Europe is Lost, We are Next

In the face of unimaginable atrocities committed daily by radical Islamists against non-Muslims, a majority of European and North American Christians are still of the opinion that it is not only possible, but highly desirable, for Muslims to immigrate to Western nations where they can live happily and harmoniously among non-Muslims.  They still have not come to grips with the indisputable fact that Muslims and non-Muslims can never live together under any form of government and social structure that does not rely on Sharia Law as its foundation.

The reason is simple.  No Muslim can ever become a bona fide American citizen because, to do so, he/she must swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and demonstrate by word and by deed that they have forsaken all allegiance to the Quran and to Sharia law.  Since a Muslim’s obligation to his faith is totally incompatible with U.S. constitutional principles, it is simply not possible to honor both commitments… no more possible than it is to mix oil and water.

The basis for that unarguable assertion should be obvious to everyone.  Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims have lived for thousands of years under a commandment from God, handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai, which says, “Thou shalt not kill.”  It is a basic and immutable tenet of the laws and the social structures of every civilized nation on Earth.

However, the adherents of Islam see things quite differently.  The Religion of Peace website tells us that the Quran “contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers (Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims) for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.”

For example, Quran (4:89) warns Muslims, “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (5:33) instructs Muslims: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned…” 

Quran (8:12) commands Muslims, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.  Therefore, strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) reminds Muslims, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’ “

In short, we live in a world in which two diametrically opposed cultures are attempting to inhabit the same planet.  One of those cultures is committed to the ideal that life is sacred and that it is a mortal sin to take the life of another; the other is committed to what they believe to be a divine command to take the lives of all who worship no God, or who worship a God other than theirs.

There is no better example of the sheer insanity of multiculturalism than Pope Francis’ recent outrage in which he kissed and washed the feet of twelve immigrants in a Holy Thursday ritual at the Vatican.  According to the Associated Press, the group consisted of eight men and four women: one Italian Catholic; four Nigerian Catholics; three Eritrean Coptic Christians; three Muslims, one each from Mali, Syria, and Pakistan; and one Hindu from India.

In his homily, the Pope said, “At this time, when I do the same act of Jesus, washing the feet of twelve of you, let us all make a gesture of brotherhood, and let us all say: ‘We are different, we have different cultures and religions, but we are brothers and we want to live in peace.’ ”  Earlier this year, Francis is quoted as saying, “Migrants are our brothers and sisters in search of a better life, far away from poverty, hunger, exploitation and the unjust distribution of the planet’s resources, which are meant to be equitably shared by all.”

In his reference to the planet’s resources, was the Pope referring to my house, my land, and my financial resources?  Is he not aware that, were it not for the presence of his security detail, any one of the three Muslims might have contemplated withdrawing a long knife and slicing off his head as he knelt before them, washing their feet?  Does he really believe that, when ancient Romans turned hungry lions loose on groups of unarmed and defenseless Christians, there was a chance that the Christians might kill and eat the lions?  Does he really believe that a flock of unprotected sheep, set upon by a pack of hungry wolves, would have any chance of surviving, even though they outnumber the wolves by ten to one?

There is no indication that the majority of Muslims who immigrate to western Europe and to North America do so because, like Hispanic immigrants, they come “in search of a better life.”  Nor do they share the Pope’s foolhardy desire that, by prostrating himself before three Muslims and washing their feet, he can somehow convince 1.8 billion Muslims that they should suddenly commit themselves to living harmoniously among Christians and Jews.

To the contrary, the overwhelming evidence tells us that their primary interest is conquest.  Since its founding in the early 7th century, when Muhammad began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelations, Muslims have been engaged in an endless jihad (holy war) against the non-Muslim world.

Prior to the late 20th century, the greatest Muslim incursions into Christian lands occurred beginning in the year 711.  By the start of the 10th century, Spain had become a majority Muslim country until they were expelled in the mid-16th century.  Muslim forces were earlier expelled from northern Europe when they were defeated at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D.  However, during the latter part of the 20th century and the early 21st century, Muslims have again made major advances in the conquest of Old Europe, and even North America.

A May 2 travel advisory issued by the U.S. State Department warns Americans traveling in Europe that the threat (of terrorist attacks) will heighten during the summer travel season.  The  advisory warned, “tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets, shopping malls, and local government facilities” are particular targets for jihadis wanting to carry out attacks.

In addition, they warned that “hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, parks, high-profile events, educational institutions, airports, and other soft targets remain priority locations for possible attacks.”  They cautioned that, “U.S. citizens should exercise additional vigilance in these and similar locations.”  According to the alert, terrorist sympathizers and self-radicalized extremists can be expected to carry out attacks at any time and at any place, without warning.

So what are they suggesting… that American tourists limit their European itineraries to strip clubs, sausage factories, and pig farms, while avoiding attractions such as Buckingham Palace, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, and the castles on the Rhine?

It all boils down to this: citizens of largely-Christian western nations have a major decision to make, and they must make it within the next decade or it will be too late.  The decision is a simple one.  Do they wish to live or do they wish to die?  And if they wish to live, do they intend to live and raise their families as free men and women in a 21st century Judeo-Christian culture?  Or are they willing to trade their 21st century comforts for the misery of a 7th century culture in which brute force is the only rule of law and death is the only reward?  As for me, I and my progeny choose to live as free men and women in a civilized 21st century society.

Is there anyone alive who believes that, given a choice between living under strict Sharia law and living under the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, so-called “moderate” Muslims will not choose to follow the dictates of their radicalized Islamic brethren?  If current attitudes on Muslim immigration among liberals, Democrats, academics, and the mainstream media are any indication, the answer is yes.  For whatever reason, those on the political left appear convinced that the estimated 95% of Muslims who are currently “moderates” will one day convince the 5% who are radicalized that the only way to paradise is through love and tolerance… and that voting Democratic is every bit as satisfying as having 72 virgins climbing in and out of their beds.

It is, at best, wishful thinking.  The so-called “moderate” Muslims are not now, nor will they ever be, the saviors of western civilization.  When radicalized Muslims begin to have more and more success in dictating public policy in the United States, they will have the full and complete cooperation of their “moderate” brethren.  Barack Obama, himself, has written, “If the political winds should shift, I will side with the Muslims (Audacity of Hope, Page 261).

Short of a full-scale civil war, the nations of western Europe are already lost to us.  And lest we find ourselves in the same predicament, facing the ultimate Hobson’s choice, we had better make sure that our political leaders understand exactly what our long term options are.  Radical Islam has ultimate patience… a luxury that we cannot afford.  And while the leader of the Roman Catholic Church bows and scrapes before Muslims and washes their feet, those of us who live in the real world are left to worry about saving our own lives and those of our loved ones.

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

Ryancare …

I have commented in previous blogs about the sickness in the Republican Party. It is the RINO phenomenon.

 

There used to be a wing of the Democratic Party that was moderately conservative, but, increasingly, beginning probably about President Lyndon B. Johnson’s time, the doctrinaire socialists, the Fabians, have slowly been taking over the party. If you are a Democrat and conservative there is no place for you to go politically … except the Republican Party. In much of fly-over America, a Democrat can no longer be elected to office. So what are you to do if you want to get into politics? Why, of course, join the Republican Party and then vote like the Rooseveltian Democrat that you are. These people are “Republicans in name only” the antecedent for the acronym RINO …. Many have done it and there are thousands in office across America who are RINO’s.

 

How does this work?
The new Democrats, the “Progressives,” realized one of their socialistic, totalitarian dreams, to the horror of freedom loving conservatives, when they mandated Obama-care. This energized the representatives of the conservative wing of the Republican Party to action.  Since that black day in March 2010, they have labored long and hard to convince the American public to overturn that monstrosity. To repeal it, lock stock and barrel. Obamacare is socialized medicine!
The Conservatives in the Republican party began immediately to work to repeal the 2000+ page monstrosity that nobody (except the authors) had read when in was voted into law. But for the RINO’s the repeal was too radical … they began to tout “Repeal and Replace” of the bill. In other words, they wanted to replace Democratic socialism with Republican socialism … “my socialism is better than your socialism.”
Polling showed that this evil law was very unpopular with the voting public. The conservatives in the Republican party parlayed the promise of repeal into great electoral success, winning the House and Senate in 2012, 2014 and finally the Presidency in 2016. Of course, the RINO’s got right on board in the election cycles calling themselves “Conservatives” until the elections were over, when, safely elected, they began calling themselves “Moderates” and the real Conservatives “Radical Right Wingers.” President Donald Trump, an ex New York Democrat, switched from Conservative to “Populist.”

 

Trump was not popular among those in the Republican establishment such as Reince Priebus, Paul Ryan, George Bush (1 &2), Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and many others.  People of this ilk absolutely vilified Donald Trump during the Presidential campaign, only the Republican conservatives supported him.  Now that he is elected, the detractors have crept out of the swamp and are his “buddies.”
So what will happen to Trump’s agenda? How does it work?
To begin with, Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, organized his buddies in the House, the moderates (RINO’s), to write the repeal Bill for Obamacare. The Bill that he presented did not even make an attempt to repeal the law, only to modify it. The Conservative Caucus, the Freedom Caucus, was horrified and had no choice but to oppose his Bill with all the powers at their disposal … which are substantive.  Without their support, the Republicans do not have enough votes to pass the Bill.  Ryan tried to bully the Bill through and failed. At this point, what is Ryan’s alternative? Either rewrite the Bill to repeal Obamacare or look for votes from the Democrats to pass his Bill. What will the Democrats do … repeal or replace? The answer is obvious.  The “Moderate” leadership will do what they always do. The Republican “Moderates,” the RINO’s, will band together with the Democrats and pass the modification, telling the country at large that “this is the best that we can do.” If President Trump goes along, he will have ventured too close to the swamp and “gators” like Priebus and Ryan will have swallowed him up and dragged him and his administration into the brackish water.
Who wins in this scenario?
President Obama, trained from childhood as a Marxist and Socialist, did what the Fabians, George Bernard Shaw and his associates, advocated for the “glorious revolution” over a century ago … ask for something ridiculous, fight hard for it and settle for half. Almost everyone now thinks that we need to replace free market health care, the best health care on Earth until 2010, with a government entitlement. (see: Modern Fabianism [2/11/2010])
Obamacare is a classic example of Fabian Socialism and the greatest victory for that philosophy of all time. It is the dream of Karl Marx come true … a great western, industrial society has become the harbor light for Communism. Obamacare is here to stay.  It spells our doom!
Americans will have socialized medicine!
Who has the understanding, capability or willingness to oppose it?

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Flashpoints

Throughout history, mankind has confronted many major crises and turning-points, both positive and negative, manmade and naturally-occurring. For purposes of this essay I prefer to divide those crises into just two major categories: 1) man-made and natural disasters, from which it has always been possible to either fully or partially recover, and 2) “flashpoints,” those major crises and world events from which a satisfactory recovery has never been possible.

Crises of the first category…. such as World War I and World War II, where combatants in those bloody conflicts eventually became allies… are far too numerous to mention. However, crises of the “flashpoint” variety are rare.  And while it can be argued that the greatest “flashpoint” of all time has been the birth of Mohammed, the American people now confront no less than three such crises:

  1. The legislative branch of the United States government, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in world history, is now broken.
  2. The judicial branch of the U.S. government, the custodians of the rule of law, is now broken and the people have lost faith in the concept of equal justice under the law. And,
  3. Two of the most dangerous nations in world history… ruled by men who are sufficiently unbalanced as to speak openly of preemptive nuclear strikes against their enemies… are now on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons capable of reaching Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

In recent days, the American people have been witness to one of the greatest failures of representative government in U.S. history. In a nation in which advances in medicine and medical technology have lead the world for more than a century, the difference between healthcare costs and what people can afford to pay has grown wider and wider.  In fact, while politicians continue to promote the fiction that it is possible to make the world’s best healthcare available to all, at affordable prices, it is fair to say that the United States now has a Rolls-Royce healthcare system, serving a population that can afford little more than used pickup trucks.

And although Republicans have been calling for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare for the past seven years… promising that they would fix our broken healthcare system if only we would elect a courageous Republican president and give them majorities in both houses of Congress… we find that they are unable to agree on even the first step toward healthcare reform.

While the Congress is made up of 435 members from all fifty states, the members have found it necessary to create no fewer than 222 special interest caucuses. No better example can be found than the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization of African-American members founded in March 1971, whose motto is, “Black people have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” Oh, yeah?  Try telling that to black Republicans such as J.C. Watts (R-OK), Tim Scott (R-SC), Will Hurd (R-TX), or Allen West (R-FL), none of whom were considered “black enough” to be welcomed into the Black Caucus.

Only Congresswoman Mia Love (R-UT) has had the courage and the patience to waste her valuable time trying to carry the conservative message to the 46 single-minded black Democrats of the caucus.  No “permanent friends?”  Democrats would be shocked and surprised to hear that.  No “permanent enemies?”  The caucus sees everyone who is not a Democrat as an enemy of black people.

On the Republican side thirty conservative Republicans, comprising the Freedom Caucus, have banded together to defeat the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Insisting on a “perfect” bill that met all of their requirements, and unwilling to see Senate amendments to the bill or the product of a House-Senate conference, the members of the Freedom Caucus stood united against the bill.  Were the caucus members representing the interests of their constituents?  Or were they merely bowing to the peer pressure exerted by their fellow caucus members?

In our republican form of government, we are all entitled to have representatives in Washington and in the state capitals who will exercise their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. By yielding to the wishes of special interest caucuses, regardless of the likes or dislikes of their constituents, they are, in many cases, turning their backs on those who elected them.

In the U.S. Senate, once referred to as the world’s “greatest deliberative body,” liberals and Democrats have played such vicious political games with Senate rules that we now find it all but impossible to confirm a ninth justice to the U.S. Supreme Court… unless that individual is one who is “mainstream” in his/her judicial philosophy.  By that, Democrats mean a nominee who sees the U.S. Constitution, not as the Founders intended, but as a “living” document that can be twisted to meet what they see as the political, social, or economic needs at any given moment.

In recent weeks, three liberal district judges… two Obama appointees and one Bush appointee… have taken it upon themselves to write new immigration law by issuing temporary restraining orders against two Trump executive orders restricting the issuance of visas to individuals from six countries in which radical Islamist terrorism is rampant, and where it is impossible to vet any of its citizens.  This, in spite of the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

That body of law gives every U.S. president the absolute authority to bar any foreign person or group of persons from receiving entry visas if he deems it necessary, for any period of time that he chooses, in order to protect the lives and property of the American people. Yet, three federal judges attempt to endow foreign immigrants and refugees with U.S constitutional rights.

The Trump administration has vowed to appeal those decisions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But what if Senate Democrats are able to prevent a cloture vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch?  In that event, a Trump Administration appeal would go before an eight-member Supreme Court.  And if that court produced a 4-4 decision, that ruling would then revert to the lower court and their decision would be upheld.  What then?

In such an event, and since Trump’s understanding of the law is irrefutable, he may wish to emulate President Andrew Jackson who, in 1832, refused to follow the dictates of the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia ruling, affirming the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation… a decision that lead to the forcible relocation of some 15,000 Cherokees from Georgia to what is now Oklahoma.  In that instance, Jackson is reported to have said, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

As Daniel Greenfield writes in his March 27 column for FRONTPAGEmag, “Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority.  The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.  The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans.  It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it (sic) decisions don’t accord with its agenda.  It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left. It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.”

Those of us who are seventy years old, or older, will remember the days when, as children, we were subjected to periodic nuclear attack drills.  It was a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were the only two nations on Earth armed with enough nuclear warheads to literally destroy all signs of life on planet Earth.  And while we could never be totally certain that the Soviets would never launch a preemptive nuclear strike against us, we were reasonably certain that the Soviet leadership was just as averse to a devastating nuclear exchange as we were.  As a result, there was little chance that either side would ever launch such a first strike against the other.  It was a standoff that was referred to throughout the Cold War as “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD.

However, the same is not true of today’s enemies.  The bloodthirsty Islamist dictators in the Middle East and the brutal communist madmen in North Korea are all just insane enough to welcome a nuclear war with the West.  And while the North Korean leader, Kim Jung Un, has never shown the slightest regard for the well-being of his starving people, the leaders of al Qaeda and ISIS are just crazy enough to think that death is their greatest earthly reward… not to mention the seventy-two virgins that await each of them in Paradise.

These are the “flashpoints” that we now face.  And unless we take immediate steps to restore representative government and respect for the rule of law in America, and unless we take all the matches away from the maniac in North Korea before he burns our house down, then the crises we now face are truly flashpoints from which we will never recover.  To parody a verse from Tennessee Ernie Ford’s hit song, Sixteen Tons:

 What happens in Washington is a cryin’ shame,

The people hold elections, but it’s all just a game.

The Democrats betray us, at home and on The Hill,

If the Commies don’t get us, then the Muslims surely will.

If Daniel Greenfield is correct in his assessment, then civil war is truly upon us. Let the games begin.

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 | 1 Comment