Tag Archive for: evil

Self, Sex, and State: The Three-Poisoned Gods of Our World

/in , , , /by

Anthony Esolen: “Self, Sex, and State” are no trinity, to be sure, but a triad. Find one, and the other two will not be far away.

  1. I have written before of the three-poisoned god of our world: Self, Sex, and State. These poisons dance about in a nice perichoresis of mutual corroboration. It is hard to tell which of the three is father or son or spirit proceeding from them both. If you look to sheer gigantic size, you might think that the first begetter was the State. If you look at the rotten hole of evil where a good heart should be, you might think it was the Self. If you look at actual begetting and a wrong approach to created order, you might think it was Sex.

Let us be as wise as serpents here, consider each possibility. Suppose the principle devil is State. Imagine it in the person of Milton’s Beelzebub, in the council of Pandemonium. He is about to recommend not open war, as Moloch advises, or hiding, as Belial advises, but a sly side-move against the new created world and man there placed:

                         With grave
Aspect he rose, and in his rising seemed
A Pillar of State; deep on his Front engraven
Deliberation sat and public care;
And Princely counsel in his face yet shone,
Majestic though in ruin.

You desire to increase your power, to grow the State at the expense of those you rule. How to do that? Satan’s plan, put in the mouth of Beelzebub, is to sever the new creatures from God, the source of their freedom and their strength. That must inevitably sever them from virtue both natural and supernatural.

To accomplish it, Satan appeals to Eve’s sense of Self, but in strange isolation, as if she were a kind of island-goddess to whom every creature must bow in homage. “Sovereign mistress,” he flatters her, begging her pardon for daring to address her, while suggesting that her beauty cannot be rightly prized by any of the creatures among which she lives, not even her loving husband Adam, bearer of the image of God:

                                           One man except,
Who sees thee? (and what is one?) who shouldst be seen
A Goddess among Gods, adored and served
By Angels numberless, thy daily Train.

Divide and conquer: so does Satan extend his realm, by every petty peacock of a king and queen self-ruled, and therefore self-enslaved.

Such enslavement in man is made manifest most clearly, the book of Genesis suggests, in sex: in what should have bound man and woman to one another, and each generation to those that came before and to those that will follow. “Be fruitful and multiply,” says God when he blesses the first human couple, but the fall turns what should have been pure blessing into a source of trouble, division, treachery, and violence.

The wisest king who ever lived did not withstand the temptation, for Solomon, Milton says, “beguiled by fair Idolatresses, fell / To idols foul.” A thousand wives had he, but his sons would fall out with one another and divide his kingdom. His kingdom – not Satan’s.

But we might begin with the idol Sex. We remove it from its natural order, and we make our children and our neighbors bear the cost of the ensuing chaos. Love is not Love, despite what the smug and silly sign on your neighbor’s yard says. “Spirits when they please,” says Milton, describing the fertility gods of the Phoenicians, “can either Sex assume, or both,” to “execute their airy purposes,/ And works of love or enmity fulfill.”

“Such love is hate,” says the poet Spenser. Sexual sin does its worst to keep children from growing up with a mother and father who have plighted their troth for life. Since man is by nature a social creature, when he sins against what binds him in wedlock and what binds the generations, he sins against society.

He calls it liberty when it is mere thoughtlessness and worship of Self. It cramps or tends to destroy altogether the liberty of his neighbors, because what strong and self-sustaining families no longer do, State must attempt. Every antisocial sin must give State leave to intrude where it does not belong, to provide a semblance of that order while families and the parishes, schools, and towns they build used to provide. He who sells wheelchairs is pleased to find cripples.

In the end, says C. S. Lewis, there are only two kinds of people: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “Thy will be done.” In the dead hollow of every sin, there is a false Self, a wraith, a phantasm, an idol. “I am that I am,” says God, revealing to Moses his name beyond all circumscribing names. (Ex. 3:16)

But I am a creature: I am circumscribed. I derive my being from God, and at every moment my existence is sustained only by his will. When I set myself against God, I slip back toward non-being, toward the hollow that is well suggested by the Germanic word Hell. 

But as I fall, I assert my false independence with all the greater desperation. I must be my own, exist on my own. The magnetic poles that draw me are two. If I am soft and tender, I turn to Sex as the boldest expression of Self: sex, as I will, when and how and with whom I will.

These days, swallowed up in idiotism, I may even fashion my own “identity,” turning sex in upon itself in self-abuse of any of a thousand kinds. If I am hard and ruthless, I turn to State and its accoutrements. I worship power, wealth, and prestige of my own, or I bow to State as the extension of or the realization of sheer will. State will save us, State must be our cure. It hardly matters then in what form State appears.

No trinity, to be sure, but it is a triad. Find one, and the other two will not be far away.

COLUMN BY

Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen is a lecturer, translator, and writer. Among his books are Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture, and Nostalgia: Going Home in a Homeless World, and most recently The Hundredfold: Songs for the Lord. He is a professor and writer in residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts, in Warner, New Hampshire.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 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.

Banish Sin, Transform the Church

/in , , , /by

David G. Bonagura, Jr.: Detractors say trivializing sin was part of Vatican II’s spirit and is still in the post-conciliar Church. But the perennial problem is really sin itself.

The Second Vatican Council is back in the news lately, with two prominent, tradition-minded bishops revisiting well-known arguments of conciliar interpretation in light two recent Vatican documents, Amoris Laetitia and the Abu Dhabi statement on world religions. Their analyses of the Council, the difficulties in reconciling certain expressions with tradition, and the frightening breakdown of the Church that followed – a breakdown that some even justified under the Council’s nebulous “spirit” – are serious, though faithful Catholics will find their premises and conclusions worthy of debate.

Yet their analyses are now also very familiar. Blaming the Council for the Church’s ills has been a hobbyhorse for 55 years now. At this point, when it comes to arguing about the Council, Ecclesiastes’ tired observation comes to mind: “There is nothing new under the sun.”

Just weeks earlier, as public Masses were resumed after the coronavirus suspension, a little-noticed controversy impressed on me that the problems in the Church today stem from something far more fundamental, and simple, than the formulation of documents that few know about and fewer have read. When the proposal circulated of having Mass without reception of Holy Communion, some faithful and some clergy blanched. Their issue was not solely the deprivation of union with our Lord. It was that they did not see the point of having Mass at all without reception.

Such a thought stems from a profound misunderstanding what the Mass – and the sacrifice that it represents – is for: the salvation of souls. And there is no wonder the goal of salvation has been forgotten, since sin, the tyrannical reality from which we must be saved, has itself been deliberately banished from view, trivialized as a human psychosis, or written off as an obsession of earlier, unenlightened times.

It is the marginalization of sin, more than Vatican II or anything else, that has transformed the life of the Church as we know it in the last half-century. Our entire faith and the structure of the Church rest on three acts: creation, fall, and redemption. By dismissing the fall, and every sin that has come after it, the understanding of redemption necessarily takes on new meaning.

If Jesus did not need to redeem us from sin, then essential doctrines and the sacramental economy have to be reconceived. Consider:

* Jesus Christ ceased to be emphasized as our Savior who sacrificed His life to atone for our sins. Instead, images of “Jesus is my homeboy” became popular. Without a message of salvation, Jesus was reduced to a “great moral teacher” on par with Socrates.

* Shifting the view of the Savior and salvation caused worship to shift as well. Witness how few people today know the phrase “the holy sacrifice of the Mass.” We know from the work of Dr. Lauren Pristas and Father John Zuhlsdorf that, after the Council, the formal prayers of the Mass were deliberately reworked to eliminate references to sin. The turning of the altars to face the people, never mentioned by the Council, heightened a new experience of a community celebrating itself above the sacrifice of Calvary. The general desacralizing of Catholic worship made the Mass seem as it were of no consequence rather than the enduring basis of our salvation.

* Sacramental Confession was abandoned by nearly all the faithful. There is no need to confess if we have not sinned. And if we do not need to confess, then surely there is no need for acts of penitence or reparation. Eight days of the year that still call for abstinence from meat is all that is left of Catholic penitential practice.

* If there is no sin, then everyone goes to Heaven, Catholic or not, virtuous or not. Funerals became canonizations, and Hell was dismissed as a tactic to coerce good behavior. Catholicism became just another world religion on par with the others, since it no longer had anything unique to offer.

* If people do not need to be saved from sin, then there is no need for priests to give up their lives in service of those seeking redemption. The collapse of vocations is a direct result of the banishment of sin.

* Catholic theology, morality, and education all took turns for the worse after this constitutive understanding of sin and redemption was morphed.

Were there other causes of the Church’s post-Conciliar malaise? Yes, of course. But it is not an oversimplification to home in on the trivialization of sin as the root cause of it all. Throughout Church history, lying at the root of heresy is not an intricately woven system, but a misunderstanding of the first principle of revelation. To minimize sin alters the view of God’s entire plan of salvation, from the covenant with Abraham, to the redemption by Christ, to the role of the Church in perpetuating His salvation.

Vatican II’s perpetual detractors will argue that the trivialization of sin was part of the Modernist spirit that infiltrated conciliar documents and the post-conciliar Church. Yet that implies the Council itself is not the definitive problem; the Council and its “spirit” have been invoked to cloak a deeper issue.

It is, therefore, this deeper issue of properly understanding sin and the need to be saved from it that requires our attention above all. For Benedict XVI’s hermeneutic of continuity to have the final word on interpreting the council, sound Catholic doctrines – Creation, Fall, Redemption – must first be restored to their proper place.

COLUMN BY

David G Bonagura, Jr.

David G. Bonagura Jr. teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York. He is the author of Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism (Cluny Media).

EDITORS NOTE: This The Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 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.

Right on cue! Immigrant riots break out in Sweden

/in , , , /by

Although such crime and riots are not new to us, apparently a very large number of liberals (and some Republicans too!) did not know that Sweden was so close to the edge.

But actually of greater interest than the fact that this latest violence seemed to break out on cue after Donald Trump commented Saturday on the trouble Sweden was having with Muslim migrants, is the fact that CNN this morning actually reported on it!

Here is CNN:

Stockholm, Sweden (CNN)Riots broke out in a predominantly immigrant neighborhood of Stockholm Monday night, as residents clashed with police officers and set vehicles on fire, Swedish police say.

Officers were forced to call in reinforcements when a crowd began to gather in the suburb of Rinkeby during the arrest of a suspect, according to a statement from Stockholm police.

Stockholm regional police chief Ulf Johansson said the clashes may have been a result of their “increased pressure on criminals in the area.”

The clashes come days after US President Donald Trump suggested that immigrants in Sweden were to blame for an increase in crime across the country.

In recent years, Sweden has taken in more refugees per capita than any other European country, which has fueled tensions and caused a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment.

[….]

In 2013, large scale riots flared for a week in the Swedish capital, with gangs setting fire to schools and a police station.

In 2015, more than 160,000 people — many from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan — arrived in Sweden seeking asylum.

The country granted asylum to 101,025 refugees — about 1% of the total population — from 2012 to 2015.

Continue reading here.

CNN, however, can’t let go of two things.  One, there is a brief mention of the high unemployment rate of the migrants. No kidding! So how on earth does the Swedish government think they are going to afford tens of thousands of restless young Middle Eastern men? (Call it Sweden’s suicide wish!)

These migrants are also dumb or they would be reading the news, have restrained themselves for a few weeks, and not have given Trump a victory.

And, CNN could not resist quoting some Swedes laughing at Donald Trump who deny that anything is amiss even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have a problem.

Our entire Sweden archive is here. And, see our ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where are you AG Jeff Sessions? Stop Michigan mega-mosque deal before tonight!

Refugee contractor Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society one of the groups suing Trump Administration

New York Times says refugee resettlement good for NY state, but doesn’t tell the whole story

Rich refugee contractor begins ‘diversity is beautiful’ propaganda campaign in Idaho

U.S. Homeland Security Chief at Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Conference

/in , , , /by

Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America event telling participants, ‘Your story is the quintessential American story.’

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson spoke at the annual Islamic Society of America (ISNA) conference over the weekend, in what the Washington Post called an “impassioned speech” to empower ISNA’s participants.

ISNA is a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. In fact, the Holy Land Foundation was based within the ISNA building. ISNA also deposited checks into its account that were made out to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen [jihadi fighters],” the name used at the time for Hamas’s military wing. The funding was transferred to the Holy Land Foundation.

The ISNA conference that Johnson spoke at included extremist speakers, as it has done in previous years. This year’s speakers included Jamal Badawi, a founder of another Brotherhood entity, theMuslim American Society. Badawi has praised the terrorist organization Hamas, preached in support of “combative jihad” and was personally listed in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directory.

Another conference speaker was Nihad Awad, found and executive director of the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR),another U.S. Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land terror financing case.

Johnson told conference participants, “Your story is the quintessential American story,” and was described by the Post as the “highest-ranking U.S. official to address an ISNA conference.”

However, the Post’s description of Johnson is misleading as President Obama himself addressed the 2013 ISNA convention in which he  praised the group for its partnership with his administration. That convention also featured a roster of speakers including many extremists.

One of Obama’s senior advisers, Valerie Jarrett, also spoke at ISNA’s 2009 convention.

The Obama administration’s close relationship with ISNA is about more than photo ops and press releases. It is about policy formulation. The input of ISNA to the administration is so treasured that government officials coached the organization on how to engage the White House.

Instead of working with anti-Islamist Muslims, the Obama administration continues to embrace Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups.

Interestingly, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, only 4% of Muslim-American males and 7% of females chose ISNA as the organization that most represents their interests. Other Islamist groups like CAIR garnered similar small affiliations in the poll.

A generous interpretation of the Obama administration’s’ outreach to Islamist groups is that the administration feels that, since they represent mainstream Muslim thought, then it’s better to have them on our side rather than against us.

This thinking is flawed on two accounts: First, because the numbers do not support this thesis as shown by the above-cited Gallup Poll, and two, because the raison d’etre of Islamists is the implementation of Islam on a political level – i.e. sharia governance.

Islamists will only work “with” Western governments to use democratic principles to implement their political goals. There is no ultimate “with us” when it comes to Islamism, as sharia is antithetical to democratic principles (free speech, freedom of religion, etc.)

The way to integrate the Muslim community in America and counter radicalization is to discredit the Islamist ideology, not promote and empower it by giving it a platform and sending high-ranking government officials to legitimize it.

For a complete look at the Islamic Society of America (ISNA), see Clarion Project’s profile on the organization by clicking here.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic Group Takes Issue With 9/11 Monument

New Iran Music Video: Allah Destroys US Fleet in Persian Gulf

‘Iran Exempted From Nuke Deal Conditions to Meet Deadline’

Wyoming Group Holds Rally Against Islam

Once you understand that Islam is evil, only then can it be defeated

/in , , , , , /by

I like many others have since 9/11/2001 studied Islam and tried to understand what it really is, and how to define it. Is it a Geo-political system set on world dominance? Is it a religion? Is it an ideology? Is it peaceful or violent? Is it all of the above?

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn said, “You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists.” General Flynn is referring to those in the U.S. government and world leaders who refuse to use the label “radical Islam.”

But will using the label “radical Islam” actually help defeat this enemy?

I had a transformative discussion with one of our contributors Selwyn Duke. His take on Islam is unique and powerful.

I sent an email to Selwyn noting, “The statement ‘Islam is the religion of peace’ has two big lies bundled into one sentence. Lie one: Islam is not a religion it is a global ideology focused on world domination. Lie two: there is nothing peaceful about how Islam establishes its caliphate.”

Selwyn responded with:

With respect to Islam, the point people miss is not that Islam seeks to govern a person’s whole life; Christianity is meant to do that as well, in that we’re obligated to be Christians at all times and in all things.

The problem with Islam is that it is evil. And because at heart people believe “things,” it really matters not if we label Islam a religion or ideology; in other words, religious or secular.

People believe it’s significant because they’ve accepted the secular/religious dichotomy, and they seem to think that labeling it an ideology will help us combat it. Perhaps it will help us win some battles. But while I’ve heard people claim that it would allow the criminalization of Islam, this is an odd notion. Our First Amendment not only protects freedom of “religion” but also of speech. Thus, even the Nazis and communists can try and spread their beliefs.

So while re-branding Islam would allow us to remove its tax-exempt status, it wouldn’t stop its adherents from proselytizing.

We didn’t defeat the Nazis via re-branding. We accepted that Nazism was evil and took it from there. The label we need to attach to Islam is not “ideology,” but “evil.” 

Just as Ronald Reagan labeled the former Soviet Union as evil, so too must the United States and the free world label Islam as evil.

That is how one defeats any and all enemies of the free world.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

So America! Are you ready for Rohingya Muslims and their ‘cultural’ differences?

How America’s Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration

VIDEO: Demons At Our Door

/in , , , , /by

When evil knocks on our doors, Americans have a power no other people on the planet share:

The full-throated right to defend our families and ourselves with our Second Amendment.

The National Rifle Association fights for the protection of these liberties. The NRA is Freedom’s Safest Place.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama on SB: “We do not yet know why this terrible event occurred”

San Bernardino-area man didn’t report suspicious activity for fear of being called racist

Roman Catholic bishop advocates submission to the Islamic State

/in , , , , , /by

This brilliant article sums up not only the myopia of Bishop Robert Barron’s approach to the Islamic State (and to the global jihad in general), but the weakness and wrongheadedness of the entire contemporary Catholic Church when confronted with jihadist savagery.

There is today a wholesale confusion of weakness and submission with compassion and mercy, such that many Church leaders, including but by no means limited to Bishop Barron, believe that Christian charity mandates acquiescence to evil and submission to it. They think it is a matter of “respect” for Muslims as human beings for Christians to bow to violent intimidation from Islamic jihadists, and to assent to restrictions on their behavior that are demanded by way of jihadi threats.

Those who think, on the contrary, that it is more respectful and charitable to Muslims to refuse to enable and reward bullying and bloodlust have no place in today’s Catholic Church.

Bishop-Robert-Barron

Bishop Robert Barron being interview on EWTN Nightly News. Photo courtesy of EWTN.

“The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron,” by Maureen Mullarkey, OnePeterFive, November 23, 2015 (thanks to Tom):

I have never been more than an occasional viewer of Fr. Robert Barron’s Word on Fire chats. His recent televised interview with EWTN’s Catherine Szeltner put paid to whatever interest I had.

Newly elevated to an auxiliary bishop in the sprawling L.A. diocese, now-Bp. Barron was in Baltimore for his initial appearance among the USCCB. Ms. Szeltner was on hand to ask how Catholics should respond to the slaughter in Paris. “How should they react?” she wondered, as if Catholics were dependent on guidance in their attitude toward carnage.

This was hardly a spontaneous interview. Chairs had been set. The bishop had not been caught on the run; he was not speaking off the cuff. On the contrary, it is standard practice to establish before air time which questions will be asked. Ms. Szaltner was wide-eyed with anticipation for an answer that had already been rehearsed. Here was the fledgling bishop’s moment to affirm public solidarity with the mantra of love heralding the Year of Mercy. Which—the Vatican just announced—extends to Muslims.

Barron began with a self-reverential response that carried a hint of conceit for having been placed among the great and the good. Our new bishop has ascended above even just anger. The massacre aroused no outrage, not even a wince of distaste. Rather, his first words were on fire with . . . nostalgia. He found the atrocity “especially poignant” because he had studied in Paris for three years. And because he remembered some of the locations involved, the attacks were “moving and poignant.”

Not obscene, not demonic, foul or repellant. Poignant. It is a word appropriate for the death of a kitten. Applied to the murder and maiming of innocents, it is worse than unfitting. It is shameful.

He glided on to a serene tutorial on mercy, on the obligation to “respond to violence with love,” and “to fight hatred with love.” He enjoined Catholics to mercy and “a non-violent stance.” Listening, I realized why I have never been able to cotton to Word on Fire: Barron is smarmy. His genial TV persona has none of the alert, intellectual muscularity of Fulton Sheen whose lead he presumes to follow. This time on camera, he confused Paris in 2015 with Selma, Alabama in 1965.

Sanctimonious appeal to non-violence is typical of middle-brow respect for the strategy of King—learned from Gandhi—minus any grasp of its genius. There is nothing commensurate between the cultural situation of the American civil rights movement and the events in Paris. To try to impose the conditions of that movement onto Islamic jihad is astonishing in its obtuseness. Mercy is vacated of all meaning when it is used as an excuse for blindness to history, or for inaction in the face of present realities.…

Genocide was never the end game of either the British or the segregationist forces in the United States. Genocide—mitigated only by conversion or the slavery of dhimmitude— is an objective of Islam. Barron misleads his audience with bankrupt, Vatican-stroking noises about nonviolence.

The limited applications of non-violence were obvious when, in 1938, Gandhi advised Europe’s Jews to practice nonviolent resistance against Nazi persecution. In some mystical way, this would supposedly result in Germany’s moral reformation. Nearly eighty years later, Bishop Barron offers the same futile rationale—in the name of Christ crucified—to Catholics.

Inversion of circumstances between Islam and the West is as bizarre as it is reckless. Non-violence is the resort of the weak against the strong. By inviting Catholics to adopt “a non-violent stance” against jihad, Barron insinuates assent to inferiority. It is a failure of will dressed in Christian idiom. Call it submission.

In practical terms, what does it mean to respond with love to genocidal intention? How is non-violence applicable to a contest of civilizations in which one side is committed to the annihilation of the other? Wherein lies the moral force of non-violence against a bloodlust cultivated for fourteen hundred years?

Gandhi’s notorious advice to Jews was tantamount to telling them to march quietly to the ovens. Whether satyagraha serves freedom or a final solution depends on the variables of situation. Bishop Barron’s inability to discern critical distinctions makes his ministry dangerous.

He remains a cheery, good-natured promoter. Sadly, what he promotes is dhimmitude.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Will Downing of Russian Plane Impact Campaign Against ISIS?

Spencer, PJM: CNN’s Amanpour Shames US for Not Taking Unvettable Refugees…Then Fails to Vet Her Muslim Guest

Video: U.S.-backed Syrian “moderates” scream “Allahu akbar” over body of downed Russian pilot

Minnesota Democrat Party candidate: ‘The Islamic State isn’t necessarily evil’

/in , , , , /by

Dan Kimmel has withdrawn from the race, and for that we can be grateful, but his statement, with all of its moral equivalence and toleration of evil, is a succinct expression of what hamstrings our ability to face the Islamic State and defeat it. This is why the Islamic State will be plaguing free people worldwide for years to come.

“Minnesota State Representative Candidate Withdraws From Race After Saying ‘ISIS is Not Evil,’” by Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Daily Caller, November 15, 2015:

A Democrat candidate for a state representative seat in Minnesota has withdrawn from the race after he drew ire from many — including those in his own party — with a controversial tweet following the Paris terrorist attacks.

“ISIS isn’t necessarily evil,” Dan Kimmel, a candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat tweeted Saturday. “It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Paris Friday that claimed the lives of more than 120 people and injured hundreds of others. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, French President Francois Hollande said he viewed the attack as an “act of war” and promised a “pitiless” response.

Kimmel, 63, asserted in a follow-up that he “deplores” the Islamic State’s actions and was not defended them. However, the candidate still drew the ire of many on social media, including the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party leaders.

In a post on his campaign website, Kimmel said his tweet was “poorly worded” and thus announced the end of his candidacy.

“I am folding up my campaign tent,” Kimmel said, adding an apology for those who volunteered or donated to his campaign.

“I do think the attacks in Paris yesterday, along with other ISIS terrorist actions, are cowardly and despicable. My heart breaks for the people of France, of Paris, the families of those wounded or killed and the casualties themselves,” Kimmel said. “My thoughts are with them. I condemn the attacks, as I condemn all violence.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two of the Paris jihad murderers came into Europe as refugees

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dan Kimmel. Kimmel is the one on the left..

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

/in , , , , /by

One thing worse than supporting bad policy is knowingly supporting bad policy.

Worse still is knowingly supporting bad policy and shielding yourself from its destructive effects — while visiting that policy on children.

There has been much debate recently surrounding so-called “gun-free zones,” places such as schools, where law-abiding people won’t carry guns. But really there should be no debate. This is because it’s plain that even the zones’ defenders — liberals — don’t really believe they’re a good idea.

For evidence, consider a largely forgotten video made in 2013 by Project Veritas (PJ) after The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area.

Posing as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” PJ operatives visited the homes of Eric Holder and various liberal journalists to ask them if they’d “support the cause” and post on their lawns a sign stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”

Not one accepted.

At the home of The Journal News’ Greg Shillinglaw they were told, “In this neighborhood that nobody puts out stuff like that” (except maybe at the schools?). The person at the Shillinglaw home concluded with, “I do believe in it, but I think I’ll pass on it.”

Translation: he believes in it for others.

Next was the Journal’s Mike Meaney. A woman answered the door and tersely said “I’m sorry, I can’t help, but good luck. …I have other reasons [for refusal] I can’t get into right now.” But, hey, they just needed to speak to ol’ Mike personally — I’m sure he’d snatch one of those signs up quicker than Hillary Clinton changes personalities.

The next one, the Star Ledger’s Bob Braun, offered tremendous support. Without missing a beat he said, “I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” as he emitted a chuckle. His wife chimed in, “I agree with you, but I’m not sure about the sign.” Braun then said moments later, “The problem in this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might think it’s a — seriously — might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.” But Braun did offer this consolation: “Well, if the sign said “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” without “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE,” I would put the sign up.”

Because a Gun-free-zone is a bad idea.

Except at schools.

Because the people who might drive around and barge into Braun’s house in Elizabeth, N.J., could never drive around and barge into schools in Elizabeth, N.J.

Or maybe it’s that children in Elizabeth, N.J., are bulletproof?

Now, it apparently took Braun — smart liberal that he is — all of two and a half seconds to figure out that putting a gun-free-zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Logically translated, it amounts to advertising, “We’re defenseless.” Yet he presumably supports them “in principle”; after all, he didn’t say, “Look, I support gun control, but not these zones.” So what’s the story here? Was this the first time he pondered the matter for two and a half seconds? When advocating policy, did he only consider it for 4/10ths of a second?

Clearly, these liberals either never thought their policies through or just couldn’t care less as long as their laws only hurt others. So take your pick: gross negligence or callous disregard.

Delving a bit deeper, we’re witnessing a typical leftist phenomenon: style over substance, image over reality. These liberals want to be seen as “good” people in their milieu; they want to appear enlightened in their echo chamber of effeteness. And achieving this has nothing to do with action. All their fellow travelers, that caponhood of hypocrisy, are as two-faced as they are. It’s all about what you say — all about posturing.

It’s reminiscent of some NYC liberals — in a gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood fittingly called “Dumbo” — up in arms because “diversity” has come home: they’ve learned that their kids may be forced to attend school with poor minorities. One Dumbo parent actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” Yes.

And it’s more complicated when it’s about your own lawn.

Except that it really isn’t. It just seems so when it’s the first time in your life the realities of your ideology are brought home to you. Much like the youngster I once heard wonder why problems of poverty couldn’t be solved by just making more money, things can seem very simple to a child; they can also seem simple to a childish person, someone content to operate on emotion like a child or too self-centered — like a very young child — to consider how his actions, attitudes and advocacy affect others. This is the way of the overgrown juvenile masquerading as an adult that we euphemistically call a liberal.

But here’s the reality. Saying the politically correct thing — such as supporting gun-free-zone policies for schools — when you wouldn’t apply the same to your own home because you realize it’s a dangerous idea, doesn’t at all make you a good person. It makes you scum.

You’re willing to imperil American children nationwide just so you can strut around, puff up your chicken-chest and say “Look at me! I have the correct ideology!”

Don’t misunderstand me. Eliminating gun-free zones is no panacea. No doubt, maniacal mass murderers who target schools are to a degree motivated by the copycat factor and the maximized media attention attacking schools brings. Yet schools’ being gun-free zones does make them more attractive targets. And, no, it’s not necessarily because the perpetrators don’t have to fear harm, especially since these individuals often accept that their crime will be a suicide mission. But think about it: if your goal is to massacre a large number of people and go out in a blaze of notoriety, you want to ensure you won’t be stopped before your deed is done. Gun-free zones virtually guarantee this.

As for the “gun-free-zone for thee but not for me” liberals, I’m firmly convinced that some (not all, of course), on some level, aren’t all that troubled by school shootings. After all, it provides a great opportunity to beat the gun-control drum for people to whom “the cause” is everything. I mean, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And what does it matter as long as the egg isn’t the egghead in the mirror, right?

Of course, there’s generally no such thing as being truly insulated from the consequences of your bad decisions. You know those gun-free-zone signs you think are such a bad idea that you wouldn’t put them in front of the home in which your child lives?

They could be in front of the school in which your child studies.

I’m talking about those signs that mean “We’re defenseless. Commit your massacre here. You’ll get 9 or 10 before the guys with guns arrive and stop you.”

Not that this will change many liberal’s hearts (forget the minds). The chances of a given liberal’s only child being killed in a school massacre are extremely slim. But the chances of getting that proud, self-satisfied, warm and fuzzy feeling from mouthing the right position and being accepted by the right people are 100 percent.

But if it does happen, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowledge that you took one for the cause, can rage in the media and maybe even appear in front of Congress. I just wonder, will you think it was all worth it?

As for legislation creating gun-free zones, I’m game. Really. But with one condition written in: any politician voting for the bill must put a “Gun Free Zone” zone sign in front of his home. After all, Mr. Compassionate Liberal, if it’s good enough for America’s children, it’s good enough for you.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Either Defeat Evil Or Be Defeated

/in , , , /by

The Bible plainly states that when the evil reign, the people mourn.  The current leadership is so wicked that even Lady Liberty in New York City Harbor is crying so much she is rusting again.  Our onetime gleaming cities are once again chocked full of crime in mostly black neighborhoods and wherever illegal immigrants are trolling about.  Isn’t it ironic that in black neighborhoods where big government has the most influence via so called help that is where life is most miserable?

Whenever progressive democrats get the chance, they always prod society further away from the Biblical principles that were the foundation of American greatness.  They consistently harp on about an inclusive society that does not leave anyone out.  But the problem is, the inclusion the progressives are agitating to flood America with illegal immigrants and replace God’s Adam and Eve concept with Bubbah and Billy. The progressives seek to strengthen the likes of black lives matters loons, baby parts marketers, dedicated Muslims who torture animals, burn Christians and rape little boys to please themselves and their powerless god.  Yet the inclusive seekers feverishly work to extinguish the principles of true liberty and justice for all.

In the process of encircling America with the a fore mentioned societal sickness, the United States has devolved into a nation suffering a mostly self-induced unavoidable decline.  Sadly, most students now believe that God is irrelevant and communism is what America needs.  The Bible refers to calling what is good bad and what is bad good. A perfect example of that concept is president Obama.  Remember how he was portrayed as a great alternative to George W. Bush? Many of us in the growing alternative media warned Americans about the horrors Obama would unleash upon our republic.  May God help us!!

There are now scads of evidence that the warnings about Obama were correct.  Not only is he the most anti American president, (eclipsing both Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter) but the most Biblically hostile as well.

Never before in American history has an administration exhibited a more unwilling or inhospitable attitude towards Christians, Catholics and Jews as well.  One example is when he tried to force Catholics to cow tow to his efforts to abortionize Catholicism.  On the other hand, his preferential treatment of Muslims, (particularly Shiites) those who dominate Iran, is commonly known around the world.

For too long and reasons I fail to comprehend, the Christian church and Christian oriented societies have played the role of patsy when it comes to resisting those acting on threats to dominate them, politically, or around the world through warfare and slavery.

Here in America, the onetime land of the free and home of the brave has succumbed to politically correct pressures to basically give in to Muslims who have a single focus goal of world domination.  When one considers the fundamentalist Islamic threats against the United States and Israel (with no major reaction from president Obama) It would be wise for patriotic American non-Muslims to take the Muslims at their word when they say “death to America and no to freedom and liberty.­­­”

In recent years, the federal government, at the behest of president Barack Hussein Obama has given every advantage possible to our Muslim adversaries, including allowing them to venture into our nation through the open border with Mexico and through the northern border with Canada as well.  I will never forget how the Obama administration threatened former Arizona governor Jan Brewer for daring to propose doing what the federal government is supposed to do according to the Constitution. Which is protect “We the People” from enemies both foreign and domestic.  The gall of Obama and others who threatened Americans who merely don’t want our country overrun by illegal immigrants and dedicated Muslim terrorists and of course agenda 21 is jaw dropping, to say the least.

In addition, under the guise of helping poor war ravaged refugees from battered nations, thousands upon thousands of American hating Muslims are being brought into our republic.  Of course this is being done at taxpayer expense without our permission whatsoever.  To add insult to injury, the government is not bothering to inform us taxpayers where in the U.S. they are putting the legions of Muslims.  This of course gives the Muslims who don’t want to assimilate into our American culture the strategic upper hand.

One of the latest insults to common sense and all that is right was the Obama administration refusal to even try to secure the release of Christian minister Saeed when they were supposedly negotiating the DEAL with Iran.  Thus Iran is holding all the cards on this and will reap a huge financial windfall and can build their desired long range nuclear tipped missiles that can reach targets in the United States.  Of course, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry is okay with that, much to our nation’s possible detriment.

What can truly be called or considered as a most accurate reflection of the mindset of Obama, a great U.S. marine was booted out of the military because he dared to rescue a little boy from being raped because the Obama administration operates according to muslim, not Christian or American principles that call for the protection of little children.

It is now high time for the church to put aside the stupid foibles of the past and reestablish it’s rightful place of salt and light.  So that once again, this will once again be one nation under God.

The Evil Done by Good Men

/in , , , /by

The evil of the annihilation of Christianity and the Yazidis in the Middle East goes on with any protest by good people. The silence aides the jihad. Where do we see protest against our largest human rights tragedy? Who will speak against evil?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Shutterstock.

Confronting PC: Some Will Financially and Politically Die

/in , , /by

gods not dead movie posterI caught a bit of an interview with conservative actor Kevin Sorbo promoting his movie, “God’s Not Dead” on the Sean Hannity radio show. Sorbo lamented that political correctness operatives continue to bully Americans with little push back. He cited a recent incident in which a little girl was kicked out of school for saying “God bless you” when a classmate sneezed, punished for religious talk in school.

My wife Mary told me about a U.S. soldier who was told by a school never to walk his child to school in uniform again. I am sure all of you could share horror stories of political correctness operatives overruling common sense and bullying people into submission.

Admittedly, I continuously rant about this topic. Folks, while I have evolved into somewhat of a sophisticated responsible adult, my roots are in the hood, the projects of east Baltimore. Living in that extremely tough environment, I knew if you did not deal with (confront) bullies, you would forever be their chump. As a 9 or 10 year old, I detested watching bullies push people around. I still detest seeing snooty intellectual liberal wimps with their big microphones and big stages get away with terrorizing people into submission.

When we were kids, though he was a little wild and crazy, my cousin Jimmy taught me the value of a strong military and how to deal with bullies. Two kids were taking my lunch money. Jimmy got in their grills and threatened to kick their butts. That was the end of that nonsense.

Six foot something high school varsity football star Broadus ordered me out of my seat beside pretty Barbara Jean on the school bus. Had he asked, I would have given him my seat. Even as a four foot something tall seventh grader, I instinctively knew I would lose something inside if I allowed Broadus to order me around. I told him no, I was not moving.

Once off the bus, Broadus began pounding my head into the gravel road. My mom saw the attack from a block away. She began running, but said it felt like she was running in place, unable to get to us fast enough. Incredibly, Broadus and I later became friends.

So yes, I have this “thing” about bullies.

Liberals, Democrats and the complicit MSM have hijacked the word “bully” to exclusively refer to anyone who dares to push back against their aggressive attempts to force their socialist/progressive agenda down our throats. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Leftists call us bullies when we reject allowing them to bully us. Very clever, insidious and evil.

I worked at a major ABC affiliate TV station in Baltimore for 15 years. Thus, I have witnessed from the inside the MSM arrogant superior mindset which dominated the TV station and their intention to force their agenda on the public. The general consensus at the TV station was that the public was a bunch of yahoos and we were the sophisticated smart guys.

The TV station launched a campaign titled, “Family First”. On the cover of the brochure, I used a silhouette of a traditional family holding hands; father, mother, a girl and a boy. Public Relations axed my cover design claiming it was insensitive and offensive because families come in all configurations, two men, two women and so on. There was no agenda behind me selecting the image other than it worked for the theme of the campaign. I seriously doubted that the image of a traditional family on the cover of the station’s brochure would have sparked mass outrage from the public.

And yet, the PR representative acted as though I was attempting to push my Christian values on the public. She used her authority to bully me into changing the cover design. I later learned that she was a lesbian.

Folks, I realize that I sound like a broken record continuing to write about the Left bullying us into submission. It just sticks in my craw. Allowing them to get away with it is an anathema to my spirit; like allowing Broadus to order me out of my seat. We must push back. We must say no.

In the Clint Eastwood movie, “Pale Rider”, the locals were terrorized by bullies. They asked a mysterious stranger portrayed by Eastwood to lead them into battle against the bad guys. Eastwood consented, but also informed the locals that some of them were going to die tomorrow.

Make no mistake about it folks, confronting evil, pushing back against political correctness operatives is serious business. Our Nemesis are extremely vicious and relentless. They take no prisoners. Just as Eastwood warned the locals, I warn you. In the battle to take back our freedom, some will sacrifice themselves for freedom. They will financially and politically die.

Brave U.S. troops who have made the ultimate sacrifice have shown us that freedom “ain’t” free. Are the fruits of freedom, self-respect and dignity, worth it? Absolutely.

Political Correctness is a horrible destructive cancer eating away at the core of our American culture. The miracle cure is courage.

RELATED ARTICLE: National suicide by political correctness

Is God Evil or the Absence of Evil?

/in , , , /by
einstein_god_jesus

Albert Einstein on God and the Gospel. For a larger view click on the image.

I found this amazing video posted on Florida Representative Ray Pilon’s Facebook page. The professor, like many in our schools, colleges and universities, is teaching his students that “if God exists then God is evil.” His rational is that God created everything in the world, evil exists in the world, therefore God is evil.

It takes the understanding of a young Albert Einstein to explain to the professor what he is missing. God is the absence of evil, just as darkness is the absence of light.

Without knowing it this young boy is a Christian apologist much like Dr. William Lane Craig and others. To better understand read Dr. Craig’s God, Evil, and the Rules of Logic. When using logic to describe God and evil Dr. Craig concludes, “[T]he laws of logic are neither arbitrarily willed by God nor is He subservient to them; rather they are grounded in His nature.”

Dr. Craig also addresses this issue in response to a letter from an atheist. Please read the question and Dr. Craig’s answer to the question: Is God Able to Do Evil?

Hat tip to Kingdom Culture for posting this video. Watch and comment if you wish:

If you wish to learn more about Christian apologetics please visit  Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image titled “Feel God” is courtesy of Imgion.com.