that is remote. Perhaps a U.S. Seal Team could do it, but that would require approval of the Mexican government, also remote.

“A nine-month Courier Journal investigation reveals how CJNG’s reach has spread across the U.S. in the past five years, overwhelming cities and small towns with massive amounts of drugs.

“The investigation documented CJNG operations in at least 35 states and Puerto Rico, a sticky web that has snared struggling business owners, thousands of drug users and Mexican immigrants terrified to challenge cartel orders.”

So, El Mencho’s incredibly powerful and connected international drug syndicate is flooding the United States with thousands of kilos of methamphetamines, fentanyl, heroin and cocaine every year. This Mexican cartel alone smuggles at least 120 tons of high-purity meth and cocaine into the U.S. each year. This bottomless deluge of narcotics has created addictions at historic levels, causing heartache for millions and spiking the suicide rate.

The Courier Journal investigation reported, “The unending stream of narcotics has contributed to this country’s unprecedented addiction crisis, devastating families and killing more than 300,000 people since 2013.”

That is an enemy of the United States with damaging successes that terrorists around the globe can only dream of.

Uttam Dhillon, DEA’s acting administrator, calls CJNG’s rapid growth from the Atlantic to the Pacific in under 10 years “clear, present and growing danger.” Seems to understate it.

According to the Courier Journal investigation:

“The billion-dollar criminal organization has a large and disciplined army, control of extensive drug routes throughout the U.S., sophisticated money-laundering techniques and an elaborate digital terror campaign, federal drug agents say. Its extreme savagery in Mexico includes beheadings, public hangings, acid baths, even cannibalism. The cartel circulates these images of torture and execution on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to spread fear and intimidation.”

This is precisely how terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda operate.

The cartels have enormous resources and manpower, and control most of the border areas in some fashion. They can build intricate tunnels, use technology and attempt to smuggle drugs and people into the country in numerous ways.

Some Americans think this means that a wall is useless. What it actually means is that a wall is merely an essential first step in an ongoing war to secure our border from the predatory Mexican cartels that control the lands south of it and are, literally, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

The wall is a start. So are deportations.

On a small upbeat note, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency deported more than a quarter of a million illegal aliens from the United States in Fiscal Year 2019 (September 2018 through October 2019) including roughly 5,500 gang members. That’s a 20 percent increase over 2017.

But that, too, is only one of the multiple steps necessary if we are to regain control of our southern border and start reducing the staggering number of drug addiction deaths.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Christmas in the Age of Jihad

Merry Christmas to all Jihad Watchers who are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ tonight and tomorrow.

The question before us this Christmas, as it is every Christmas these days, is whether or not Christians should be allowed to be Christian and celebrate Christmas freely, without being brutalized or discriminated against, if they live in Iran, or Iraq, or Egypt, or Pakistan, or Nigeria, or Indonesia, or other Muslim countries, and whether free people of all creeds and perspectives should defend their right to do so.

In many countries today, Christians are being kidnapped, imprisoned, wrongly arrested, beaten, and murdered — not because of anything they have done, but because they have dared to have beliefs that are considered blasphemous in authoritative Islam. We see this at Jihad Watch on a regular basis. We see jihadists attacking Christians with unremitting fury. We also see the world continuing to yawn and remain indifferent as all this goes on, and weak and cowardly Christian leaders saying that we must not talk about it for fear of “provoking” Muslims and harming a chimerical and fruitless (at best) Muslim/Christian “dialogue.” Those who dare anyway to speak out about the persecution of Christians that the persecutors justify by invoking the Qur’an and Sunnah are vilified, demonized, and silenced as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” Even some Christians do this to their fellow Christians who speak unwelcome truths on these matters.

So here is something to remember this Christmas: if you are a free human being, whether or not you are Christian, those Christians who are being persecuted in Iran, and Iraq, and Indonesia, and Nigeria, and Egypt, and Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Islamic world, are standing in your place. The jihadis would just as soon attack you as well, and will eventually if they get the chance. Remember that the Islamic jihad program has you on its list. You may not be a Christian. You may not be a Jew. You may not be a Hindu. You may not be a Buddhist. You may not wish to pay attention to the jihad at all. But the jihad is universal, and relentless. And you are on its list.

So this Christmas, may all of us whose conversion, subjugation, or death is envisioned by the adherents of Sharia stand together. Let us stand together as Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, secularists, what have you, and stand up against those who would kill us or subject us to institutionalized discrimination and harassment (at best) because they find our beliefs offensive.

For be assured: if we do not stand together, they will prevail. And if they prevail, then all the richest manifestations of the unfettered human spirit, from the Hagia Sophia to the temple of mausoleums of Timbuktu, from the works of Socrates and Aristotle to those of Confucius and Moses Maimonides and Dante Alighieri and Winston Churchill and Oriana Fallaci, will be trampled into the mud, destroyed, exploded, ruined, effaced. We will all be the poorer. Our children will be the poorer.

It is time to fight for our lives.

Merry Christmas!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: Islamic group slams Leftist anti- “Islamophobia” crusader for alleged support of “racist Zionist policies”

Indonesia: Christians celebrate Christmas in tent after authorities forbid rebuilding of churches Muslims destroyed

Iran’s Supreme Leader: “The Islamic Republic is in danger. Do whatever it takes to end it.”

RELATED VIDEO: Washington state: Muslim cleric who led prayer at state house says Allah transformed Jews into “despicable apes”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.