The Threat of Radical Islam

Change does not come swiftly to the Roman Catholic Church.  For example, prior to Galileo’s publication of his 1632 book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Church leaders firmly believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that all other heavenly bodies, including the Sun, orbited around it.  Galileo disagreed.  As a basis for its belief, the Church relied upon biblical references such as Psalm 104:5, I Chronicles 16:30, and Ecclesiastes 1:5, all of which proclaim that the universe is firmly established and cannot be moved.

Galileo, who has come to be known as the “father of modern physics,” was summoned before an ecclesiastical court in 1633 and charged with heresy for his writings.  On June 22 of that year he was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  However, justice is not totally blind.  On October 31, 1992, some 359 years later, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo matter was handled and issued a declaration admitting that “errors had been committed.”

However, a centuries-long debate within the Catholic Church over the question of whether the Sun orbits the Earth, or vice versa, has been of little import compared to the imminent dangers posed by radical Islam in the 21st century.  To the best of our knowledge, unlike the constant threat of sectarian genocide at the hands of radical Islam, the debate over Galileo’s theories did not cost the lives of thousands or millions of non-Muslims… perhaps entire nations.

Yet, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations are evolving ever so slowly in their approach to Islam.  In a most thoughtful and thoroughly researched treatise, titled, Islam, Interreligious Dialogue, and Evangelization, published on May 8, 2015, Andre Villeneuve, Ph.D. of Saint John Vianney Seminary, describes the evolution of the Church’s approach to Islam in just the past half century.

According to Dr. Villeneuve, “Since Vatican II (1962-65) the Catholic Church has taken a conciliatory approach toward non-Christian religions in general, and Islam in particular.  Interreligious dialogue has tended to focus on similarities rather than differences…”  He quotes the Council’s statements on Islam expressed in the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, which proclaim, “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.  They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men…  Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.  They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother…”

The Council went on to say in Nostra Aetate: “Since in the course of centuries, not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”     

The conciliatory theme in the Catholic hierarchy continues to this day.  Dr. Villeneuve writes that, “After praising the commitment to prayer, faith, devotion, and ethical values of many Muslims, (Pope) Francis encourages Christians to adopt a welcoming attitude towards the increasing number of Muslim immigrants in traditionally Christian countries, while asking for a reciprocal freedom of worship for Christians living in Muslim countries.”

He quotes Pope Francis in his Evangelii Gaudium apostolic letter as saying, “Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”  This is in sharp contrast to a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006, a statement that was not well received in the Muslim world.  In that statement, Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Yes, as Pope Francis has suggested, we should first ask for reciprocity from the Muslim world, but asking is not the same as demanding, and it’s time that political and religious leaders in the Christian world demand reciprocity throughout the Muslim world, signaling that serious repercussions will follow if it is not granted.  Nothing less will suffice.

Needless to say, the response from the Muslim world has not been what the Vatican might have hoped for.  Instead of reciprocating, in kind, radical Islam has pursued a brutal, unrelenting jihad against the Christian world.  Dr. Villeneuve quotes a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”  The memorandum explains that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Dr. Villeneuve goes on to say that, “At the same time, mainstream Muslim organizations considered to be ‘moderate’ by the American public have turned out to be stealthily pursuing radical agendas, quietly attempting to Islamize the United States by undermining national security, pushing for greater public acceptance of Muslim practices, and silencing as much as possible any criticism if Islam…”  He warns that “Stealth jihad is also actively at work in schools and educational institutions across the United States where textbooks financed by Saudi Arabia are used to present a sanitized or glorified view of Islam which downplays or dissimulates the history of violent jihad, all under the cover of ‘multiculturalism.’ ”

All of that is relatively tame… something our children and grandchildren will have to worry about a few decades down the road… compared to the blood-chilling details of a May 26, 2015 posting by PJ media.  The article is titled, “Here are al-Qaeda’s Guidelines for Which “Blasphemers” to Assassinate.”  Al-Qaeda has declared open season on the following persons:

Those who insult the prophet Muhammed and/or the Islamic religion.

Those who oppose following Sharia Law, including teachers, college professors, political leaders, judges, lawyers, engineers and doctors.

Those who misinterpret Islam wrongly in speeches and written articles, including writers, poets, intellectuals, newspaper and magazine editors, actors, journalists, and movie and television producers and directors.

Those who wrongly represent the rulings of Sharia Law in their writings or speeches.

Those who denigrate Muslim social values by introducing nudity and extramarital sex among Muslim youths.

Those who attempt to reverse Sharia rulings in existing Islamic cultures and economies.

Certainly, such threats are not likely to produce a “welcoming attitude” among non-Muslims, as Pope Francis has suggested.

At this writing, the focus of the western world is on Syria and Iraq where ISIS, one of history’s most bloodthirsty organizations, is literally butchering its way across the Middle East.  The limits of their savagery are beyond comprehension, yet Western leaders, chiefly Barack Obama, sit idly by, not knowing how to prevent the ISIS butchers from slaughtering us on our own home soil.

As his answer to the problem, Obama tells us that it is the Iraqis and their neighboring Arab peoples who must do the fighting and dying to prevent violent jihad from returning to our shores, but that hasn’t worked out too well because Iraqi soldiers, with little or no motivation to martyr themselves on our behalf, have thrown down their weapons and fled the field of battle.

For example, assume you are an Iraqi soldier, a member of a nomadic goat-herding tribe, and that you have never been called upon to defend any territory beyond what was needed to graze your tribal herds.  Then, out of the clear blue, the president of the United States sends military forces whose job it is to convince you that you must risk your life to defend national borders that mean absolutely nothing to you and that you will likely never see in your lifetime.

His soldiers provide you with modern weapons and train you how to use them.  And when a bunch of guys from Syria, all dressed in black, begin killing, raping, and pillaging cities, towns, and villages in your part of the world, he sends 450 more soldiers to help out.  But then, word begins to circulate around the campfires at night that the president of the United States who asks you to put your life on the line to protect what he insists are your ethnic and political boundaries, has no interest whatsoever in protecting the international borders of his own country.

So what do you do when all those guys dressed in black, wielding machetes and flying a black flag, come after you with guns blazing and threatening to slice off your head and rape your wife?  Do you stand your ground and fight to the death, or do you turn tail and run?  What do you do?

Some of the 450 new troops that Obama is sending to Iraq will be embedded with forward units of the Iraqi military as advisors and air controllers.  If those U.S. troops begin to take casualties, especially fatalities, Barack Obama had better pack his bags and head for sanctuary in Kenya.

Like the authors of Nostra Aetate in Vatican II, Obama may endorse the notion that we “forget the past” and “work sincerely for mutual understanding,” with the Muslim world.  But that’s a pie-in-the-sky notion for the Pope and other religious leaders who have no armies to commit to the military meat grinder.  It is not an option that is available to the leader of the Free World.

 

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Those Clinton Women

Listening to the reports of obscene speaking fees earned by Bill and Hillary Clinton… Bill commanding fees of from $500,000-750,000 a speech and Hillary demanding $200,000-300,000, along with private jets and presidential suites… I turned to my wife and said, jokingly, “What do you suppose Chelsea gets for a thirty or forty minute speech?”

In her lifetime, Chelsea Clinton has had a front row seat to more corruption and more sexual excess than an aging mob-connected porn star, so it might be interesting to hear what she has to say… if she could be totally candid.  And while we enjoyed a brief chuckle over the silly notion that a young woman of her age and inexperience would have anything interesting to say, I couldn’t help but wonder what it would be like to hear her drone on and on for thirty or forty minutes about her recent domestic battles with colic and diaper rash while suffering through a $500 plate of cold string beans, soggy au gratin potatoes, and “rubber chicken.”

But then it occurred to me that she is only slightly less experienced than her mother’s former boss, Barack Obama, and he’s sitting in the Oval Office making big decisions on my behalf.  So if people would be dumb enough to vote for her mother or for Barack Obama as president of the United States, and if there are those who would actually pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear one of the elder Clintons speak, well, who knows…?

Chelsea Clinton was born on February 27, 1980, early in her father’s first term as governor of Arkansas and almost five years after her mother was fired from the staff of the House committee that impeached Richard Nixon.  She was fired when the chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee described her as “an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” who “conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

During her undergraduate years at Wellesley College, near Boston, Hillary became an admirer and a protégé of the evil mastermind of the Democratic Party playbook, Saul Alinsky.  In fact, Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, was not only the subject matter of Hillary’s senior thesis at Wellesley, it has been the “bible” that has informed Barack Obama’s ideological evolution since his college years at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, and perhaps before.  To understand Alinsky’s utter disdain for American culture and the U.S. Constitution we need look no further than his ideological offspring, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom view the  U.S. Constitution as a document that means whatever they would like it to mean on any given day.

Chelsea was born just two years before her mother turned a modest $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit in just one year… taking her trading advice from a lawyer for the largest corporation in Arkansas while her husband served as the state’s attorney general.  Then, in 1993, when Chelsea was twelve, her parents uprooted their criminal franchise in Arkansas and moved it from the governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House in Washington.

In November 1998, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) announced that he would not seek reelection to his senate seat in 2000.  It was Hillary’s signal that, after six years as first lady of the United States, and after washing her husband’s “dirty laundry” for nearly twenty-five years, it might be fun to represent the State of New York in the U.S. Senate.  However, as a lifelong resident of Chicago, Little Rock, and Washington, DC, her New York credentials were slightly “underwhelming.”  To solve that problem the Clintons purchased a 5,200 sq. ft. colonial mansion in Chappaqua, New York, for $1.33 million and Hillary embarked on an extensive “listening tour” to learn what was on the minds of people in upstate New York.

After winning the Democratic nomination, Hillary knew that white liberals and blacks would be with her, but she was less than popular in the Jewish community and totally unknown in New York’s large Puerto Rican community, so she concentrated on solidifying her support within those constituencies.

In the years between 1975 and 1985, a Puerto Rican terror group, the FALN, exploded some 120 bombs in public places, mostly in New York and Chicago.  In those bombings, six people were killed and dozens more, including police officers, were permanently maimed.  Sixteen FALN members were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.

But with Hillary combating charges of being one of the most shameless carpetbaggers of all time, the Clintons knew they’d have to “pull out all the stops” to win the New York senate seat.  Accordingly, on August 11, 1999, Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of all sixteen members of the FALN.  However, the commutations were not universally popular.  They were strongly opposed by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, the families of FALN victims, and members of Congress (a resolution opposing the commutations passed the Senate by a vote of 95-2 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 311-41).  Nevertheless, Clinton proceeded with the commutations and the Puerto Rican community fell in line behind Hillary.

With the Puerto Rican vote in the bag, there was still work to be done in the New York Jewish community.  Late in her campaign, on August 8, 2000, Hillary visited the small Rockland County village of New Square, New York, a community of orthodox Hasidic Jews, where members of the local community had their tzitzits in a knot over the 1999 conviction of four Hasidic men charged with swindling the federal government out of some $40 million in education grants, small-business loans, and housing subsidies.

Although Hillary is said to have been warmly received by local residents, it is not known what was discussed during her stopover.  However, what is known is that on Election Day, November 7, Hillary won New Square by a vote of 1,359 to10, and that, six weeks later, on December 22, 2000, Grand Rabbi David Twersky of the New Square congregation, participated in a closed door meeting with Bill Clinton in the White House Map Room.  And although it is quite possible that the two men discussed nothing more than Clinton’s preference in cigars, the meeting had a positive outcome for the Jews of New Square.  On his last day in office, Bill Clinton reduced the prison sentences of the New Square Four from as much as 6½ years to no more than 2½ years.

From the outset, not everyone in the Rockland County Jewish community was optimistic that a pardon for the New Square Four could be arranged.  What they failed to understand is that, when Bill and Hillary Clinton “pull out all the stops” to win an election, they don’t worry much about legal or political repercussions.

And now comes 34-year-old Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky (Mrs. Marc Mezvinsky), the daughter of former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the daughter-in-law of former congressman Ed Mezvinsky (D-IA) who pled guilty in 2001 to thirty-one counts of obtaining nearly $10 million through bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.

When most of us sit down to dinner with our extended families we might be able to discuss the few traffic tickets we’ve received over the years.  But when Chelsea and her husband sit down to dinner with their parents they are sitting down with people who have first-hand experience with bank fraud, bribery, concealing evidence, conspiracy, contempt of court, evidence tampering, extortion, influence peddling, lying to federal investigators, mail fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, official secrets act violations, Pendleton Act violations, perjury, rape, sexual assault, subornation of perjury, theft of government property, vote fraud, wire fraud, witness tampering… and more.

After leaving her $600,000 per year job as a special correspondent for NBC News in August 2014, Chelsea was taken into the family business as vice-chairman of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.  However, according to a July 10, 2014 Associated Press story by Ken Thomas, she is represented, along with her father and mother, by the Harry Walker Agency, in New York, which arranges speaking engagements for notable such as former vice president Dick Cheney, former senator Rick Santorum, and former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  And while the Washington Speakers Bureau reports that speakers such as former senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), earn $25,000 to $40,000 per speech, the AP reports that Chelsea Clinton commands speaking fees as high as $75,000.

But it appears that all is not roses at the Clinton Foundation.  It is reported that Foundation staff find Chelsea as difficult and unpleasant to work with as Arkansas State Patrolmen, the Secret Service, and White House staff did with her mother… resulting in an unusually high turnover of Foundation staff.

According to a May 19 report by James Dunn, of Mailonline, “A lot of people left because she was there.  A lot of people left because she didn’t want them there.”  Dunn reports that among those “displaced” since she arrived are former CEO Bruce Lindsey (former White House chief of staff who lied so frequently and so convincingly that he was able to keep Bill Clinton out of jail); Chelsea’s former spokesman, Matt McKenna; and Ginny Ehrlich, the founding CEO of the Clinton Health Matters Initiative.

First indications are that the apple does not fall far from the tree.  But with a charming, affable philanderer for a father and a cold, calculating shrew for a mother, what are we to expect?  If there is such a thing as “genetic disposition,” the long term prospects for Chelsea Clinton are not good.  Let’s hope that is not the case and that, for Marc Mezvinsky’s sake, the Clinton women turn out to be polar opposites.

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

You Can’t Have One Without the Other

A May 5, 2015 article in Scouting Magazine by Bryan Wendell, a senior editor for Boys’ Life, Scouting, and Eagles’ Call magazines, reminded Boy Scout leaders across the country that page 99 of the 2015 Boy Scout Handbook prohibits the use of toys such as water guns and Super Soakers in friendly water games.  According to Wendell’s blog posting, “It’s a good time to remind you that BSA (Boy Scouts of America) policies prohibit pointing simulated firearms at people.  Yes, that includes water guns.”

Wendell also reminded local scout leaders of restrictions contained on page 100 of the Boy Scout Handbook, cautioning that, in order to prevent serious injury during water balloon fights, scouts should use “small, biodegradable balloons,” and that balloons should be filled “no larger than a ping pong ball.”  No larger than a ping-pong ball?

When contacted by reporters, BSA spokesman Deron Smith confirmed that these policies have been on the books for quite some time, and that the Wendell blog posting was simply a reminder of longstanding safety rules.  He said, “Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot at targets, and eye protection must be worn.”

When asked why the rule was being highlighted, Smith replied that a scout leader had once told him that, “A scout is kind.  What part of pointing a firearm (simulated or otherwise) at someone is kind?”

After interviewing Smith, Todd Starnes, host of Fox News & Commentary, commented, “I’m assuming that also means kids won’t be able to cool off by running through semi-automatic sprinklers.  Don’t be surprised if the BSA bans campfires and replaces them with simulated flames on portable smartphones.  Can’t risk the kids burning their marshmallows.”

All of this was followed by a May 21, 2015 speech by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the BSA Annual Convention in Atlanta.  As the recently elected president of the BSA, Gates urged the organization to reverse its longtime ban on homosexual scoutmasters, warning that “court challenges to the ban would be inevitable, costly, and ultimately lead to the collapse of the organization.”

One wonders whether Gates might have left the Pentagon in July 2011 with a copy of Barack Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan Rules of Engagement in his pocket and simply read the wrong speech to the assembled scouts. The proposal to reverse the ban on homosexual scoutmasters comes on the heels of a historic policy change of May 23, 2013, when the BSA voted to lift the ban on gay scouts.  Fearing unforeseen financial consequences, the BSA voted to reverse its 103 year policy banning homosexuals from the organization, while postponing any decision on the issue of gay scout leaders.

The news that the Boy Scouts may soon reverse their ban on gay scoutmasters caught the eye of conservative talk radio icon, Barry Farber, host of The Barry Farber Show in New York.

In a June 9 column for WorldNetDaily, titled, What if ‘Gay Scoutmaster’ Story is Sick Joke? Farber expressed his outrage.  He said, “There’s only one way to let you know how the likely arrival of gay scoutmasters sits with me.  It may seem over-twisted to you, but don’t forget, I’m the world’s foremost authority on how things sit with me!”

To illustrate his befuddlement, Farber said, “Remember Alan Funt’s laugh-laden TV show Candid Camera?  Elaborate practical jokes were played on unsuspecting people while concealed cameras were rolling.  Innocent people were thrust into preposterous situations, and after their confusion and consternation were milked dry, the mask would come off and the announcer would proclaim, ‘Smile!  You’re on Candid Camera!’

“Now gay scoutmasters are coming!  Part of me semi-seriously suspects that all this talk of gay scoutmasters is fake, a practical joke by major media and major politicians to target me and mess up my head.  I imagine a secret conclave in a back room.  The ringleader calls for order.  ‘Let’s have some fun,’ he begins.  ‘Barry Farber is a conservative talk-host and columnist who believes in virtues and values and stuff.  We’re gonna pretend the Boy Scouts decided to lift the ban on gay scoutmasters.  Boy Scout President Bob Gates has agreed to go along with the gag, and as former head of the CIA and secretary of defense, he knows how to keep a secret and put on a good act.  Gates will put out a statement like, ‘We must live in this world as it is and not as we wish it to be, and, given society’s mounting opposition, we can no longer sustain banning overtly homosexual men from serving as scoutmasters.’

“Farber will bite the bait and get sucked all the way up the exhaust pipe and take it all seriously and stutter and sputter his way through one of his right-wing rages.  We’ll have some good, clean fun when Farber learns it was all an absurd gag and he was tee-totally stupid enough to fall for it!  Learn your roles in the hoax, everybody.  We’ll roll it out in spring of 2015.’ ”

Farber confesses, “I’d volunteer to undergo the most stinging humiliation possible if ‘gay scoutmasters’ really were a gag.  I remember full well how utterly fascinated we Boy Scouts – age 12 to 15 – were about everything having anything to do with sex.  This lifting of the ban against overtly gay men serving as scoutmasters is the one news story most deserving of being a sick joke and not a breathtaking transmogrification of the rulebook…

“Is Bob Gates seriously asking us to believe there are hordes of American parents right now stomping and screaming, ‘We won’t tolerate this mindless bigotry against gay scoutmasters.  Admit them immediately or we’ll withdraw our sons from Scouting!’  I don’t think so.  What strikes me as unsustainable is maintaining sexual distance between boys aflame with experimentation lust and gay scoutmasters challenged beyond comprehension by the temptations brought on by this incredible surrender.”

Farber concludes, “Political correctness has a brother, older, wiser and stronger.  His name is Common Sense.  That brother is now pleading to be heard and heeded.  Historian-philosopher Will Durant gave us an excellent battle cry that goes, ‘When liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty.’   As a suggested corollary, we might also assume, ‘When political correctness destroys common sense, the hunger for common sense will destroy political correctness.’  I hope so.  Too many innocent lives stand to be affected and afflicted.

“In my view this cave-in by the Boy Scouts does not make big trouble possible.  It makes big trouble inevitable.  And I wish the gay-agendacrats could understand that zero animosity toward gays attends this outcry.”

I tend to believe that Barry’s onto something and I’m sure he speaks for the vast majority of parents with sons of scouting age.  The gay scoutmaster thing has got to be a classic “Smile!  You’re on Candid Camera!” gag.  After all, if it is now national policy of the Boy Scouts to allow gay men to be scoutmasters, surely the Girl Scouts would have announced by now that they’re going to allow adult male heterosexuals to be troop leaders… taking our pubescent 12 and 13-year-old daughters and granddaughters off into the woods for weekend camping trips, and all with the blessing of the New York Times, The Washington Post, and every liberal politician within shouting distance of a microphone or a TV camera.

As I read Barry’s heartfelt rant, I couldn’t help but think of the 1955 song, “Love and Marriage” by Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen, a song first introduced by Frank Sinatra in the 1955 TV production of Thornton Wilder‘s Our TownThe first stanza tells us: “Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage. This I tell you brother, You can’t have one without the other.”

In other words, if parents of 12 and 13-year-old boys are going to be faced with the dilemma of whether or not to allow their sons to go off on weekend camping and canoeing trips with openly gay scoutmasters, then how long will it be before we are called upon to wrestle with the same dilemma where our daughters and granddaughters are concerned?  Or are we to assume that, while the sexual abuse laws are written to be gender neutral, parents should be willing to put their sons in harm’s way, but not their daughters?

That’s what convinces me that the gay scoutmaster thing is just another liberal gag.  Will liberal orthodoxy dictate that we discriminate between boys and girls, as we do in nearly all sex-related matters, or, in the interest of “fairness,” will they insist that, just like love and marriage, “You can’t have one without the other?”

In the meantime, Mr. Gates need not worry about the demise of the Boy Scouts of America.  When we’ve become so politically correct that 12-year-old boys are prohibited from squirting each other with water guns and Super Soakers, and when they are prohibited from hitting each other with water balloons larger than ping-pong balls, the end has already arrived and the Boy Scouts of America have become the Boy Wooses of America.

What is needed is for parents to regain control of the Boy Scouts, telling Mr. Gates, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wendell to do what all good scouts should do: “Take a hike!”

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment