Prescient warning from Anglican leader

Christianity is facing "elimination" in the Middle East at the hands of an Islamic State "apocalypse", the Archbishop of Cantebury has warned.

http://news.sky.com/story/1612009/welby-christians-face-middle-east-elimination

A compliant citizenry

China’s largest social networks have partnered with the country’s Communist government to create a credit score system that will measure how obedient its citizens are, a chilling prospect that could one day arrive in America if social justice warriors get their way. Entitled ‘Sesame Credit,’ the program aims to create a docile, compliant citizenry who are fiscally and morally responsible by employing a game-like format to create self-imposed, group social control. In other words, China gamified peer pressure to control its citizenry; and, though the scheme hasn’t been fully implemented yet, it’s already working — insidiously well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186

This has been the goal of the government-education nexus for the past 150 years--to create a compliant citizenry. Our American education system was modeled on the Prussian system, which was developed after the Napoleonic Wars to created more obedient soldiers and citizens. That is always the goal of totalitarians.

Hillary got is backwards again...

To suggest that Donald Trump is responsible for enhancing ISIS recruitment is like saying Churchill was responsible for enhancing Nazi recruitment. What a joke Mrs. Clinton is! The biggest enhancement to ISIS recruitment is actually America's tepid response to Islamic State aggression. Middle Easterners like to be on the winning side, which means that the weaker we appear to be, the more young men are likely to join the ISIS team. In contrast, the more aggressive we become and the more ISIS appears to be losing, the fewer who will want to join up. Overwhelming military force has always been the only thing that stops Islamic aggression against the West.

Hillary got it backwards

In the Democrat debate on Saturday, December 19, Hillary Clinton said, "I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here in the United States and literally around the world that there is a clash of civilizations, that there is some kind of western plot or even war against Islam, which then I believe fans the flames of radicalization."

This is a typical demagogic ploy: argue against a premise that hasn't even been asserted--a classic straw man. I have never heard any politician call for a war against Islam. Bill Clinton initiated the "war against terror" and some have called for war against the Islamic State, not no one has called for a war against Islam, no one! Actually, Hillary has it exactly backwards: certain factions within Islam believe the Quran calls for a "clash of civilizations" and has declared, in the name of global domination, war against the west. We did not start this war. And those who did start it are recruiting, not because of our response to their attacks, but because they consider it to be their divine mission to conquer the world for Islam.

This is called Jihadism--the call to all devout Muslims to bring the non-Muslim word to its knees before Allah. Perhaps all Muslims do not subscribe to this definition of Jihad. But if only one-tenth of 1% do, that means there are about 1.6 million people out there who are fully committed to converting us, either through persuasion or violence. And often it's their use of violence against a few that they use to persuade the many. It seems to me that since the Islamic State is currently the front line of the Jihadi movement, we ought to declare war against it and start turning some of their cities into ashes. I suggest starting with Raqqah.

Just to be clear...

Jan C. Ting of Temple University and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago say critics are wrong about Trump’s plan to ban the immigration of all Muslims and don’t know much about legal history. Ting says:

“No kind of immigration restriction is unconstitutional. The U.S. government can exclude a foreign national on any basis. The statutes are clear: immigration is different from all other aspects of the law. The Supreme Court has ruled we can enact laws against foreign nationals that would not be permissible to apply to citizens. The courts historically have no role in these decisions.”

Posner agrees saying:

“Constitutional protections that normally benefit Americans and people on American territory do not apply when Congress decides who to admit and who to exclude as immigrants or other entrants.”

Christian Persecution

EP President Martin Schulz says that the persecution of Christians is “undervalued” and does not receive enough attention, which has also meant that it “hasn’t been properly addressed.”

Schulz’s concerns were echoed by EP Vice President Antonio Tajani, who warned that Europe sometimes “falls into the temptation of thinking we can ignore this task,” referring to the protection of Christians throughout the world who suffer persecution.

Speakers cited the work of Open Doors, a human rights organization that monitors the persecution of Christians, noting that 150 million Christians worldwide suffer torture, rape and arbitrary imprisonment. Christians in Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea and Nigeria are among those hardest hit.

The Open Doors report for 2015 found that “Islamic extremism is by far the most significant persecution engine” of Christians in the world today and that “40 of the 50 countries on the World Watch List are affected by this kind of persecution.”

For Islamists, Tajani said, Christians are the new “crusaders” of Europe, and because of Islamic persecution in the Middle East more than 70 percent of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003, with another 700 thousand Christians who have been forced to leave their home in Syria since the outbreak of civil war.

“Each month 200 churches and places of worship in the world are attacked and destroyed. Every day and in every region of the world, there are new cases of persecution against Christians,” said Tajani.

“No religious community is as subject to hatred, violence and systematic aggression as the Christians,” he said.

As reported by Thomas D. Williams (12/3/2015)

The Islamic STATE!

Just last week I was thinking that we ought to start treating the Islamic State exactly as it claims to be: a state. It does after all have territory about the size of Florida. It has a government, an army, a court system, it collects taxes, provides health care, collects the garbage, and so on. In other words, it has all the marks of an actual state. If we decide to recognize the IS as a nation among the family of nations, then we can pass a Declaration of War against it and fight its agents wherever they rear their ugly heads: Paris, Libya, New York City, wherever. In addition, we don’t have to pay as much attention to sparing the lives of the so-called innocent civilians. We can simply bomb them into submission, like we did Japan.

So just last week I was thinking that this would be a good strategic move, and then yesterday the president trashed the whole idea. I am continually amazed at how contradictory my thinking is from his.

What are we waiting for?

The French Defense Ministry claims its jets have hit a command and control center, a Jihadi recruitment center, a munitions depot, and an ISIS training camp. And they did this less that 24 hours after the attack on Paris. This means that these sites were known to military planners well in advance of the Paris attack, which begs the questions, why hadn't they been hit a month ago or six months ago or a year ago? What are we waiting for. The longer the West waits to obliterate this hotbed of vicious, merciless evil, the stronger and more evil it will become. We flew over a thousand sorties a day in Dessert Storm and 350 in Bosnia; we are averaging only seven a day in the IS and 3 out of 4 return without firing? Why such a tepid response to such a horrific evil? Why do we have these planes if we're not going to use them. The time to act is now.

Another Clinton curiosity

Hillary in the debate Tuesday night on the Tran-Pacific Partnership trade deal: “It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards—my standards for more new, good jobs for Americans.” 

I wonder how she got to look at it. None of us can. Even Senators can only see it down in the bowels of the Capitol and have to promise not to talk about the details. Hmmmm. Hope someone asks her.

The power of a protective policy

Official Umpqua Community College policy statement: “Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.”

I guess Christopher Mercer wasn't aware of this policy.

How I would answer... #1

Today I am starting a new feature called “How I would answer...” As we head into the election season, I expect the various candidates to be asked all kinds of bizarre questions; so this is where I will post the way I would answer some of these questions. I am kicking it off with a question recently asked of Dr. Ben Carson.

Question: “Do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

My answer: Islam is not only a religious system, it is also a political system. Muhammad was not just a prophet, he was also a prince. He not only had an army of teachers, he also had an army of warriors. The part of Islam that is particularly inconsistent with the Constitution is its concept of jihadism and world domination. These elements, which are fundamental doctrines of the Islamic faith, are clearly inconsistent with our Constitution.

Compassion

Certain members of our society seem to define compassion as allowing anyone who manages to cross our borders to stay here. But do they realize that the only reason these aliens are in our country is because the were able to get here. Anyone in Mexico or Central America can get here, if by no other means, then by walking. Yet there are millions upon million of people in Africa, the Philippines, and other places who would give nearly anything to come to America, but because of geography, they have no way to get here. Even Cubans have to risk their lives at sea to get here. So if compassion equals allowing people to live in America, then wouldn't it be even more compassionate to pay for poor Africans, et al, to come to America? Why not just open the door and pay the way for anyone and everyone from any place on earth to live in American. I mean, why not be really compassionate? I'll bet there are at least 4 billion people who would love to live in America.

The truth is, allowing people from all over the world to live in America is not compassion; but exporting American values and ingenuity all over the world is. Instead of bringing the world to America, let's send America to the world (wherever we are welcomed).

Veto power

How is it that the threat of a presidential veto has become the guiding force in the legislative process? The Constitution states plainly: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Article 1, Section 9). It also says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Article 1, Section 1). When Congress decides what spending to authorize based on what it thinks the President will approve, it has in effect yielded its constitutional authority to the President. This is an abdication of responsibility.

The Constitution states that the President cannot spend one thin dine unless he is authorized to do so by Congress. If Congress passes an appropriation bill and the President vetoes it, it is not Congress that has “shut down” the government; it is the President. Congress is not required to acquiesce to the President’s every demands. That is to make the Legislative Branch the servant of Executive Branch. In our system, Congress makes the laws according to its own independent judgment. It is then up to the President to either approve or disapprove of them. If he disapproves, he is required to send the bill back to Congress along with a written explanation. Congress can then reconsider what to do. The idea that the President’s disapproval of an appropriations bill that does not fund Planned Parenthood is equal to Congress shutting down the government is absurd. These limp-wristed congressional leaders (McConnell and Boehner) need to get testosterone injections.

Another double standard

In 2004, when Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he violated the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He was hailed as a hero! In 2015, when Kim Davis "violated the law" by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she was thrown in jail and called a bigot.

Concerns about the Iran nuclear deal

I think the following are legitimate concerns:

1. U.S. intelligence officials report that Iran is already sanitizing is controversial nulcear plant at Parchin. (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/iran-already-sanitizing-parchin-nuclear-site-intel-warns)

2. The IAEA chief tells Congress they cannot see the secret side deals they have with Iran.(http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-chief-fails-reassure-us-senators-iran-deal-223150057.html;_ylt=AwrC1Cp.0cJVyRsApzjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--)

3. The President admits that Iran may use the funds they are about to receive to fund terror groups.(http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admits-unfrozen-iran-cash-fund-terror-164816905.html)

4. Secretary Kerry admits the Iranians may use the conventional weapons made available by the nuclear deal to kill Americans or Israelis. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-iran-may-kill-americans-or-israelis_1000220.html)

A final concern I have which I have heard no one address is, What happens in 2030 when all the terms of this deal expire? It seems to me that in all likelihood, Iran will richer and stronger, and if they haven't already, able to quickly make an arsenal of nuclear weapons. It also seems to me that at best, all this deal does is kick the can a little farther down the road. Maybe the hope is that the people will overthrown the regime by then. But what if they don't? Jihadis are patient people. Waiting 15 years to get a bomb, free and clear, is no big deal to them, as long as they eventually get it. I am concerned about what kind of world my grandchildren may have to live it.

All but inevitable...

In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. (Justice Clarence Thomas from his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges)

"Well, they may."

When asked at a House hearing if the Iranians “will use the conventional weapons made available by the Iran nuclear treaty to kill Americans or Israelis," Secretary of State John Kerry candidly replied, “Well, they may.” This is certainly encouraging news.  

Saw this one coming...

I predicted last week that this would happen within a year. I was wrong. It took less than one week.

Reported by Cheryl Chumley: A married Montana man has taken his wife and his girlfriend to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and told the clerk: Marry us – if the Supreme Court OK’d “gay” unions, then we should be allowed to join together in holy polygamy. “It’s about marriage equality,” said Nathan Collier, who filed for a marriage application to two women, Victoria and Christine, CBS News reported. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/polygamous-trio-applies-for-marriage-license/#PW1YcczdhVtzjYIU.99

Media hypocrisy

In response to the pulling of The Dukes of Hazzard... “When media companies are criticized for marketing programs that glamorize drug and alcohol use, or for sexualizing minors in television programs and movies, or for selling violent entertainment to children – despite overwhelming evidence of harm – or for trivializing rape, child sex abuse and pedophilia, all in the name of 'entertainment,' they are quick to wrap themselves in the banner of Free Speech.

“Restraint and responsibility do not infringe on the First Amendment and do not encroach on Free Speech rights. If TV Land is willing to pull The Dukes of Hazzard, out of concern for its harmful impact on our society (and it is good that Viacom is publicly acknowledging its programming can have a harmful impact on our society), they cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to refute the compelling evidence of harm from the violent and sexualized media content they continue to produce and air with impunity.” (The Parents Television Council)

Two Middle East perspectives

Two utterly contrasting views of the Middle East were expressed today. First, I heard Lincoln Chafee on Fox News today, saying that Hillary will continue to be plagued by her vote for the Iraq war, which has resulted in all the problems we currently have in the Middle East today. He went on to say that she continued to employ the "muscular approach" to foreign policy as Secretary of State. I also read an article by Bruce Thornton of the Hoover Institute where he liberally quotes John Barrett Kelly, a prolific writer on the Middle East from the 60s through the 90s. He quotes Kelly as saying, “The Arabs understand perfectly well the essence of imperial rule and recall their own era of imperial domination with pride. What has baffled them is the spectacle of an ex-imperial but still great power failing to behave in accordance with its stature but reacting to almost every challenge with a pre-emptive cringe.” Thornton’s conclusion was, “Today it is the U.S. that damages its own prestige and effectiveness by failing to behave as the ‘strongest tribe,’ and hence inviting contempt for its weakness. This is in perfect accord with Principle of Conservatism Number 10 (by Bill and Dave): that in the matter of international relations and America’s global responsibilities, American weakness—whether it be militarily, politically, or economically—is provocative to the enemies of freedom. I suppose the view that predominates in the next administration will determine whether ISIS whithers or thrives.

Presidential prediction

I'm going out on a limb at this early date and predicting that our next president will be Martin O'Malley.  

Recusal?

Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states: “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

On these grounds, should not Justices Kagan and Ginsburg recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case presently before the Supreme Court? Both have performed same-sex marriages and both have spoken out in favor of it.

Happy Christmas, War is Over...

In case anyone missed it, the president announced in his Memorial Day address that the 14-year war in Afghanistan is over. The response of his audience at Arlington National Cemetery was underwhelming -- silence. The response across the country was similar: there were no cheers, there was no rejoicing, there was no dancing in the streets. The longest war in our history ended and there was no fanfare, no parades, no fireworks. Why? Because there was no victory.

Motives are now pure...

Barack Obama speaking at Nike headquarters on May 8...  “I’ve run my last election, and the only reason I do something is because I think it’s good for American workers and the American people and the American economy.” 

Does this mean that before his last election, he did things to get re-elected even though they were not good for America? Before the election his motives were suspect, but now they are pure? Is this what he wants us to believe?

Justice in Baltimore

OK, the Baltimore protesters (aka rioters/thugs) can still cry out against police oppression in the black community, but they can no longer claim it's a racial issue -- unless they're prepared to say that the police officer charged with murder was a racist against his own race. I admit, I was flabbergasted when I saw that 3 of the 6 police officers were African Americans. How on earth could this be? I have not heard a lot of news today, but what I have heard (on CNN) has not even mentioned the black on black character of this incident. What is the explanation for this? This is no "white cop kills innocent black guy" story. This is much more like the recent shooting in New Jersey where a black cop shot a black guy and was assisted by his white partner. I can't help but wonder, had the protesters known a week ago that half of the offending officers where black, would we have had the same level of anger and riot? And amidst all the demands for justice for Freddie Gray, will there be commensurate demands for justice for CVS and all the other business owners and home owners whose property was destroyed? We'll see.

The War on Poverty

Americans below the poverty line in 1967: 14%

+

47 years and 22 trillion dollars

=

Americans below the poverty line 2014: 14%

The War on Poverty reminds me of the trench warfare of WWI. Both sides spent a lot of money and sacrificed a lot of lives, yet the lines never moved very far in one direction or the other. Maybe there is a better way to fight poverty.

Victory

Winston Churchill speaking on the necessity of defeating Germany and the tyranny of naziism: 

“We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.” 

If we only had the same determination to defeat the Islamic State and jihadism.

The Treaty of Hudaibiyah

To understand the recent nuclear arms agreement with Iran, we must understand that the Iranian mullahs follow rules based on the life and example of Muhammad. And one of the most important tactical victories in Muhammad’s career is what is known as the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.

Muhammad made this treaty with the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, which was the most powerful tribe in the region at the time. The Qurayshis entered into a 10-year peace pact with Muhammad and lived to regret it. It appeared at first to be a lopsided treaty in favor of the Qurayshis, but once free from any military threat from the most powerful tribe in the region, Muhammad suddenly “received a revelation” from Allah, which can be found in Surah 48 of the Quran. It begins, “Surely We (Allah) have given to you a clear victory.”

With the Quravshis sidelined, Muhammad began attacking several large Jewish tribes in Arabia. Any men who joined the Muslims in war would receive a significant share of the plunder, booty, slaves, and female prisoners. Within two years the wealth of the Jews became that of the Muslims, who went from about 1,200 men to more than 10,000. Muhammad then launched a surprise attack on the Qurayshis and defeated them, leaving the Muslims standing alone as the most powerful group on the Arabian Peninsula.

The takeaway is that Muslims today look to the example of Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaibiyah as one of the primary go-to strategies to defeat their enemies. Enter into a treaty for the purpose of gaining strength so that you can eventually defeat your enemy. “Hudaibiya” is now a code-word meaning “kiss the hand of your enemy until you have the opportunity to cut it off.” This strategy is ingrained in Islamic legal teaching.

In addition, Islamic law forbids a Muslim leader or society from signing a treaty for longer than 10 years, a principle based on Muhammad’s strategy that you only enter into a deal like this when you’re in a position of weakness. Iran has been under harsh economic sanctions for decades, and oil prices have fallen to the lowest level in a decade. Iran is economically weak. Interestingly, the deal Obama has negotiated with Iran expires after 10 years.

All classical Islamic jurists accept Hudaibiya as a binding principle. In fact, in December 2013, Iranian leaders talked about the negotiations and openly referred to Hudaibiyah. They all understand that Muslim rulers can only make temporary truces with unbelievers, which can be broken at their discretion if it will further the cause of Islam.

This is Islamic law. Muhammad is cited as the precedent for it, but it is embedded in their law. Leaders only engage in any kind of negotiation or treaty when they are in a position of weakness; otherwise, they just keep waging jihad. Peace with one’s enemies is never the end-game for those who follow Islamic law, but apparently the Obama administration is either ignorant of this principle or willfully cooperating with it.

So who do we believe?

Yesterday, energy secretary Ernest Moniz said, “I want to say this is not an agreement for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. It is a long-term agreement with a whole set of phases...So that's the way we’re thinking about it. It's not a fixed-year agreement. It's a forever agreement in a certain sense, with different stages.”

In an interview on NPR yesterday, the president said, “What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they (the Iranians) have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Double standard?

End of last week, comic Steven Crowder released video of his efforts to buy a same-sex wedding cake in Dearborn, MI. The three stores in the video refused. Only thing is, they were run by Muslims instead of Christians. I have yet to see this reported by anyone in the mainstream media and I have yet to hear of any protests. We wouldn't have a double standard here would we? Is there anyone willing to take on the Muslim community for their anti-gay religious beliefs? I doubt it.  Crowder video

A hundred years

Speaking during the 1912 election, President William Howard Taft declared, "The great bulk of our people are not emotional, undiscriminating, superficially-minded, non-thinking, or hero-worshiping. They have the virtue of second sober thought."

Hmmmm. What a different a hundred years make!

Preposterous!

Thus saith Patrick Moore PhD, early member of Greenpeace: I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.” My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization. The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened.

Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays.

Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

Read full piece at: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

Those who are ignorant of history...

President Obama from 2007 speech in Selma, Alabama: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they [his parents] got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” 

Of course, the bridge march in Selma happened in 1965 and BO Jr was born in 1961. The real question is, which of the 57 states was he born in? After his recent comments about the Crusades and the Inquisition, and his comments last summer when he tried to justify the Bergdahl swap by referring to Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, it has become glaringly obvious that our president is disfunctional when it come to history. He seems to mostly just make it up to fit the current need. One would think he would have someone on his staff to check out the facts before he utters them. But then again, what do the facts matter? It doesn't matter what the facts were in the Furgeson shooting, the protesters were still justified in what they did.

Will Hillary survive Email-gate?

Look at the original

If you want to know what it means to be a real Christian, you don't look at the Catholic crusaders, or Martin Luther and the Reformers, or Oral Roberts or Billy Graham. You look at the original Christians: the ones who came along immediately after Jesus. Fortunately we can do that by reading the Book of Acts in the New Testament. Likewise, if you want to know what it means to be a real Muslim, you don't look at the typical modern Muslims, such as Karem Abdul Jabbar, Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens), or even Louis Farrakhan. No, you look at the original Muslims: the ones who came along immediately after Muhammad. Fortunately this is also easy to do.

Having read extensively about the early Christian era and the early Islamic era, it is interesting to note the differences. I challenge anyone to read about the life of Peter and compare it to the life of Abu Bakr, the first successor to Muhammad. It is also interesting to note that the vast majority of Christians today consider those who attempt to live out authentic Christianity after the model of the original Christians to be fanatics and Jesus freaks. Admittedly, when compared to today's limp-wristed Christianity, the original does look rather excessive. But which is the real thing? Likewise, the majority of modern Muslims look with disbain at those who are attempting to follow the model of the original Muslims. But for anyone who cares to look at the original, it is obvious that ISIS is far closer to the original than Congressman Keith Ellison. I wonder which is the real thing?

Review of foreign policy successes

Let's begin with September 10, 2014, when President Obama touted Yemen as a counterterrorism success. What he actually said was, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years." We have "successfully pursued" this policy all the way up to the past week when the president of Yemen has resigned, our embassy personnel has been evacuated, the Marines have been order to scorch the earth by destroying their weapons, and Al Qaeda of the Arabian Penisula has taken over. Success #1. 

Over the past couple of years we have also witnessed over 200,000 Syrians killed by a combination of Syrian forces, the supposedly pro-western anti-Assad rebels, ISIS, and other jihadist factions. Success #2. 

In addition we have seen Libya decend into chaos and become a haven for jihadists. Success #3. 

And of course we have watched as ISIS has taken over the second largest city in Iraq as well as many other cities in which brave Americans gave their lives to free Iraqis from the murderous tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Success #4.  

Outside of the Middle East, we have seen North Korea get nuclear weapons and Iran get closer day by day to having them. Success #5 & #6. 

We have also see Vlad Putin snatch Crimea from Ukraine and absorb it into Russia. Success #7. 

We have also seen him instigate and participate in a so-called civil war in Ukraine, where another cease fire agreement was just brokered, not by the US, but by France and Germany. (We'll see how long that lasts.) Success #8.

About the only failure I can think of is in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood took over with our support, only to be overthrown by the military because they were too zealous in instituting Sharia. The is clearly an example of failure being snatched from the jaws of success.

Acceptable liars

Reuters reports (2/10/2015): Emmy Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who covered the story of Hillary Clinton's lie about being shot at in Bosnia, says she can't understand how the former secretary of state weathered the scandal while NBC News anchor Brian Williams may not.

That's easy: we don't like news anchors and reporters lying to us, the same way we don't like conservative politicians lying to us. But we have no problem with liberal politicians lying to us. In fact, many of us really like their lies (e.g. "Premiums will go down $1500.00 a year." "You can keep your health plan if you like it.").

Bush predicts rise of ISIS

ISIS in the cross-hairs of who?

Commenting on ISIS after the burning alive of a Jordanian air force pilot, Obama said, “Whatever ideology they’re operating off of…it’s bankrupt.” Is our president really the only person on earth who doesn't know what their ideology is? 

Fire the liar!

As reported in Stars and Stripes (2/4/2015): NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.

Williams repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied him. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, he said he had misremembered the events and was sorry.

The admission came after crew members on the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that was hit by two rockets and small arms fire told Stars and Stripes that the NBC anchor was nowhere near that aircraft or two other Chinooks flying in the formation that took fire. Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing, the crew members said.

Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

Williams told his Nightly News audience that the erroneous claim was part of a "bungled attempt" to thank soldiers who helped protect him in Iraq in 2003. “I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago,” Williams said. “I want to apologize.”

OK, here is what I have to say about Mr. Brian Williams. He said, “I would not have chosen to make this mistake.” Right, who chooses to make a mistake? No one. The truth is, it wasn't a mistake at all. It was a deliberate lie that has never been challenged until now. He also said, “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.” Well I'll tell you what screwed up in your mind, Brian. It was your inflated ego trying to make yourself seem to be the equivalent of the brave men and woman who are out there fighting for freedom. And you even went so far as to try to excuse your lie on the altruistic grounds that it was a bungled attempt to thank a soldier. You are such a phony. I'm glad you finally got caught. And your apology rings hollow. In fact, it's really not an apology at all; it's an excuse. And a flimsy one at that. I can't imagine why anyone would believe anything you have to say. You have lost whatever credibility you ever once had. If you won't resign, then you ought to be fired.

Loser

Is darkness coming?

This past Sunday, 140 million Pakistanis were plunged into darkness when the nations power grid was crippled by jihadists. Oh well, so what! Pakistan is thousands of miles away, and the Pakistanis are not exactly our best friends anyway. But we need to be aware that the same thing can happen here. Many reports have indicated that there are already hundreds of "sleeper cells" in America just waiting to launch their attacks. In addition, the president recently announced that 10,000 Syrian refugees will be resettled in America this year. The number could reach 75,000 within five years. Have all of these people been thoroughly vetted? How can we be sure that more jihadists are not entering American under the cover of refugee status? The fact is, we cannot be sure. This may be a good time to look into getting your own personal windmill.

Wake up! black America

Margaret Sanger and her murderous Planned Parenthood regime are gloriously succeeding. In 1939 she wrote: "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members" (Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts). Of course, exterminating the "Negro population" was exactly what Margaret Sanger wanted. Today, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), for every 1000 black babies born, 483 are aborted. This means that nearly one-third of all black pregnancies end in abortion. I realize it's above the president's pay grade to say whether or not life had begun for these aborted babies, but as the nations first "black president," he ought to be ashamed of himself for standing idly by while Ms. Sanger's genocide of the black community rages on.

It's all politics!

September 11, 2012: Muslim jihadists storm American outpost in Libya because of video defaming Muhammad. Result: 4 dead Americans, including an ambassador. Response: condemn the video. January 7, 2015: Muslim jihadists storm Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris because of cartoons defaming Muhammad. Result: 12 dead Frenchmen. Response: condemn the terrorists and 4 million people march in support of freedom of speech.

What's the difference? Why two diametrically opposed responses? Why was the guy that made the video demonized while the newspaper cartoonists are heralded as heroes? Politics! Pure, unadulterated politics! And to underline the hypocrisy of it all: the video story wasn't even true.