Washington dishonesty about jihad and Islam highlighted by accomplished Middle East expert…

…and implications for our actions in Syria, Iran, Iraq and at home

Are you tired of our government and media constantly referring to Muslim attacks in the name of Islam as “lone wolves”, “work place violence”, “misrepresenting Islam” and “mental illness” that has nothing to do with Islam?  Me too.

It has been obvious to the average schmuck on the street for years:  An attack performed by one or more avowed Muslims yelling Allahu Akbar in the name of Islam is doing what Islam expects him to do.  I have been saying for years that Islam, the all-encompassing belief system that includes legal, military, political as well as religious components, has been the motivation for these attacks.  Yet Obama and increasingly purged military and security agencies persist in their attempts at deception regarding the cause of these attacks.

Today I came across analysis by Clare M. Lopez, an accomplished Middle East and Islamic expert.  Take a look at her impressive bio at the end of this blog and refer to THIS SITE for all of her insightful articles.

Ms Lopez urges us to quit using vague and useless terms like “terror” and “attacks” when we well know that the source of the attacks are jihad as motivated by purely Islamic doctrine.  Here is an excerpt of one of her articles, “Call it Jihad:”

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current "lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge."

Why have our military alliances with Muslims in the Middle East failed in just about every instance?  Could it be due to Islamic deception as to who they really support?

The answer is in another of Ms Lopez’ articles, “The Mosque:  Center of Religion, Politics and Dominance”, she  describes the reasons why attempts at “nation-building” and other attempts to civilize Middle East nations are a waste of time and lives, aka “futile.”

Deeply rooted in pre-Islamic tribal social structures, some of the most primitive of all human drives—to conquer and dominate by force—were brilliantly sacralized in Islamic doctrine. With assassination, banditry, genocide, hatred-of-other, polygamy, rape, pillage, and slavery all divinely sanctioned in scriptures believed to be revealed by Allah himself, the world is not likely to see an end to Islam's "bloody borders" or "bloody innards" any time soon. In the traditional Arab and Muslim system, there is just too much at stake for those who win, as well as those who lose. There is no such thing as a "win-win" concept in Islam.

As the title of the above article implies, Ms Lopez finds that the Mosque IS the center of planning and motivation for Islamic jihad of all types, including political, legal, social, and military (violent jihad.)  And not just the mosques of the Middle East.  It is foolish to assume that activities other than these are taking place in mosques in our own US.

Applying these truths about Islam to our efforts in the Middle East:

• We must admit that Islam is informed by millennia of primitive human drives, including assassination, banditry, genocide, hatred, polygamy, rape, pillage and slavery.
• All these primitive human drives are baked into Islamic doctrine.  They are normalized and sanctified.
• We must admit that Middle East governments are driven primarily by Islamic culture, doctrine, and influence.
• We must admit that Islamic doctrine is principally political.
• We must admit that a significant tool of Islam is the doctrine of taqiyya (deceit, dissimulation) that makes the concept of treaties and agreements virtually meaningless.
• We need to admit that it is a waste of resources to engage ourselves in favoring one side of Islam or another.  Both are equally striving for world domination.
• We must relieve ourselves of entanglements in Middle Eastern affairs.  This requires us to become energy independent as a national priority on a level of urgency we had following the attack on Pearl Harbor
• We must admit that we have had a poor track record of which Islamic groups we support and arm.  They turn out to be worthless to our interests.  The rebels we are supporting in Syria are no exception.
• We must admit that Russia’s presence in Syria is a positive action.  It means we don’t need to waste our resources there. Russia understands better than we do that the Islamic culture requires an Assad or Hussein-type of leader to maintain order and avoid a power vacuum.

At home we need to apply these truths:

• Admit that the Islamic belief system is the source and motivation of the great majority of our national security threats. 
• We must stop treating Islam as a “religion”  and treat it for what it is:  A fascist, supremacist and often violent and oppressive belief system or ideology arguably more insidious and violent than Nazism or Communism.
• We must end immigration of Muslims and the construction of new mosques.
• We must monitor the activities within mosques as much as we monitored Nazi cells prior to and during WWII.
• We must acknowledge that there may be Muslims who wish to identify as “Muslim” but who do not abide by the worst of Islamic doctrine.  But we must do this understanding that a key doctrine of Islam is “taqiyya” and thus the potential for deception on their part remains a problem.  We must ask ourselves, “Why would they want to continue to identify as “Muslim” knowing what the Islamic ideology demands of its adherents.

I encourage your reading of a few of Clare Lopez’ many articles on these topics HERE.

______________________________

Biography

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues. Specific areas of expertise include Islam and Iran. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments, and acquiring extensive expertise in counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterproliferation issues with a career regional focus on the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. She has served in or visited over two dozen nations worldwide, and speaks several languages, including Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, and Russian, and currently is studying Farsi.

Now a private consultant, Lopez also serves as Vice President of the non-profit forum, The Intelligence Summit, and is a Professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies (CI Centre), where she teaches courses on the Iranian Intelligence Services, and the expanding influence of Jihad and Sharia in Europe and the U.S. She is affiliated on a consultant basis with DoD contractors that provide clandestine operations training to military intelligence personnel. Lopez was Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington, DC think tank, from 2005-2006. She has served as a Senior Scientific Researcher at the Battelle Memorial Institute; a Senior Intelligence Analyst, Subject Matter Expert, and Program Manager at HawkEye Systems, LLC.; and previously produced Technical Threat Assessments for U.S. Embassies at the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, where she worked as a Senior Intelligence Analyst for Chugach Systems Integration.

Lopez received a B.A. in Communications and French from Notre Dame College of Ohio (NDC) and an M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She completed Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia before declining a commission in order to join the CIA. Lopez is a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute of World Affairs and also serves on the Advisory Board for the Intelligence Analysis and Research program and as an occasional guest lecturer at her undergraduate alma mater, NDC. She has been a Visiting Researcher at Georgetown University and a guest lecturer on terrorism, national defense, international relations, and Iran there, at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, and the National Defense Intelligence College in Washington, D.C. Lopez is a regular contributor to print and broadcast media on subjects related to Iran, Islam, counterterrorism, and the Middle East and is the co-author of two published books on Iran.

Carson is“Islamo-lite” but Cruz is “Islamo-deceptive”

Here is how the dominos lined up:

First Trump is asked a question from the audience: “Do you support shutting down the Muslim training camps spread across the United States?”

Trump pretty much blows off the question by saying:  “Yeah, we’ll look into it; we’ll look into a lot of things.”

Then Trump is criticized by most of the media for not lecturing the questioner on his “Islamophobia”.

Republican candidates piled on with their criticism of Trump for not defending Islam with one exception:  Carson.

Carson declares that he would absolutely not favor a Muslim President, unless perhaps he disavowed Sharia (Islamic law).

In response, Cruz lectured that the Constitution does not allow a “religious test”, therefore an Islamic President is not and should not be prohibited and would be just peachy as far as our Constitution is concerned.

OK.  That is the rough sequence.  Do you see anything wrong with this picture so far?

I’ll point out several things:

1. Trump was right not to chastise his questioner about our “Muslim problem.”  In fact, Trump previously stated we have a Muslim problem.  And that is definitely true.

2. The media did what the media does:  It blindly and foolishly defends all things Islam.

3. The other Republican candidates, except Carson, showed their George Bush-iness: They came to the defense of Islam (Bush:  “Islam is a religion of peace”) and criticized both Trump and Carson for their statements or non-statements about Islam.

4. Carson came closest to “getting it” about the joys of a Muslim president.   While he did not claim any Constitutional prohibition of a president holding to an Islamic faith, he said a declared Muslim would be bad for this country because Islamic Sharia conflicts and is incompatible with our Constitution. That is all good and true.  But he equivocated somewhat by adding “…unless the Muslim candidate disavows his belief in Sharia.”  So, apparently Carson believes that a Muslim whose belief system incorporates the doctrine of “taqiyya” (lying or dissimulation to defend yourself or hide or promote your faith) can simply say “I don’t believe in Sharia” and everything will be cool with that Muslim.  That is “Islamo-lite”.  Cain almost gets it, but omitted the taqiyya part.

5. Then there is Cruz:  Islamo-ignorant.  [See “Update” below as to whether Cruz is ignorant of Islam or is being deceptive about Islam.]  As part of his pile-on against Carson, he ridiculed Carson’s statement by declaring that “religious convictions should have no bearing on one’s fitness for the Oval Office.”  He said, “You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a Constitutionalist.”

News flash to Cruz:  Our Constitution never intended a belief system like Islam to be a “protected religion.”  Cruz demonstrates his ignorance of Islam by suggesting it is merely a religion, just like all other religions, worthy of respect and all the protections our Constitution has to offer.

No Cruz, Islam is not like “all other religions.”  It is different from all other religions.  Islam is an all encompassing belief system; an all encompassing lifestyle.  Islam has not only a religious component, but woven in throughout is a legal component, economic component, political component, social component, and military component.  Sharia is not just its legal component but all other components are woven into Sharia.  These are not separable from what Islam is.  And what makes Islam even more unique from all other world religions, except the religion of politics, is its “taqiyya” component.

This last gem, taqiyya, makes it nearly impossible to discern the “good Muslim” or “apostate Muslim” from the full-bore, strap-the-bomb-to-my-chest devout Muslim.

It appears that Carson has a way to go for a full appreciation of the joys of Islam.  But Cruz has even a longer way to go since he believes that a deceptive fascist belief system like Islam is protected by our Constitution.

____________________

UPDATE:   A friend of mine, a Cruz supporter, told me that I was too hard on Cruz in this blog.  He said he knows Cruz believes a lot more about Islam than he is revealing. If that’s the case, why isn’t Cruz telling us what he knows about Islam?  For the same reason ACT for America refuses to publicly admit that Islam, not just “radical” Islam, is the threat.  It remains politically incorrect (I call it political cowardice) to call out Islam for what it is.  Both Cruz and ACT for America believe that telling the truth about Islam will be bad for their message – people will call them names like “Islamophobe” and “bigot” and “hater.”  To these scared rabbits, truth is a liability.  That is a shame.  That is why I distanced myself from both ACT and Cruz.  In the long run, in spite of the mockers and name callers, truth wins out.  Concealing the truth furthers the cause of evil.  Ignorance of truth is redeemable; the truth can be learned.  Willfully misrepresenting known truth is a whole other  level of dishonesty.

Does our Constitution include orthodox Islam as a protected belief system?

In doing research on this topic it is apparent that many sources, both Islamic and Obama-leftist types (like Salon and Huffington Post) distort American history with their fabricated claims that Islam is “woven into the fabric” of America’s history.

Joining the opposition are many in the legal community, including Republican presidential candidates (most notably Cruz and Rubio), who are immersed in their own unique beliefs that enrich their profession:  Constantly changing interpretations of the Constitution.

Those same websites, commentators and candidates are the ones who are critical of Dr. Ben Carson’s legitimate concern about a Muslim president.  They suggest that Carson is ignorant about the Constitution and its prohibition of a “religious test.”

The concept of "no religious test" begs a definition of "religion" and accurate understanding of Islam.

Here is what we need to ask:  Does Islam fit the definition of "religion" as understood by the framers of our Constitution?  That is the question that should be addressed. To address that question, we need to know three things:

1) How was the term "religion" understood and intended by the framers?
2) Would they have included a belief system or ideology like orthodox Islam within their definition of "protected religion?" and
3) Does orthodox Islam as practiced by Muhammad, as reflected in the principle Islamic texts, and as practiced by the most devout Islamic leaders and practitioners today, meet the intended definition of "religion" as understood by the framers?

Significantly, we need to understand that Islam is not merely just another “religion” as we understand every other religion in the world.  Islam is uniquely an all-encompassing lifestyle belief system that encompasses economic, political, military, legal and social systems.  “Religion” is a cover for the Islamic political and legal system:  Sharia.

For the first question: How was the term "religion" understood and intended by the framers?

The most popular dictionary used within 35 years of the adoption of the Bill of Rights (adopted in 1791) is Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.  In it is given the several definitions of “religion” as understood at that time.

RELIGION, noun relij'on. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]

1. religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion. [bold added for emphasis]

2. religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1:26.

3. religion as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. [bold added for emphasis]

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; anyreligion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of thereligion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, etc. as well as of the christian religion We speak of false religion as well as of true religion

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

The “Let us with caution indulge…” part is the most revealing.  It is the cautionary preamble to the 4th definition which raises questions about inclusion of “the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammadans.”  That 4th definition is the one that most would like to impose on us today. 

It follows, then, that the previous three definitions were the ones intended by the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Those definitions include:  

• God as understood in the Judeo-Christian Biblical context,
• Understanding that disbelief in a divine law giver is NOT religion,
• Reference to the Bible to define godliness, man’s duties, obedience, and love to God and his law,
• Duties we owe to God derived from the first and second tables of the law.  These are:

First Table -- Commandments #1, #2, #3
Our Relationship To God (Vertical)
Second Table -- Commandments #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10
Our Relationship To Man (Horizontal)

There is no doubt that historical and legal opinions are divided on the framer’s intent of the definition of religion.  Interpretations fall into two opposing camps:

• Those who wish the Constitution to be an evolving document - that its original intent was never intended to remain static. That what it said was only applicable to its time, not to our time. These are the Progressives, Muhammadans, and liberals of today – and unfortunately, a fair number of legal scholars whose profession thrives on continual legal reinterpretation and  change.

These see the Constitution as “a living document” meaning it should be interpreted in any manner that favors the will of those in power.  This is exactly what the Constitution sought to avoid.  These argue that the definition of religion should be broad and vague and include every moral and immoral belief system experienced by humanity.

• Those who understand the Constitution as a constant, a document that prevents the flavor of the day from being imposed by the powers of the day.   These understand that our nation, without religion defined in the narrow sense, will lack morality.  Without morality there will be oppression and servitude:  The consequences of Muhammadism, aka Islam, in all its forms.

Here is one legal academic opinion of how to define “religion:”

In endeavoring to formulate the best possible definition, the most important elements of the continuing effort by judges and academics to define religion are:

(1) adherence to equality as a guiding interpretative principle;

(2) employing the definition in a consistent manor; and

(3) being cautious but not so frightened that the courts retreat to so vague a definition that the term religion loses its meaning.

How can religions or religious beliefs be deemed “equal?”  How can the practice of religious beliefs be equal?  How is that possible?  Employing that definition in a consistent manor is impossible, because the ‘guiding interpretative principle’ is oxymoronic.  The legal profession has already retreated to a definition so vague that the term ‘religion’ has lost its meaning.

Answer to question #1:  “Religion” was construed as the beliefs generally consistent with the then understood moral doctrines of the Bible, without distinctions as to denomination or differences between deism, theism or Judaism.  Their definition would exclude Muhammadism and other belief systems in contradiction to these basic beliefs.

 

For the second question:  Would the founders have included a belief system or ideology like orthodox Islam within their definition of "protected religion?”

Based on the foregoing, the answer would have to be a resounding “no.”

 

And the third question:  Does orthodox Islam as practiced by Muhammad, as reflected in the principle Islamic texts, and as practiced by the most devout Islamic leaders and practitioners today, meet the intended definition of "religion" as understood by the framers?

Again, a firm “no!”  Orthodox Islam promotes an ideology, a “belief system” and especially a legal system that is foreign to not only our form of governance, but to the definition of religion itself as understood by the framers of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

The website “Gates of Vienna” provides a succinct summary of this incompatibility.

If our founders fought against an unjust, oppressive Britain, I cannot imagine their welcoming of a belief system that is infinitely more oppressive than the British under the protective umbrella of “religion.”  Absolutely not!

Islam is in fact clearly a radical ideology at odds with all that our Constitution sought to protect and defend against.

Symbols of huge gulf of civility between two of the world’s largest religions…

Contrasts between the Islamic Hajj and the visit of the Catholic Pope

This week we witnessed two great religious events:  The Islamic Hajj in Saudi Arabia, and the first time the current Catholic Pope visited the United States.

If there is one prominent and unmistakable characteristic demonstrated by Muslims in Islamic nations – and in many other places around the world - it is their psychotic behavior.  Whether it is their wild shooting of their weapons into the air during their “celebrations”, their well-practiced skill of beheading those with whom they do not agree, or their vengeful spirit of intolerance of those who “insult” their “prophet” (and other psychotic behaviors too numerous to mention), they behavior can without rreservation be called “psychotic.”

Muslims and their supporters may call it “spirited”, or “devout” or “pent-up rage.”  But the result of their psychosis is evident in the frequent headlines of Islamic atrocities and uncivilized behavior.

The most recent indication of Muslim psychosis is the over 700 killed by an out of control human stampede during their Hajj – their annual trip to visit Mecca. More HERE.  Even the arguably insane and iconic “running of the bulls” sees only a handful of injuries and rare deaths. 

This many devout Muslims killed during a trip to their holiest site should tell us something about their religion, the nation that coordinates that activity, and the lack of respect for human life held by the Islamic culture.  They were not killed by a natural disaster, by a foreign invasion, or even their own well-practiced violent jihad or terror attack.  They were killed by other worshippers of their faith.

Contrast this with the visit of the Pope to Washington DC and New York City – a first time, highly anticipated, and exciting event.  Hundreds of thousands longed to get a look at the Pope during his first ever visit to this country.  Some pushing and shoving was certainly part of the effort to view him.  The event was entirely peaceful despite at least half of our population disagreeing with the Pope’s political agenda for this nation.  New York, a city with a population of over 8.4 million souls, had an even larger turnout to see the Vicar of Christ.  How many injured and dead in this similarly holy and spirited event?  Zero.

What are the differences between the Hajj and the Pope’s visit?  Answer:  The civility, or lack thereof, engendered by each religion, the Catholic and Islamic, respectively.  Islam, from its inception, has practiced violence, mistrust, and raw emotional behavior throughout the majority of its 1,400-year existence.  Catholicism, and all Christian sects, on the other hand, especially as practiced in the US, has demonstrated civility, patience and reverence. 

The cultural history of the United States is based primarily on the teachings of Christianity.  The cultural history of Saudi Arabia and most Middle Eastern nations is based primarily on the teachings of Islam.  If cultures are informed by religion, then the behaviors of the people in these two parts of the world demonstrate a stark difference in civility born of their two predominant religions.

How Islamic do we want the United States to become?  For me the answer is self-evident.

Climate change, really?

The Pope’s central theme during his visit to the United States has been “climate change.”

These charts compare recent advances in the human condition with fluctuations in temperature and CO2.  Further explanation is provided HERE.

Question:  Where would you prioritize Climate Change in the following list of world, religious, Christian or Catholic problems?

• Christian persecution in the Middle East – hundreds slaughtered weekly
• Evaporating Biblical morality (homosexuality, porn, government corruption)
• Declining birthrates below replacement level western and industrialized nations
• Decline of family stability
• Worsening racial relations in the US
• Terrorism around the world
• Resurgence of Islamic intolerance and violence
• Instability and wars throughout the Middle East
• Rampant alcohol and drug abuse
• Violent organized drug gangs
• Muslim migration as a tool of conquest
• Disregard of just laws, national order, and stability
• Credit bubble, greed and consumption problem
• National and world debt
• The light-hearted selling of baby parts
• Disrespect for institution of marriage (gay marriage, divorce rate)
• Abortions (1.3 billion worldwide since 1980 – only a tiny fraction due to rape or incest)

Seriously, “climate change?”  It has to do with NONE of the above.

Do you wonder, as I do, why a discredited “global warming” movement, whose name had to be reinvented to “climate change” to avoid embarrassment, is now declared to be the number one priority of the Catholic Church?  I don’t have an answer.  I can only speculate.  Perhaps the Church believes the influence of humanity has a greater impact on earth’s climate than the sun.  Perhaps it is the Church’s way of leveling the prosperity of nations.  Perhaps the Church believes progress, productivity and prosperity are evil.  Has the Church taken a “left tun” with this Pope?  Has the Church forgotten that human productivity reduces poverty.  Is he “anti-Capitalist?”

On this topic, Thomas Sowell has some valuable insights.  I’ve copied them below from his website:

The Left Has Its Pope

Pope Francis has created political controversy, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, by blaming capitalism for many of the problems of the poor. We can no doubt expect more of the same during his visit to the United States.

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.

There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, "The Last Hurrah."

But there has also been a more ideological left. Where the Communists had their official newspaper, "The Daily Worker," there was also "The Catholic Worker" published by Dorothy Day.

A landmark in the evolution of the ideological left among Catholics was a publication in the 1980s, by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, titled "Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy."

Although this publication was said to be based on Catholic teachings, one of its principal contributors, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, said: "I think we should be up front and say that really we took this from the Enlightenment era."

The specifics of the Bishops' Pastoral Letter reflect far more of the secular Enlightenment of the 18th century than of Catholic traditions. Archbishop Weakland admitted that such an Enlightenment figure as Thomas Paine "is now coming back through a strange channel."

Strange indeed. Paine rejected the teachings of "any church that I know of," including "the Roman church." He said: "My own mind is my own church." Nor was Paine unusual among the leading figures of the 18th century Enlightenment.

To base social or moral principles on the philosophy of the 18th century Enlightenment, and then call the result "Catholic teachings" suggests something like bait-and-switch advertising.

But, putting aside religious or philosophical questions, we have more than two centuries of historical evidence of what has actually happened as the ideas of people like those Enlightenment figures were put into practice in the real world — beginning with the French Revolution and its disastrous aftermath.

Both the authors of the Bishops' Pastoral Letter in the 1980s, and Pope Francis today, blithely throw around the phrase "the poor," and blame poverty on what other people are doing or not doing to or for "the poor."

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things — none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

Geographic settings are radically different, both among nations and within nations. So are demographic differences, with some nations and groups having a median age over 40 and others having a median age under 20. This means that some groups have several times as much adult work experience as others. Cultures are also radically different in many ways.

As distinguished economic historian David S. Landes put it, "The world has never been a level playing field." But which has a better track record of helping the less fortunate — fighting for a bigger slice of the economic pie, or producing a bigger pie?

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets, and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis' own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

_____________

Thomas Sowell, a National Humanities Medal winner, is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092215.php3#Joid3IOhwtsyGVhy.99

Muslim pandering and other destructive behaviors…

I was overwhelmed this past weekend by the outrage of the clueless media and politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and their attempts to repress the truth about Islam and what we know for a fact how Muslims are known behave.

How often have we been told “see something; say something” about suspicious behavior?  What would have happened if little Muslim Ahmed’s “clock” was what the school and police thought it might be and they did NOTHING.  It is not as if 14 year old Muslim boys are not known for being trained and encouraged to blow things up.  We all should know that by now.

But no, school officials and police are condemened for doing something when they saw something. 

By the way, what are the chances this whole thing was a set-up, like some airline incidents created by Muslims desiring to discredit those who say something.  Well, it may well have been a set-up.  One expert says little innocent Ahmed’s clock “invention” was nothing more than a disassembled manufactured clock made to look like a bomb timer.  HERE are details of that finding.   Yet this is worthy of an invitation to the White House. 

Is there a problem with any of this?  Nah.  Just because Ahmed’s dad’s main hobby is being a belligerant Muslim activist whose brother runs a trucking company called Twin Towers Transportation, what hidden agenda could they possibly have?  Besides, wasn’t the clock already invented by now?

Next we had the continued media railing against Trump for his appropriate response to the questioner about numerous Muslim training camps sprinkled around the country.  I wrote about that HERE.  Yes, children, we do indeed need to look into that.

And finally, we have the gnashing of Muslim-pandering blind eyeteeth about Ben Carson’s comment that Muslims are not fit to be President of the US.  He explained that Sharia (Islamic law) is part of Islamic doctrine believed by most Muslims.  He explained that Sharia requires legal actions – like beheadings and chopping off of hands for various offenses - that are totally at odds with the freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution.  Therefore, anyone who abides by the Islamic faith is unfit for national office.  Amen to that, Carson.

Carson has been criticized for lumping all Muslims in with those who would destroy our nation.   I shall repeat:  Muslim=Islam=Sharia=against our Constitution.  Simple.

Ted Cruz joined in the condemnation of Carson.  He chose to ignore the fact the Islam is not just a religion, but also a political, economic, social, and military ideology as he defended Islam under the Constitutional banner of being a “religion.”  That “religion” wants to abrogate Cruz’s constitution.

And Trump is still being excoriated for not stupidly assuming Obama is a Christian.  Rubio and others have their faith detectors on overdrive in pronouncing Obama’s “Christian faith”, much as Stephanopoulis did during his notorious Obama Muslim moment.

And no, this is not the moral equivalent of Catholic-bashing in the time of John Kennedy as some Muslim apologists like to portray.  Catholics were not known for beheadings since the 1,500’s and it has never been part of Catholic doctrine.  On the other hand (the one we would have left if we stole something under Sharia) there are dozens of beheadings a week under Sharia in numerous countries, and this practice is very much embedded deep into Islamic doctrine and culture.

So let’s stop the Muslim/Islam-pandering.  There is no moral equivalent in either Catholicism or the rest of Christianity to what is taught, promoted, and practiced by the majority of the Muslim population today.

Oh, yes, the “moderates” you say.  Yes, the “moderates” – the Muslims who are either practicing their doctrine of deception or who might really be benign apostate “in name only” Muslims - the “moderates” who may become tomorrow’s headline or the ones who root for, fund and politic for those who become tomorrow’s headline.  Yes, the “moderates” indeed.

I’ll close this blog by suggesting that those who understand the problem of Islam in this country do all they can to elect new leaders who understand the need to keep our Muslim population to its barest minimum.  Do not do the “bleeding heart” thing of bringing the Syrian Muslim refugees here.  We bear no responsibility and should bear no guilt when several very rich Muslim nations of the Middle East refuse to take in their own people.

It is far better that the migrating hoards be encouraged to improve conditions in their own nations rather than come here with their agenda to impose the same conditions that destroyed their nation.

Muslims and Islam: The “sacred cows” of America…

Media, RINO’s, and Dems rush to ignore facts.

Trump’s failure to mindlessly affirm Obama’s dubious Christian “faith” in response to a question at a “town hall” event has created a firestorm of angst against Trump.

Was the questioner a plant, or was he a legit Trump supporter?  Does it really matter?  The man asked a valid and timely question, despite the blind ignorance of the media and political class about the Islamic elephant in our midst.

Here is the comment from the man who wore a Trump t-shirt at the town hall event:

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims.  You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Trump reacted in surprise and sarcastically said with a grin,

"We need this question?  This is the first question?"

The man in the audience continued,

"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us.  That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

Trump replied:

"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things.  You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things."

Call me an Islamophobe, but I hope Trump means and does what he just said.

Why do I say that.

Let’s break it down.  There are three components to the above exchange with Trump:

• Obama’s dubious heritage and citizenship
• Obama’s dubious claim of “Christian faith”
• The problem of Muslim military training camps in this country

Trump and many others have demonstrated skepticism of Obama’s US birth and presidential eligibility.  Document forensic experts have conclusively determined that the alleged Obama Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery.  There is no history of Obama’s American heritage.  This is old news.

Why are there skeptics of Obama’s “Christian faith?”  There a many very good reasons.  I’ll recap for those who haven’t added them all up:

1. Obama’s father was Muslim.
2. Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia.
3. Obama changed his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein, his Muslim given name, in 1980 while he was re-discovering himself in college.
4. Obama attended a church for 20 years pastored by a “former Muslim” preaching black supremacism in the spirit of Black Muslims.
5. Islamic doctrine teaches the doctrine of taqiyya – dissimulation and deceit – to further ones Muslim goals and beliefs.  Muslims have been know to claim another faith to further their advantage, a practice now ongoing among Syrian migrants to gain access to European nations.
6. Obama stated, wistfully, that the sound of the call to Islamic prayers at sunset are the prettiest sounds on earth.
7. Until “corrected” by his interviewer, Obama referred to “my Muslim faith.”
8. Obama appointed more Muslims to positions of high advisory positions in the federal government than all previous presidents combined.
9. Obama celebrates Muslim holidays and special events more than those of any other religion.
10. Obama’s foreign policy supports and rewards Islamic nations and groups while dissing the enemies of these nations and groups.
11. Obama strongly promoted a one-sided agreement that facilitates Iran’s further development of a nuclear weapon over the objections of many in the military, Congress, and intelligence community of the US.
12. Obama defends Islam by directing agencies to pretend that terror performed by Muslims in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
13. Obama has shown little regard to Christianity; has said little about rampant persecution of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims and Muslim nations.
14. Obama has done everything a devout Muslim would do short of personally engaging in violent jihad.

Do we need more evidence?

And finally, are there really Muslim training camps in the US?  The evidence HERE says ABSOLUTELY.  And HERE.  And HERE.  And sites like THIS ONE dismiss this evidence as Islamophobia, just like the media howling at Trump for not chastising the very valid question the man at the town hall was asking.

HERE is the complete CNN story.  Scrolling down on that link is another link to the alleged “Islamophobia problem.”  The REAL Islamophobia problem is the propensity of our media to remain ignorant of the Islamic doctrine and threat to our nation.  The real “Islamophobia problem” is calling Islamophobia a problem.  It is not a “problem”.  It is a legitimate concern and warning that requires an urgent wake up call.

Last Night’s Debate Results Based on Three National Polls…

Here they are, from Newsmax, Drudge Report, and the Right Scoop.  Any surprises?

Candidate	Newsmax	Drudge	Right Scoop
Donald Trump	46.26%	51.00%	47.34%
Carly Fiorina	20.11%	22.00%	20.83%
Sen. Marco Rubio	9.32%	6.00%	8.76%
Dr. Ben Carson	9.22%	4.00%	5.67%
Sen. Ted Cruz	5.67%	6.00%	4.78%
Gov. John Kasich	3.10%	1.00%	1.95%
Gov. Chris Christie	2.14%	1.00%	2.24%
Gov. Jeb Bush	1.45%	1.00%	2.25%
Sen. Rand Paul	1.27%	4.00%	5.26%
Gov. Mike Huckabee	1.04%	1.00%	0.58%
Gov. Scott Walker	0.41%	1.00%	0.34%

I am surprised by how low Walker, Huckabee, Paul, Bush and Christie are.  Kasich deserves to be low.  It’s really good to see the bad response to Bush.

Fiorina did very well, but our household’s impression was she was too  rigid, robotic, no “soft side”, no smile.

I’m impressed by Rubio, but still haunted by his immigration faux pas.

Trump was the center of attention with 44% of the questions focusing on his previous remarks.  Were these “attacks” or just points of reference for discussion?

Trump needs to bone up his details, his substance on  several of the issues.  He said he is coming out with his new tax plan in three weeks.  He needs to say more about foreign policy.  On the other hand, he could merely emphasize his negotiating skills (yet again) and suggest that all the other candidates who give away their foreign policy detail are poor negotiators, as he would say “…and by the way, the other candidates are telling our enemies exactly what we will do – you don’t do that when you negotiate.”

I really appreciate the wisdom of whoever said “I will refuse to negotiate with Iran – you don’t negotiate with those people.”

Cuss words, political correctness, Washington Kool-Aid, the Papacy and why we do stupid things….

What do political correctness, Washington Kool-Aid, and the Vatican have in common?

Answer:  They all result in stupid outcomes.

I’ll start with the evolution of English cuss words.  The evolution of English cuss words bridge the gap between moral and political correctness.

For example, using the words God or Jesus in certain contexts is considered swearing – also known as using the Lord’s name in vane.

To overcome that problem, we have reverted to “gosh” or “gosh darn” or “golly gee.”

Certain sex acts used as cuss words are also common.  The “f” word is prominent among them.  To overcome that problem, many have reverted to words like “freakin’” or “friggin” to try to be more polite.

I once used the term “freakin’” in a blog and was called on it for being profane.  The bridge between “morally correct” and “politically correct” was crossed.  For me, it was a bridge too far.

I never got around to reminding my accuser of a hundred similar evolved terms that substitute for the original cuss words.  An oldie but goodie is “dag nabbit.”  You can guess what that stood for.  How bad is that considered to be nowadays?  HERE is a list of 140 of them for starters.  Most of us wouldn’t be able to effectively express ourselves at all if my censor had her way.  Blacklisting those terms is more “political correctness” than “moral correctness.”

Moving on to Washington DC Kool-Aid.  I have noticed in my writing blogs that it is easier to express my true opinions  to the anonymous world than it is saying the same things to a friend or neighbor who I think might disagree with me.  That’s a bit of the Stockholm Syndrome in action.  Closeness can even stifle political expression completely.  I have a friend who is commanded by his wife to totally chill on politics.  And he obeys.

Life in Washington DC is much the same way.  A candidate running for office has certain opinions that his local electorate ultimately relates to.  No problem.  Everyone is simpatico.  He gets himself elected.  When he gets to Washington, he finds a different fish pond than his electorate was in.  They have a totally different value system.  The newly elected is a fish out of water for awhile – until he has to jump into the big DC pond to survive.  Suddenly the elites, the liberals, the socialists, the progressives, the Communists, the Chamber of Commerce, Big Business lobbyists and others with other-worldly beliefs are all his close neighbors.  This new fish in this strange new pond needs to adjust, and quickly.  His Stockholm Syndrome kicks into overdrive.   Overdrive is his newfound urge to go along to get along.  Poof, there goes his former constituency.  “To hell with them – I’m with the big boys now,” he says.  He drank the Kool-Aid.

Speaking of being isolated in a fully insulated pond like Washington DC, I bring you the Vatican – or more specifically, the Papacy.  Problem number one:  The current Pope is from a purely Socialist pond in South America.  Problem number two:  He is transferred to a totally insulted  and out of touch nation-state, the Vatican, half a world away. Is it any wonder why the Pope urges Catholics in Europe should take in Syrian migrants?  It doesn’t matter that the great majority are Muslim, that Islam promotes “migration jihad” and that some unknown number of them are known to be ISIS-related jihadists.

Is it any wonder  why the Pope supports the ill-conceived Iran nuke agreement on one hand and urges Israel to get rid of its nukes on the other?  It doesn’t matter that all of Israel’s neighbors hate Jews, are striving to eradicate Israel from the face of the planet as “Job #1”, and one of Israel’s neighbors is in the process of building nukes to accomplish that.  Pope out of touch, ya think?

The icing on the cake is the Pope’s visit to the White House to meet and interact with an invited transvestite, a gay Bishop, and a pro-abortion Nun.  Some say Obama, the divider in chief, did the inviting without knowledge of the Pope.  It doesn’t matter that these behaviors have been anathema to The Church for 2,000 years and pandering to these behaviors is likely to create a greater schism.  Pure Obama.

Yes indeed, political correctness does cause people to do stupid things.

Why the slogan “Support Your Local Police” doesn’t work in all places…

The John Birch Society has a wonderful bumper sticker:  “Support Your Local Police.”  I agree with that admonition.  Everyone I know in my small world supports it.  Support not only envisions support by the local population, but also encompasses the idea of police departments remaining independent of state and federal control.  As we’ve seen in several recent events, the “local” police are not trusted and have fallen under state or federal control.

The idea of “support your local police” also goes hand in hand with the idea of “support your local LAWS.”  It’s amazing how closely related these two concepts are.  When local police are not supported, neither are the local laws.

Unfortunately, the reality is not everyone agrees with enforcing local laws OR supporting local police.  In fact the scales are tipping nationwide.

Here is the breakdown of who do not support their local police:

• Large numbers in metropolitan areas larger than 500,000 don’t
• A large percentage of blacks don’t
• Most Muslims don’t
• Most anti-gun people don’t
• Big government proponents don’t
• Sanctuary city proponents don’t
• Illegal immigrants don’t
• Drug cartels don’t
• Most criminals don’t

Criminals and drug cartels are a no-brainer.  So let’s move on to the others.

Illegal immigrants and sanctuary city proponents are allies.  Neither want the laws enforced.  After all, illegals are already criminals.  Sanctuary city proponents nullify the laws to pretend no one is a criminal.  And obviously, where illegals exist outside of sanctuary cities, they have no reason to support their local police or local laws.

Big government proponents look down on local governments as Neanderthals who don’t know any better.  This represents many in state and particularly in federal government, especially in the legal and social service arenas.  The map above does not show all sanctuary cities.  For a live map that shows dozens more, click HERE.

The anti-gun crowd, at all levels, generally don’t like police because – you guessed it – they carry guns.  The unarmed Bobbies of Britain are probably held as role models.

Muslims don’t like police or laws because deep down inside, usually well concealed, they don’t like much about our culture, laws, or government and can’t wait to impose Islamic Sharia.

A large percentage of the black population remain racist.  Look at the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama – for no reason other than he was seen as “black.”  As racists, they believe they can do no wrong.  Therefore they are resentful of both the laws and the police when they break the law.

Large segments of the population in the largest metropolitan areas are generally on welfare, a minority, and pandered to by liberal politicians.  Their socialization skills fall below those required for those residing in “a nation of laws.”  So both the politicians and their subjects dislike laws as well as police whose job is to enforce those laws.

So, while in my neck of the woods I and my friends and acquaintances support our local laws and local police, I understand that the concept of supporting either is complex.  It is not simply a quick conversation at a McDonald’s with a stranger and a bumper sticker that says “support your local police.”  It isn’t even a matter of having a conversation with my State Representative to promote the concept because my district already supports those things.

Unfortunately our nation has devolved into a population that prefers lawlessness and disrespect for authority, even at the highest levels of government.  Each group of rebels have their own excuses.  And many in government support and promote those excuses.  Those of us who still believe in supporting law and order are barely a declining majority.  We are called bigots, haters, and Nazi’s for wanting to support the police and our laws.  Very strange indeed.