Tuesday, June 30, 2015

A commentary on our social condition worth noting…

Pat Buchannan writes on the ignored consequences of our cultural libertarianism, our slouching toward Gomorrah, as Bill Bennett termed it.  The slouch has turned into a full bored sprint.

The latest legal abortions committed by the Supremes in DC nail the coffin.

Here is Pat Buchannan’s take on our over-ripe state of perverted affairs…

 

DEATH OF A NATION

Does moral truth really change, America?

Pat Buchanan on 'gay' marriage: Why have no previous successful societies thought of it?

Published: 14 hours ago

author-image Patrick J. Buchanan About | Email | Archive

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

___________________________________

“Natural law – God’s law – will always trump common law,” said Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a Christian leader in her own right, “God will have the final word in this matter.”

But, for now, Justice Anthony Kennedy has the final word.

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land, as the right of gays and lesbians to marry is right there in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. We just didn’t see it.

Tony Kennedy spotted what no previous court had detected.

The absurdity of the decision aside, it represents another stride forward for the revolution preached by Antonio Gramsci. Before we can capture the West, the Italian Marxist argued, we must capture the culture.

For only if we change the culture can we change how people think and believe. And then a new generation will not only come to accept but to embrace what their fathers would have resisted to the death.

Consider the triumphs of the Gramscian revolution in our lifetime.

First, there is the total purge of the nation’s birth faith, Christianity, from America’s public life and educational institutions. Second, there is the overthrow of the old moral order with the legalization, acceptance and even celebration of what the old morality taught was socially destructive and morally decadent.

How dramatic have the changes been?

Until the early 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Until this century, homosexual actions were regarded as perverted and even criminal.

Now, homosexuality is a new constitutional right, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is marrying homosexuals in front of Stonewall Inn, the site of the famous 1969 gay riot against police harassment.

Similarly with abortion. It, too, was seen as shameful, sinful and criminal until Harry Blackmun and six other justices decided in 1973 that a right to an abortion was hiding there in the Ninth Amendment.

Did the Constitution change? No, we did, as Gramsci predicted.

We are told that America has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality. But while thinking may change, beliefs may change, laws may change, and the polls have surely changed, does moral truth change?

Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural Law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?

If what Justice Kennedy wrote Friday represents moral truth, what can be said in defense of a Christianity that has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual acts are socially destructive and morally decadent behavior?

Three decades ago, this columnist was denounced for writing that homosexuals “have declared war on human nature. And nature is exacting an awful retribution.” Hateful speech, it was said.

Yet, when I wrote that line, AIDS victims in America numbered in the hundreds. Worldwide today they number in the millions. And there is a pandemic of STDs among America’s young who have joined the sexual revolution preached in the 1960s.

Can true “social progress” produce results like that?

And if it is an enlightened thing for a society to welcome homosexual unions and elevate them to the status of marriage, why have no previous successful societies thought of so brilliant a reform?

The late Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are the two examples of indulgent attitudes toward homosexual conduct that come to mind.

“No-fault” divorce was an early social reform championed by our elites, followed by a celebration of the sexual revolution, the distribution of condoms to the poor and the young, and abortions subsidized by Planned Parenthood when things went wrong.

How has that worked out for America?

Anyone see a connection between these milestones of social progress and the 40 percent illegitimacy rate nationwide, or the 50 percent rate among Hispanic-Americans, or the 72 percent rate among African-Americans?

Any connection between those fatherless boys and the soaring drug use and dropout rates and the near quadrupling of those in jails and prisons over the last third of a century?

One notes a headline the other day, that, among whites in America, deaths now outnumber births. This has been true for decades in Europe, where all the native-born populations are shrinking as the Third World crosses over from the Mahgreb and Middle East.

Any connection between the legalization of abortions – 55 million in the USA since Roe – and the shrinkage of a population?

“God will have the final word in this matter,” says King.

Certainly, in the world to come, He will. Yet, even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.

Our utopian president may see ours as an ever “more perfect union.”

Yet, America has never been more disunited and divided – on politics and policy, religion and morality. We no longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong.

Are we really still “one nation under God, indivisible”?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/does-moral-truth-really-change-america/#UvVkQ1Bow9yur4gK.99

Friday, June 26, 2015

Flag-inspired irony…

Major retailers like Amazon, Wal-Mart, Sears and eBay have succumbed to knee-jerk political pressure and no longer sell this Confederate Flag.  Note that this flag represents not the evil many liberals see in it, but the sacrifices 10’s of thousands of Americans made to fight for freedom and independence from an overbearing and growing government.

 

While at the same time, these same retailers continue selling these flags:

The Nazi flag representing the oppressive ideology responsible for the death of millions preceding and during WWII.

Image result for communist flag

The Communist flag representing the slaughter of millions by the oppressive regimes in China and the USSR.

Image result for gay flag

The gay, (homosexual pervert) flag representing those who militantly promote the perversion of 2,000 years of morality.

The ISIS flag representing Muslims promoting intolerant, supremacist fundamentalist Islam responsible for more human slaughter than all other religions and ideologies combined throughout history.  HERE is an ISIS cake courtesy of Walmart.

Here is more on this double standard from FOX NEWS.

Louis Farrakhan proclaimed  “We need to put the American flag down. Because we’ve caught as much hell under that as the Confederate flag…'”, suggesting the symbolism behind the American flag is worse than that behind the Confederate flag.

There is growing opposition to both patriotism and Christianity.  They are both endangered species.  They are on the hit list of academia, welfare recipients, many politicians, and the left, generally.  Wavers of the American flag are being labeled “haters” and “bigots.”  Those proclaiming faith based morality are receiving the same treatment.

This will not end well.

Monday, June 22, 2015

More about September…

During a recent gathering of a few conservatives, the question was asked whether there was a feeling of an impending cataclysmic “event” by the end of the year.  I mentioned that many, both religious and non-religious, expect something to hit the fan.  September is seen as its beginning.

Joel Rosenberg has something to say about this.  Joel has written a few novels in the last several years that have proven to be quite prescient.  Therefore I take what Joel has to say a bit more seriously than most speculative commentators.

Read Joel’s latest column HERE concerning his very uneasy feelings about the balance of this year.

In the meantime, Michael Snyder summarizes what many commentators are thinking will occur before the end of this year.  Read this below…

Joel Rosenberg: ‘Something is coming. I don’t know what. But we must be ready’

By Michael Snyder, on June 22nd, 2015

Earth Space Planet Globe - Public Domain

Do you also have the feeling that something really BIG is coming?  Recently, there has been quite a bit of chatter on the Internet about what the second half of 2015 will bring.  During the last six months of this calendar year, we are going to witness a remarkable confluence of circumstances and events, and this is something that I covered in a previous article entitled “7 Key Events That Are Going To Happen By The End Of September“.  But in addition to all of the things that we can point to outwardly, a lot of very prominent individuals are also really feeling an inner “urgency” regarding what is about to happen to this country.  For example, Bible prophecy expert Joel C. Rosenberg just posted an ominous message on his own personal blog in which he stated that “something is coming” and that “we must be ready”…

I feel a tremendous sense of urgency about this column.

The United States is hurtling towards severe trouble, and the events of the past few months — and what may be coming over the next few months — grieves me a great deal.

Something is coming. I don’t know what. But we all must be ready in every possible way.

When I first read that, I thought that sounded remarkably similar to how I have been feeling.

Personally, I am feeling more of a sense of urgency about the second half of 2015 than I have ever felt about any period of time before.

And like Rosenberg, I am also convinced that “something is coming” and that this nation is hurtling towards severe trouble.

So what in particular has Rosenberg so concerned?  The following are the items that he listed in his blog post

  • Violence is exploding in our cities, schools and churches. The horrific mass murder inside the church in Charleston would be bad enough if it wasn’t just one of innumerable mass killings that have become epidemic in America.
  • Racism is tearing us apart, and it appears things are getting worse, not better.
  • The Supreme Court is poised to rule any day now on the definition and future of marriage — and if the Court rules against Biblical marriage I believe this could cause the Lord’s hand to turn against our country in a severe and profound way according to the moral laws found in Romans chapter one.
  • Abortions are occurring at more than one million in year and have put America on the fast track to judgment. Since 1973, Americans have murdered 57 million children through abortions. The blood of 57 million babies is crying out for justice, and they will get it in God’s sovereign timing. Could that be soon?
  • If all this wasn’t bad enough, marriages and families are imploding all around us. Poverty is growing. Drug and alcohol use is epidemic. And that’s just here at home.
  • Abroad, Iran is closing in on The Bomb.
  • ISIS is exploding across the Middle East, and gaining ground in Syria, Iraq and Libya.
  • The Kremlin is growing more aggressive.
  • Yet our politicians continue to bicker, stall, or golf, even as many abdicate their Constitutional responsibilities.
  • And many Americans have little or no hope for the future, have little confidence in government, little confidence in the media or academia, and far too little confidence in the Church. Indeed, many see little or no reason to go to church, and are drifting from whatever faith they might have once had in the Lord Jesus Christ.

While, Rosenberg did not name a specific period of time in his article, other prominent voices have gone out on a limb and are pointing to the fall of this year.  Just yesterday, I wrote about how Lindsey Williams, Martin Armstrong and Alex Jones are all warning about what is coming in just a few months.

But they are not alone.  Like Joel Rosenberg, Ray Gano is also a Bible prophecy expert that is extremely concerned about what is rapidly approaching.  In fact, Gano is convinced that we will witness an economic collapse “probably starting in the third quarter of 2015″

If you have been a reader of mine, you know that I have been pointing to an economic collapse, probably starting in third quarter 2015.

Why third quarter?

US History shows that when the US suffers and economic meltdown of some sorts, it always seems to take place in September – October

Just look at history.

Shemitah Signs

Black Monday – October 28, 1929 – the stock market starts to destabilize and crashes thus beginning the Great Depression.

Black Monday – October 19, 1987 — stock markets around the world crashed, shedding a huge value in a very short time. The crash began in Hong Kong and spread west to Europe, hitting the United States after other markets had already declined by a significant margin. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) dropped by 508 points to 1738.74 (1)

Black Friday – October 13, 1989

October 27, 1997 Mini Crash

September 11, 2001 – The economic effects arising from the September 11 attacks were initial shock causing global stock markets to drop sharply. The September 11 attacks themselves resulted in approximately $40 billion in insurance losses, making it one of the largest insured events ever. (2)

I strongly believe that 2015 will be a year that begins / creates financial crashes, economic chaos and possibly the start of the next great worldwide depression.

Last time around, not that many understood what was happening when the stock market crashed at the very end of the Shemitah year in 2008.  But thanks to Jonathan Cahn’s work, this time around millions of people are talking about the Shemitah cycle that ends this September.  For much more on all of this, please see my previous article on the Shemitah.

Others that take a more secular view of things are also deeply concerned about what is coming this fall.  For instance, precious metals analyst David Morgan has been pointing to the month of September since the very beginning of this year…

When might the economy and the “debt bomb” explode? Morgan predicts this fall. Why? Morgan says, “Momentum is one indicator and the money supply. Also, when I made my forecast, there is a big seasonality, and part of it is strict analytical detail and part of it is being in this market for 40 years. I got a pretty good idea of what is going on out there and the feedback I get. . . . I’m in Europe, I’m in Asia, I’m in South America, I’m in Mexico, I’m in Canada; and so, I get a global feel, if you will, for what people are really thinking and really dealing with. It’s like a barometer reading, and I feel there are more and more tensions all the time and less and less solutions. It’s a fundamental take on how fed up people are on a global basis. Based on that, it seems to me as I said in the January issue of the Morgan Report, September is going to be the point where people have had it.”

Jeff Berwick of The Dollar Vigilante is also warning about what is going to happen in September.  The following is a quote from Berwick from one of his most recent interviews…

I think we’re getting very, very close to the next crisis collapse. I haven’t said that since 2008. I haven’t said it’s going to happen this year or next year… I’ve never really been warning that I think it really is now very close and I have been doing that lately… and I’ve actually predicted later this year in September.

There’s a number of reasons why I predicted that date. There are a lot of things going on… a lot of crazy things… to go into it all it’s just amazing how you can see these things being put into place.

So what does all of this mean?

Are we heading for a financial collapse (or something even worse) during the second half of 2015?

Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Christians are “far right” and “intolerant”

Conservative Christians are “far right” and “intolerant”, and so are those who believe that our culture’s moral failings are a root cause of many of our nation’s failings.

Who says?  And why do they say it?

Those who make these accusations are most often leftists, socialists, progressives, communists, liberals and Democrats, and perverts.  But not all.

Where have we heard that before?

Yes, keep it.  As  long as you don’t take it outside the walls of the church.

Some who think of themselves as “conservative”, but only in the fiscal sense, also share this view.  These are “libertarian conservatives.”  Do anything you want.  Morality isn’t all that important, so long as we lower our taxes, have a smaller government and have less regulation. The importance of the family unit?  Pffssst.  Gay marriage.  Who cares.  Porn?  Why not?  This list could be long and the components of it vary by individual.

Another label for this type of semi-conservative is “fiscally conservative progressive.”  Man does this ruffles feathers.  Dare suggest this label and the semi-conservative is liable to call you a bigot.

In reality, the libertarian conservative and the progressive do have much in common.  They both dislike rules and laws.  They both consider moral standards a bit archaic and a distraction from the “real” issues.  They both feel that religion, generally, unless of the liberal, feel good, casual sort, is an artifact of the past.  They both feel that humanity has progressed above all that.  We are in a new era of self-actualization unshackled from the mythical taboos of previous archaic cultures and religions.

Of course there are differences between libertarian conservatives and progressives.  Progressives have jettisoned religion and morality so they can build up their utopia via their new god:  Big Government.

Libertarian conservatives still may claim some components of Judeo-Christian morality such as pro-life or the golden rule.  They just don’t like to feel that there is a culturally or religiously defined morality expected of them.

This goes to one of the root differences in world view:  Are humans inherently good and selfless, or are we inherently evil and self-serving? If we are inherently good, we can rely on the goodness of a man-made government.  If not, we need to rely on a higher standard; a higher power.  Progressives and libertarians tend to share the former view.  Social conservatives tend to share the latter view. 

The problem with dismissing the importance of cultural moral peer pressure is that the lack of it paves the way to progressivism.  If there is a low view of the value of morality in the shaping and goodness of our culture, there is with it a low view of God who expects some level of moral obedience.  That provides a clear path to reliance on government to replace the void left by the absence of religion-based morality.  Rules of behavior become personal, random, anything goes – and government is left to clean up the mess – or make the mess worse.

Am I intolerant for suggesting such things?  The true libertarian conservative would say “whatever – do what you want – everyone’s entitled.”

The fiscally conservative progressive would accuse me of being an intolerant hater and play the religious, gender, or racial persecution card.

I have this bad feeling that the growth of libertarian and progressive influence in this country will soon justify social conservatives playing their own persecution card.  We will (or have) become a small minority among a population of thieves, perverts, degenerates, and libertarians who are offended by the mere existence of the beliefs of others in universal moral standards and will become actively intolerant toward those who don’t share their moral relativity (do your own thing morality).

Yes, a book about this problem (actually there are many).

Thursday, May 28, 2015

The roots of Progressivism and Conservatism…

Reasons for irreconcilable differences

Progressives and Conservatives seldom agree on anything.  And there are root causes for this great divide that few of us bother to consider.

Progressives (also known as “liberals”, “socialists”, “communists”) and conservatives (especially “social” conservatives, and to a lesser degree “fiscal” conservatives) each maintain a “world view” that is worlds apart from one another.

One of the foundational differences is highlighted in the first installment of a Front Page Magazine article by Dennis Prager titled “The Differences Between Left and Right”.  In this first installment one of the root differences is whether humans are inherently good or inherently evil.  Or, putting it more mildly, whether we are prone to do good, selfless things, or prone to do less good, more selfish things.  Liberals tend to believe we are inherently prone to do good.  Conservatives believe we are inherently prone to do evil.   

Many of our political beliefs and differences stem from these basic differences in world view.

The liberal/progressive predisposition leads to public policies that are called “progressive” in the sense of humanity always progressing toward a utopian future facilitated by a large “benevolent, all-knowing” government and elite academia that relies on “pure motives” to lead us “forward.”

The conservative predisposition leads to public policies that distrust government, favor the “rule of law” and a set of agreed upon standards and constraints the provide an environment that facilitates personal responsibility, initiative, and creativity.

I am a conservative because I am aware of human history, the folly and failure of just about every form of government, and the reality of current events.  I consider liberals to be unrealistic Pollyannas.  And I have observed that the Christian Bible has pretty much nailed the human condition – in more ways than one.

Conservatives who might believe that “progressivism” is the root cause of all  error and turmoil around us don’t dig far enough down to discover the taproots.   Those who fail to do this digging tend to be “fiscal conservatives” only, and believe that “social conservatism” is an irrelevant and bothersome distraction. 

Social conservatives, of which I am one, believe that widespread, personal rebellion against morality and cultural norms, and the culture’s unquestioning acceptance of that rebellion, as we hear Michelle Obama encouraging graduates to “shape the revolution”, is the root cause of our nation’s failures and decline.  Progressives deny there is a decline at all, and instead apply their faulty predispositions to continuing our failures.  They can’t even admit that Islam is an evil ideology.  They have a disdain for the distinction between “good” and “evil.”  This is why liberals seldom admit to any wrongdoing.  They believe they are superior to anything in the past.  They focus on the bad things from the past while conservatives emphasize the good from the past.

A new book titled “The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree” by William Gairdner discusses this topic in great detail.  This book is worth a read even just for its many tables that ask “where do you stand” on topics like “human nature”, “freedom”, “equality and inequality” “God and religion”, “homosexuality”, “abortion”, and “euthanasia.”

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Presidential candidate’s view of Islam: Why it is crucial to our foreign policy…

Both Bush and Obama have failed in our wars against terror in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  Our “surges” have failed.  Our “nation-building” has failed.  Our “democratization” efforts have failed.  As a result of these failures those parts of the world are now more unstable, dangerous, and hostile than ever.

Why do you think that is?  What do these presidents have in common?  Answer:  They believe “Islam is a religion of peace.” 

What do all of these areas of the world where our foreign policy has failed have in common?  Answer:  They are Islamic. 

What have these leaders, policy-makers, State Department, and Pentagon done their best to ignore and sweep under the carpet?  Answer:  The truth and reality of Islam.

As Diana West has observed, US Mid-East policy has been based on “see no Islam.”  (Read her column on this topic HERE.)

Over 90% of the population of the Middle East is Muslim – in several nations over 98%.  Over 90% of those populations believe in or practice Sharia – a barbaric legal, moral, and ethics system at polar opposites from Western sensibilities.

Islam is not just “another religion.”  Most of our population have a shallow understanding of religion, both their own, and especially different religions of others.  Those who hold to a religion such as Christianity or Judaism tend to believe that “all religions have generally equal value.  All are good in their own way.”  They practice a form of religious “moral equivalency.”

That ignorance is the basis of our foreign policy and military failures in Islamic nations.  Of all the religions in the world, Islam is unique.  But we fail to admit to that uniqueness.  Differences include:

  • Its own legal system, “sharia”
  • Its terrorist doctrine of “jihad”
  • Its unique moral code that promotes lying and deception when deemed necessary to prevail, “taqiyya”
  • Its comprehensive approach to life which includes not merely “religion”, but political, social, legal, educational, military, and terrorist actions in equal or greater measure as required.
  • And most unique, the idea of suicide attacks in the cause of Islam which gains “paradise”, (very possibly with 500 lb virgins who never shower.)

Most politically correct but naïve, fearful, or complicit government officials, media and academia refuse to associate these unique attributes to Islam.  Instead they either assume or hope they are associated only with a non-Islamic “radical” Islam.  This is the practice of “see-no-Islam”, aka “ naïve self-deception.”

The belief implicit in our foreign policy that we can make over a population of a billion Muslims who have developed their unique and opposite moral system over a period of 1,400 years into our own image is downright dumb.  We have failed to admit to the moral, and cultural system we are dealing with.  We need to admit that it is driven for the most part by Islam, including all of its morally opposite supremacist, intolerant,  and terrorist values that most refuse to associate with Islam.  Only then can we fathom a foreign policy that deals effectively with those nations, tribes, and armies .

And this is why it is essential to effective future foreign policy that we vet our candidates, especially our presidential candidates, on the basis of their understanding of Islam, its doctrines, and how it motivates its people and leaders.  It is time for “see-no-Islam” to end.  Admittedly, there are also a lot of wrong-headed senior and middle level bureaucrats to clean out, especially in the State Department and intelligence agencies.

Up to this point we know that denial of the truth of Islam has resulted in foreign policy failure.  But it doesn’t always have to be that way.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Shooting the messenger, literally and figuratively…

Some among us “conservatives” choose to shoot the messenger, in this case Pemela Geller.  Their rationale?  She is a money-grubber and seeks publicity stunts because she is in it to enrich herself.

Bosch Fawstin

This reaction, especially unexpected from Jews, is why I am a cynic.  If those who are most vulnerable from the threat of the rapid spread of the vile Islamic ideology are hostile toward one of the more informed and outspoken defenders of free speech in this country against Islamic fascism, then we are indeed in deep trouble.

There are a handful of people in this nation effectively shedding light on the intolerance and terror the Islamic ideology promotes.  Pam Geller is near the top of the list:

  • Led the effective delay of the 9-11 mosque location (I have little doubt a mosque will eventually be built there)
  • Running bus ad campaigns in major US cities countering the lies of similar Islamic ads, that, by the way, are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
  • Speaks around the country to educate people about the fascism Islam promotes
  • Publishes a continually updated website keeping us informed of Muslim atrocities, lies, and terror attempts.
  • Places her life on the line being a front-person telling truths about Islam for which millions of Muslims believe justifies killing. 

I was mistakenly hopeful that Pemela Geller and Robert Spencer (Robert is Pamela’s partner in the educational efforts to reveal and demonstrate the real Islam) would eventually be considered American Heros, not American villains. 

But, you see, there is this suspicion that if anyone does any good, it is all about money – they only do good because they are greedy money-suckers.

I have been following Geller and Spencer for nearly ten years.  I regret that I have not donated a cent to either one.  And I further regret and suspect that the majority of their followers, people who look on these two as beacons of truth and sanity regarding Islam, have not contributed anything to them, either.

So, is this “money-grubbing” and “greed” accusation an excuse for something beneath the surface?  I have no idea.  I only know that such slander makes no sense to me.

Geller is doing the job our Federal Government and elected officials should be doing but don’t.  We would be paying our tax dollars to the government to do this job.  But this job is not being done by our government.  To the contrary, our government is doing everything they can to convince us that Islam has nothing to do with violence, intolerance, terror, jihad or sharia.

I am thankful that there are people like Geller and Spencer who, despite the slander of being “bigots”, and “haters”, and “inciters”, and now “money-grubbers” that they are doing what they are doing and being a voice of truth and reason – essential tasks that our own government fails to do.

________________

Below is the text of an interview with the winner of the Draw Muhammad contest, Bosch Fawstin:

Bosch Fawstin on Islam and Jihad

by Craig Biddle

From The Objective Standard, Vol. 10, No. 2.

Muhammed

Bosch Fawstin

Bosch Fawstin is a cartoonist, blogger, and creator of the anti-jihad superhero Pigman. Having won the recent Muhammad cartoon contest, a pro-free speech initiative sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Bosch was in attendance at the award ceremony in Garland, Texas, when two rifle-wielding jihadists arrived to murder everyone there. Fortunately, moments after the jihadists opened fire (hitting only a security guard in the ankle), they were shot dead by a SWAT team.

As readers of The Objective Standard know, this latest assault by jihadists on freedom of speech is one in a long series, from the Iranian government’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie for depicting Muhammad in his novel The Satanic Verses; to the murder of Theo van Gogh for directing the film Submission, which depicted Islamic violence against women; to the attempted assassination of Kurt Westergaard for drawing a cartoon of Muhammad; to death threats against Matt Stone and Trey Parker for depicting Muhammad dressed as a bear; to calls for beheading Geert Wilders for producing the film Fitna, which showed that the Koran calls for violence against infidels; to the massacre of twelve people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo for satirizing Muhammad. Bosch Fawstin and the organizers and attendees of the Garland event are recent additions to this list of infidels who speak their minds in spite of Muslim threats because they know that freedom of speech is the last leg of a free (or semi-free) society.

I recently spoke with Bosch, whose drawing of Muhammad and Jesus covers the Spring 2015 issue of The Objective Standard. Three of his cartoons, including his winning entry, are included with this interview. —Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle: Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to chat with me, Bosch. It’s an honor to interview you. And congratulations on winning the Muhammad cartoon contest. Your drawing is brilliant and profound, in that it captures so much about the nature of the problem at hand.

Bosch Fawstin: Thank you very much; that means a lot. And I want to say kudos to you as well for publishing an issue of The Objective Standard with Muhammad on it, something very few publishers have done in the West.

Biddle: Let me begin by asking what went through your head when you heard that shots had been fired at the Garland event?

Fawstin: I was on somewhat of a high, having just won the $12,500 award and standing on a stage with Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders. I was in the middle of an interview with CNN when my friend told me shots were fired. Now, I understand the threat we face—I’ve studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11—but being in the middle of an actual jihadist attack was . . . I can’t find the words . . . surreal seems too easy, but it was just the latest reminder that this enemy—one our government could have long defeated by now—is getting to us in ways it never has before, because our government has not done its job in defeating it.

Biddle: Some people, such as Bill O’Reilly, say that publishing cartoons of Muhammad is pointlessly provocative, and that you and the organizers of the Garland event were asking for trouble. What’s your response to that?

Fawstin: Bill O’Reilly is a buffoon. He’s so far removed from the reality that we’re at war, that Islam is the motivation behind that war, and that Muslims are on the warpath, that his only concern seems to be about the feelings of Muslim “folks.” And he reserves all of his criticism for a woman (where are the “sexist” charges against her critics?), Pamela Geller, who showed more courage on that one night in Garland than O’Reilly ever has. The event was necessarily provocative to Muslims and Islamophiles who would censor us in the name of sharia—in other words, in the name of protecting them from experiencing their baseless emotions.

Biddle: Having been raised in a Muslim family, and having actually read the Koran, you are quite familiar with the religion of Islam. Why, in your view, are some Muslims bent on killing non-Muslims—especially those who criticize the religion or draw pictures of Muhammad?

Fawstin: Because unlike most nominal Muslims who are human beings first, jihadists are usually Muslims whose lives have gone sour and who are ready to throw it all away in a big bang where their lives, which have been devoid of meaning, can now be redeemed with a meaningful death. They’ve sold their soul to Allah and have been morally inverted by Islam to believe that the most heroic act they can commit is to “kill the infidels wherever [they] find them.” So in place of their mind, there’s only Islam, which dictates their lives. And that’s what led those two would-be mass murderers in Garland, Texas, to attempt to commit what, in Islamic standards, would have been a morally ambitious act.

Biddle: You’ve said that most Muslims are morally superior to Muhammad and morally superior to the religion of Islam. What do you mean by that?

Fawstin: What I mean is that Islam is a religion begun by the scum of the earth—I refer to “the Muslim world” as a world where the bad guy won. No matter how Muhammad and his gang tried, they couldn’t turn most of the human beings around them into monsters. Today, most Muslims—especially in the West—don’t allow and need not allow Islam to dehumanize them; they still retain their humanity. Unfortunately, they’re offered up as proof that Islam is just fine, when in fact it’s in spite of Islam that they’re not a threat to anyone.

Biddle: As you and others—including Muslims who take Islam seriously—have repeatedly shown, Islam is not a religion of peace. But some people claim that Islam is not a religion at all—because it calls for murder and other evils. The idea here is that religion is inherently a good thing, Islam calls for moral atrocities, so Islam doesn’t fit the bill. What are your thoughts on this?

Fawstin: I reject this fanciful myth that religionists are hell-bent to push. Islam is religion; it is also a political ideology—it’s a fusion of the two, and it uses its religious identity as both its shield and sword. 9/11 was an act of faith, or else Mohammad Atta and his fellow savages would never have flown those planes into the Twin Towers. They believed with everything they had that they were flying into paradise. When Bush uttered the America-crippling lie, “Islam means peace,” what he was really saying was “religion means peace.” He was a born-again Christian who was so beholden to religion that he gave a pass to Islam for religious reasons. And we’ve all paid a deadly price for it. And still to this day, there are those who bite their tongue about Islam, lest they suffer scrutiny for their own religion.

Biddle: You vehemently oppose calling the jihadists’ religion anything other than Islam—not radical Islam, not totalitarian Islam, not extremist Islam, not Islamic fundamentalism, not Islamism—just Islam. Why are you so strongly opposed to these kinds of terms?

Fawstin: Because any term other than Islam to refer to the enemy’s ideology implies that Islam as such is not the problem, that only some deviant form of it is the problem. Every time we use a term other than Islam, we’re helping Islam. I’ve gotten in endless arguments over it with friends and allies, but I believe that in the end, they’re going to see that Islam as such is the enemy’s ideology.

Biddle: You oppose Islam, but that’s a negative; that’s something you’re against. What, other than freedom of expression, are you for? What are your deeper positive values? Islam drives jihadists—what drives you?

Fawstin: Truth. Even when I was a nominal Muslim, I loved the truth, and it was that love of truth that led me away from Islam and eventually to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. I knew, even as a young kid, that I had to always do my best to seek the truth, to see things as they are, to be connected to reality. So by the time I found Ayn Rand’s work, I was ready to embrace her philosophy. Ayn Rand, in resistance to being called a genius, answered that she was simply more honest than most. And without Rand’s ruthless honesty, she could not have created the integrated philosophy that she did.

Biddle: In regard to the risks involved in speaking her mind about controversial matters, Ayn Rand said: “I’m not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly.” You clearly have the same attitude. What consequences do you see coming if people don’t speak up about the evil of Islam?

Fawstin: I see more attacks like the one in Garland, physical attacks against those of us who speak and write and draw in ways to which they object. I see an enemy further emboldened by what I call the scumedia, who are dying to tell offended Muslims the opposite of “I’m Spartacus”: “I’m Not Pamela Geller!” The Garland attack is a litmus test, and we have a clearer picture of who is ready to fight and who has already submitted to the enemy’s sharia restrictions.

Biddle: Our mutual friend, the late Joshua Lipana, reviewed chapter one of your graphic novel The Infidel in the Summer 2011 issue of The Objective Standard. But you’ve written other books both in that series and separate from it. And, of course, you have projects in the works. What are your main products to date? And what can you tell us about projects in the works?

Fawstin: Joshua wrote a particularly good review, and I have a blurb from him on my blog: “an engaging story driven by fundamental ideas and full of politically incorrect humor,” which I really appreciated. I began my career as a professional cartoonist in 2004 with the release of my first graphic novel, Table for One, which garnered two nominations at the Eisner Awards, considered “The Oscars” of comics. In 2009 I released my blog collection/print companion to The Infidel, called ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, which is the first print appearance of Pigman, my anti-jihad superhero. The Infidel is about twin brothers whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives after 9/11/01. The twins represent me, as if I split myself in two, with one part of me becoming a born-again Muslim and the other a recovered Muslim, and that’s the main conflict of the story, which is echoed in the Pigman story with his battle against SuperJihad.

Biddle: Where can people view your cartoons and purchase your books? And how can they keep track of your work going forward?

Bosch Fawstin

Bosch Fawstin

Fawstin: I have my comic books, graphic novel, and my prints on my blog at fawstin.blogspot.com. I’m currently finishing up chapter three of The Infidel, featuring Pigman. The issue is as long as the first two issues combined, fifty-five pages, and I can’t wait to get it out. I also just signed a contract with a publisher for a project that I can’t yet divulge, but that I’m very happy to be working on.

Biddle: Thank you again for your time, Bosch. Yours is a voice of reason, justice, and benevolence, and the world needs to hear it loudly and clearly. Freedom depends on people like you.

__________________

I guess Fawstin has just reveled that he, too, is a “money-grubber.”  And “conservatives” are in favor of capitalism?  Really.

 

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Muhammad cartoons, and the ignorant among us…

Reviewing media commentary about the event that drew the rats from their nest to attack the Texas “Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad” event, I am astonished at their casual and low view of freedom of speech and their lack of knowledge of the pervasively intolerant doctrines of orthodox Islam.     I am especially disappointed by the reaction of many conservatives who I thought knew better.

There are two messengers:  One, the messengers of Muhammad who mete out death for insulting Islam, and the other, the messengers who draw attention to the intolerance of the first messenger.

Rich Lowry, the Editor of the conservative magazine National Review criticizes the wrong messenger.  He wrote that Geller was a “provocateur” and referred to others of “her ilk”, a connotation that does not put “provocateur” in the same positive usage as applied to George Washington, unless you’re British.

Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Donald Trump had similar criticism of the cartoon contest.  I’m learning that some “conservatives” are as clueless of Islam as low information voters and have little regard for freedom of speech.

Here is another example of a “conservative” news organization, a Newsmax commentator, attacking the messengers:

At one point the Newsmax interview drew the analogy between the cartoon event and shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.  However, that “shout” was deemed an illegal act because there was no fire.  In the case of holding an event that demonstrates that Muslims show their offense by shooting or beheading there IS a fire.  Give Newsmax an “F” for Analogy 101.

Here is the winning entry in Pamela Geller’s Draw a Cartoon of Muhammad contest:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/muhammed-sword-winner.png

How offensive is that to western sensibilities?  Only to Muslims.  And Islamic doctrine contains dozens of other perceived slights that justify beheading or carnage.  Which ones will we bow to next?

We heard much worse slanders of religions:  Christ in a jar of urine; the play “The Book of Mormon.”  About the intended ridicule contained in that play, one writer gave this reply:

Late last year NPR interviewed Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of television's "South Park" as well as "The Book of Mormon", and they talked about the LDS Church's response to the show. "The official church response was something along the lines of, 'The Book of Mormon' the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon — the book as scripture — will change your life through Jesus," Stone said. "Which we actually completely agree with. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing."

Not so with Islam.  Orthodox Islam teaches that Muslims should be not merely offended by homosexuals, by women who have freedoms, by Christian who don’t convert, and by Jews who merely exist.  They must ACT when they are offended.  The acts they are urged to take when offended are considered immoral barbarism by the standards of civilized man.  In their Sharia there are three options for the offender:  Submission, death, or some other punishment deemed barbaric in our culture.

National Review’s Lowry, and others “of his ilk”, to borrow his phrase, are part of the problem.  They condemn the defender of free speech more than those who would quash it for the sake of their fascist ideology. They apparently believe free speech is no big deal. Or perhaps they don't recognize the path Islam is taking to impose its doctrine of intolerance on what is for now a fairly free society.

HERE  (click link)  is an editorial defending the freedom of speech you apparently won’t see in US papers, this from the Israel National News.

Those who criticize the few brave souls on the front line confronting and highlighting the threat of Islam to our culture fail to realize this:  Islamic ideology decreed many freedoms we take for granted insult Islam.   And those who violate any of these Islamic taboos must be punished. What's going to be the next thing we should not "insult" under penalty of death? Check out Islamic Sharia - there are dozens.

The likes of Rich Lowry is one reason I don't subscribe to the National Review. He is ignorant of the doctrines and dangers of orthodox Islam, and is more apt to be critical of one who reveals the truth and evils of Islam than he is to call out the evils of Islam itself. Who or what is the "provocateur" here, the truth-teller (Geller) or the representatives of an ideology best known for its deception, intolerance, and terror?

I've been amazed at the ignorance and obliviousness about Islam among the self-absorbed US media, elected officials, academia and electorate for 10 years.  I am especially disappointed at the comments about this event from "conservatives."  They haven’t learned a thing in all these years.

It looks like we have a new brand of “conservative”: 

CONINO -  Conservative In Name Only®

Those who are critical of Geller and critical of the very few others who attempt to inform us of the slippery slope to tyranny that Islam promises, if they were consistent, would be critical of everyone attempting to reveal any unpleasant truth on any topic.  But they are not.  Their agenda befuddles.