Tuesday, October 20, 2015

When NOT to accept the term “bigot”…

The term “bigot” is has been thrown around like baseballs during the World Series.  Sometimes its application hits the mark and sometimes it totally misses the mark.  Too often it misses the mark when it is used against an individual merely because they dislike what was said, even if it is the truth.   In the case of Muslims or their apologists, they will often call someone a bigot even when what is said about Islam or Muslims is correct.   Sometimes we impose on ourselves the label of “bigot” when we have negative thoughts about a particular group of people.

But what about the times when the negative thoughts or comments we feel or that are expressed about a particular group of people are factually correct – i.e. “the truth.”

When are we most likely to be called a “bigot?”  Here are four of my favorites:

  • When we speak the truth about Islamic history and beliefs
  • When we express distrust of Muslim based on their avowed practices
  • When we express concern about illegal immigration
  • When we express concern about an out of control immigration policy that takes away jobs of US citizens

Let’s look at the definition of “bigot” from Merriam Webster:

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Dissecting this definition,  the word “unfairly” is important.  Unfairly implies that the dislike is for reasons that are not justifiable, are unfair, or are false.  On the other hand, if the reasons for your negative feelings or statements are justifiable, fair, and true, the dislike is not bigoted.

Next, the word “dislike.”  Having negative feelings about a person may not necessarily be “dislike.”  It could be “fear”.  It could be “disagreement.”  It could be “discomfort.”     It  may be “pity” or “deep concern.”  “Dislike” may or may not be a component of your feelings, especially if your feelings are fact based.  In fact feelings of fear, disagreement, discomfort, pity, or deep concern may be justified by factual knowledge about an individual who is factually known to be a threat due to his known beliefs, associations and declarations.

The “especially” part of the definition is merely an example based on the criteria set forth in the first part of the definition.  It should not be interpreted without the overarching application of the first part, especially “unfairly” and “dislike.”

Now, let’s apply the definition of bigot to those of us who may be called a “bigot” or who might tend to self identify ourselves as a bigot for harboring fear of, or disagreement or discomfort about  Muslims.

Are we bigots for harboring feelings of fear, disagreement, discomfort, pity or deep concern with Muslims?

The answer:  Absolutely not!  Why not?  Because those feelings are based on the following facts:

  • The life and example of Islam’s leader, Muhammad.  Learn the life of Muhammad and you will know the beliefs and tendencies of Muslims.
  • The interpretation of Islamic texts, both historically and currently.  Learn the doctrine of abrogation and you will know the parts of the Qur’an that take precedence.
  • The teaching and practice of mainstream Islam throughout history and currently.  Learn the historical conquests of Islam and you will know what to expect from an Islamic resurgence, renewal, revitalization or whatever you want to call what is going on today.
  • The words and declaration of Muslims throughout history and currently.  Listen to Islamic leaders and spokesmen today, take them at their word, and know what to expect.
  • The fact that those who identify as “Muslim” declare their faithfulness to all of the above.  Why would they self-identify if they did not believe?
  • All the above provide factual evidence that Islam is intolerant, supremacist, vengeful, and declare hatred, annihilation, or second class citizenship toward anyone who does not convert to Islam.
  • Those who call themselves “Muslim” and claim they do not hold to the above beliefs are either apostate or are liars, practicing the Islamic doctrine of “taqiyya.”  Why would a person identify with the known evil of Islam if they did not believe it?  Without knowing such person intimately, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference.

Those who use the word “bigot” or anything-“phobe” against us do so with the intent to silence us.  We sometimes silence ourselves unnecessarily as a result of our cultural conditioning.  Get over it!

So, in answer to the question:  When should we NOT accept the term “bigot?”

Don’t accept the term “bigot” when our observation or concern is factually correct and verifiable.  The term bigot is inappropriate for our fact-based feelings and expressions of concern regarding Muslims. 

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Did Bush “dubya” 44 keep us “safe?”

I didn’t think much about the question “did Bush dubya keep us safe” until recently  - a month after Jeb Bush first raised the topic during his September 14 debate when he proclaimed in frustration:

“You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe.”

Then it dawned on me – a month after those mindlessly defensive words – no Jeb, your brother absolutely failed to keep us safe.  We lost 3,000 souls during his watch and began a foreign policy chasing the wrong boogie men.

Not surprisingly, the left wing media jumped on Jeb Bushes’ failed attempt to claim his brother “kept us safe.”  HERE is one example from Think Progress.  Others who jumped on Jeb’s doomed claim include SalonEsquire, Huffington Post , Chris Matthews and several others. 

That Jeb miss-step gave Trump an opportunity to pile on, which he appropriately did in an interview with Bloomberg TV a few days ago when he stated:

"When you talk about George Bush, I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time…"

It’s amusing that the liberal mainstream media are today mocking Trump for saying the same thing about Bush’s failure as the liberal media said three weeks ago.

And yet , in a Breitbart review of Jeb Bush’s 2013 book ‘Immigration Wars’ Jeb Bush himself joined Trump’s argument and concluded that our “leaky” immigration policy was at least partially responsible for the attack.

Bush wrote:

“In addition to the Mexican drug cartels, the fact that several of the 9/11 terrorists entered the country lawfully under a leaky immigration system has heightened national security concerns—so much so that immigration enforcement has been placed under the Department of Homeland Security.”

Now a month after his attempted defense of his brother during the debate, Jeb persists in the impossible – making his case sound hopelessly pathetic – and destroying his assertion that he has distanced himself form his brother.  Here is the latest on this Trump-Bush feud from Politico.  Trump is winning the feud because he is not trying to defend the indefensible as Jeb is doing.  Will Jeb also attempt to defend the words of his brother – the words that distracted the United States from the real cause of the 9/11 attack - the belief system that motivated the attack - Islamic fundamentalism?

Here are his brother’s words – our president’s words 6 days after 9-11:

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.  That’s not what Islam is all about.  Islam is peace.  These terrorists don’t represent peace.  They represent evil and war.

“When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.  Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace.  And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race – out of every race.”

Those words clearly and painfully explain why Jeb’s brother did not keep us safe – why 3,000 were murdered during an Islamic-inspired attack on our nation under his watch.  For Bush dubya to utter those deceptive and woefully ignorant words only meant that he relied on advisors who not only misrepresented Islam, but failed to provide timely and accurate intelligence concerning the carefully planned Islamic-inspired attack.

Is this what Jeb is defending?  Jeb is defending his brother’s blindness about Islam.  He likely shares the same blindness and will likely share the same Islamo-ignorant and politically correct advisors.

Jeb has an even worse liability than the poor homeland security record of his older brother.  Jeb was governor of Florida during the lead up to 9-11.  During Jeb’s watch, many of the 9-11 Muslim hijackers were issued Florida drivers licenses that gave these killers free access to things reserved for US citizens.  Here’s the clincher from Breitbart revealing Jeb’s weakness on immigration and national security:

“Despite an attempt to address the news that some of the hijackers obtained the Florida I.D. cards, IBT pointed out, ‘Bush in 2004 endorsed a Florida bill to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for the very same identification cards carried by many of the September 11 hijackers.’”

Shame on George; shame on Jeb.

Image result for bush Islam is a religion of peace

…and if you ignore 1,400 years of Islamic deception and conquest based on orthodox Islamic doctrine.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Imagine a Trump-Carson presidency…

Imagine, for a moment, Trump as President and Carson as VP.  We will have a classic “bad cop – good cop” scenario – or at least “loud cop – soft cop.”

Image result for what would a trump carson presidency look like

First off, our enemies will become totally confused and thrown off-balance.  Carson will come across as patient, well-reasoned, soft-spoken and level headed.  Then Trump will pile on and accuse them of every form of stupidity and incompetence known to man.  Putin and the Ayatollah won’t know up from down.  Trump will appoint Alan West as Secretary of Defense.

To our black gang bangers, Trump will hold rallies in the inner cities, drawing huge crowds, and shaming the derelict parents into a semblance of responsibility while Carson will smooth things over with plain talk of saving babies and saving the young black generation.

To the fascist Muslims, Carson will expand his absolutely correct belief that no Muslim should be president into a policy that NO Muslim is fit to hold ANY office in the United States as Trump fires every politically correct moron in the State Department, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security.

Next, the illegal invaders from the South.  Trump will implement his deportation plans while he employs 50,000 workers to build The Wall, the largest public works project since the Hoover Dam.  At the same time, Carson will schmooze the Hispanic leaders of LEGAL immigrants into developing programs to fully assimilate themselves into American culture.

Oh, and the media.  Trump will buy ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN and auction each off to the highest bidders who haven’t offended him and donate the proceeds to children’s hospitals all over the country managed by the Carson family.  And finally, Trump will hire Megan Kelly as Press Secretary.

The above results of a Trump/Carson presidency are presented tongue in cheek.  Whether the above scenarios  or something similar play out, it would be interesting to watch a Trump/Carson team take the reins of power and influence in this country.  What a great and refreshing change – what a wonderful world that would be.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Truths vs. political correctness about Islam

The last thing we need is more watered-down, na├»ve, or deceptively incorrect descriptions of Islam as if it is merely just another religion to be respected and defended.  We need truth about that belief system.  Truth about Islam has been in short supply in the media, academia, in most churches, and in our government. 

Churches, especially, have been complicit in their own demise as a result of their silence about what Islam is all about.  Instead of pretending that Islam is just another religion that Christians can partner with or “respect”, teach the truth.  Teach the truth that Islamic doctrine does not promote brotherhood with other belief systems, but insists on dominance and conquest.  There may be a season of conciliatory talk, but that is part of their taqiyya.

Raymond Ibrahim (see his biography at the end of this blog) is one of the few nationally known experts on Islam who experienced the truth, studied the truth, learned the truth and tells the truth about Islam.

Below are two versions of a presentation titled “Muslim Persecution of Christian Martyrs: Past and Present” he made in August to a church in Texas.  The first video is an excerpted version of about 5 minutes in length.  The second is his full presentation of a bit more than an hour.

His presentations are particularly noteworthy and timely because he focuses on these ignored truths about Islam:

  • The Barnes and Noble “Karen Armstrong” treatment of Islam is all the media knows – the “nice”, watered-down, fully abrogated (replaced) version of Islam.
  • ISIS is today what Islam has been from the days of Muhammad.
  • It is a perversion of Islam to believe that Islam is a “moderate” religion that is capable of coexistence with Western or Judeo-Christian values and forms of governance.
  • Those Muslims referred to as “radicals” are NOT practicing a perverted or hijacked version of Islam.  They are practicing Islam as Islam has been promoted through the past 1,400 years.
  • The persecution of Christians by Muslims in Islamic nations around the world today is no different than the manner and scope of persecution of Christians by Muhammad and the centuries following.
  • The term “persecution” does not merely mean expression of dislike of Christian doctrine or Christians, but the burning of Christian Churches and beheading of Christians who do not submit to Islam.
  • Anyone who calls himself “Muslim” is devoted to a belief system that is fully at odds with our freedoms (except to use against us to promote Islam), our form of government, our Constitution, and virtually any non-Islamic belief system.
  • The overwhelming majority of Muslims will manifest their belief system through either economic jihad (funding terrorism), political jihad (advocating for sharia), social jihad (migration/reproduction),  violent jihad (terror/killing) or a combination.  It is difficult to know in advance which of these means will be utilized by any particular Muslim because they are all sanctioned by Islam.

Churches across our nation would be wise to devote a few programs to this video and this topic and remind their congregations on a continual basis of the truths and travesties of Islam.


Raymond Ibrahim from North American Lutheran Church on Vimeo.



RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a widely published author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist.  His books include Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). His writings, translations, and observations have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Times, CNN, LA Times, Fox News, Financial Times, Jerusalem Post, New York Times Syndicate, United Press International, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Weekly Standard; scholarly journals, including the Almanac of Islamism, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, and Middle East Review of International Affairs; and popular websites, such as American Thinker, the Blaze, Bloomberg, Breitbart, Christian Post, FrontPage Magazine, Gatestone Institute, the Inquisitr, Jihad Watch, NewsMax, National Review Online, PJ Media, the UK’s Commentator, and World Magazine. He has contributed chapters to several anthologies and been translated into dozens of languages.

Ibrahim guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, briefs governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam and the worsening plight of Egypt’s Christian Copts. Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, Blaze TV, CBN, and NPR; he has done hundreds of radio interviews.

Ibrahim’s dual-background—born and raised in the U.S. by Coptic Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East—has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former. His interest in Islamic civilization was first piqued when he began visiting the Middle East as a child in the 1970s. Interacting and conversing with the locals throughout the decades has provided him with an intimate appreciation for that part of the world, complementing his academic training.

Raymond received his B.A. and M.A. (both in History, focusing on the ancient and medieval Near East, with dual-minors in Philosophy and Literature) from California State University. There he studied closely with noted military-historian Victor Davis Hanson. He also took graduate courses at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies—including classes on the history, politics, and economics of the Arab world—and studied Medieval Islam and Semitic languages at Catholic University of America. His M.A. thesis examined an early military encounter between Islam and Byzantium based on arcane Arabic and Greek texts.

Ibrahim’s resume includes serving as Associate Director of the Middle East Forum and working as a Reference Assistant at the Near East Section of the Library of Congress, where he was often contacted by, and provided information to, defense and intelligence personnel involved in the fields of counterterrorism and area studies, as well as the Congressional Research Service.

He resigned from both positions in order to focus exclusively on researching and writing and is currently, among other things, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow, Middle East Forum, and a Hoover Institution Media Fellow (2013).

Monday, October 12, 2015

US opposes stability in the Middle East. Why?

First it was Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  Then it was Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Then it was Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.  Now it is Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

All of these men were leaders of their Muslim nations.  Assad still is.  All of these men maintained order and stability, often with an iron fist.  All of these men  protected minorities, including Christians, as long as they did not attempt to overthrow their nation’s leaders.

In each instance, the United States was complicit in facilitating the overthrow of these leaders.  The result in each instance was chaos, bloodshed, instability, and a vacuum filled by ever more vile and violent versions of orthodox Islam – the religion of death.  The result was the birth and rapid and rabid growth of ISIS and the persecution and murder of thousands of Christians and not-devout-enough Muslims.  And now we see this instability become the pretext of a vast migration that will be known in future Euro-Arabic textbooks as the great Islamic Trojan Horse of Europe.

Egypt remains on the brink of civil war.  Libya is totally engulfed in civil war.  ISIS is making inroads into Afghanistan.  Iraq has been decimated with the balance of power reverting to Iran with possible nukes and an end-times-longing Ayatollah.  And now Syria.

The US is has been supplying al Qaeda fighting in Syria against Assad with tens of millions worth of armaments.  Al Qaeda!  The same al Qaeda that launched us into our 10-year war in Afghanistan.  The same al Qaeda that we claim was behind the 9-11 attack.  We are supplying arms to them in Syria while we fight them in Afghanistan.  As Trump would say, “that is a terrible deal.”

Why are we doing these things?  Is Obama’s policy clueless or by design?  Toward what end?  To overthrow Assad?  To overthrow the only force in Syria that is capable of maintaining any semblance of order against the unrelenting violence of a reborn Islamic death cult.  And we are assisting with that blitzkrieg – against Russia!  We are helping a murderous enemy to destroy a close Russian ally in Russia’s back yard.

Why?  Why are we doing this?  What’s in it for us?  Is it really as simple as fattening the bottom line of the military-industrial complex using taxpayer money to sell arms to some fighting force willing to use them?  Or do we have a president and federal government full of Muslims who seek opportunity to facilitate orthodox Islam’s resurgent aspirations for their beloved Islamic Caliphate?

I hate to have to say it – but common sense comes down on the side of Russian policy and actions in Syria.  Russia understands and is willing to support the type of government required to stem supremacist Islamic aspirations.  They know strong and merciless dictators are required in that roiling environment to maintain any semblance of order and stability.

The US does not. 

We don’t understand the Middle East mindset and Islamic ideology as well as Russia does.  Or else we are purposely muddying the Muslim waters with our ill-conceived designs. 

Our misplaced priority is attempting to recreate the Middle East in our image for our purposes.  The tragic result in the world of Islam is instability, destruction and more death and mayhem than under any dictator trying to maintain order.  If our objective is to benevolently save lives – we failed.  If our objective is to perpetuate mayhem, we’re a wild success.

Our actions are at odds with the desire of the great majority of Americans.  We blindly follow suicidal European policy as if we have no mind of our own.  We are doing things at odds with what we stand for as a nation and that erode our nationhood.  And we are doing things, frankly, that should be none of our business.

For further reading, here are a few web sites that provide additional background to our misadventure in Syria and the rest of the Islamic Middle East:







Thursday, October 01, 2015

President ignores evidence and jumps the gun - again

Here are several damning pieces of evidence (coincidence, some will say) of the most likely motivation behind the Oregon Community College massacre:

  1. The community college where the massacre took place is attended by Alek Skarlatos, one of the three men who foiled an Islamic attack on the train in France in August 2015. alek scarlatos 2 What are the odds of this?

    President Obama meets with Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, left, Anthony Sadler and Air Force Airman 1st Class Spencer Stone in the Oval Office (link)


  2. The shooter’s online presence has two photos; one of a prior girl friend, the other of a known Muslim jihadi promoting death to infidels.  See HERE and HERE.
  3. Chris Harper Mercer, the assassin, demanded to know the religion of each person he shot.  The Christians were shot in the head; the others shot in their legs.
  4. ISIS claims credit for the killing

Some claim that Mercer was merely a confused and troubled young man.  Others claim that permissive gun laws made him do it.  The guns didn’t motivate him.  If there were no guns, he would have found another way.  It’s no more difficult to set off home made explosives, release a gas, or stab a dozen people than to shoot accurately.

How much more evidence does our government require?  Even when Muslims like Hasan of Fort Hood Shooter fame clearly announce their religion and their intentions, our government ignores Islam as a motivator. 

The evidence shows that once again, the Islamic ideology of hate and revenge, likely encouraged by communication with like minded jihadis, motivated his actions.  It takes diverse but reliable independent web news sites to expose these revelations.  Our government and the government’s media ignore these facts and create any number of off-the-wall diversions.

Here are the root causes of this Oregon tragedy: 

  • The mindset of a man influenced and motivated by the anti-Christian hatred of Islam which we sweep under the rug, and
  • The disarming of defenseless students and  college security

Ironically, the day before the Oregon Community College massacre, Obama spoke before the United Nations and proclaimed “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith, so no one should ever be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith.”  He Tweeted out the same message, below:

Screen Shot 2015-10-01 at 2.14.00 PM

…says our taqiyya-prone, Muslim-inspired president.  Islam is the personification of “violent extremism.”  Violent extremism may not be unique to any one faith, but the facts show violent extremism is 1,000 to 1 more prevalent in Islam and those influenced by Islam in the past few decades than all other other belief systems combined. 

See “Religion of Peace”.

It is unconscionable that our president ignores and dismisses the evidence as an excuse to disarm law abiding citizens.

Re-engage sound research and reason!  Reinstate profiling!   

Obama is the biggest deceiver, the biggest threat, our nation has experienced in a president.  I just hope our nation can endure the remaining months of this seditionist and divider-in-chief!

Russia bombing the “good guys” in Syria, really?

The story coming out of Washington via our gullible media is that Russia’s first bombing targets of choice were the US-trained, good-natured, pro-US, pro-democracy, nation-building Syrian rebels who are against mean ol’ Bashar Assad, the evil man of Damascus.

How many of the alleged “good guy” rebels did we train for their Syrian excursion?  Was it 5 for $10 million each or did we recruit a small army?  News sources indicate that one of the groups is called the “Free Syrian Army” comprised of defected Syrian military, included for Syrian Air Force Pilots.

Other sources indicate that CIA-sponsored rebels are predominantly comprised of al Qaeda.

“…the ‘rebels’ that Obama was aiding in Syria were al Qaeda. Or as the Obama administration referred to them as ‘moderate al qaeda’.  - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-targeted-us-backed-rebels-u-s-officials-say.html/#sthash.22M1I0HR.dpuf

Who these people really are is anyone’s guess.

Our recent history in the Middle East suggests we have consistently bet on the wrong group of Muslims.  In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in Egypt we have consistently failed to partner with reliable allies.  We ended up creating huge power vacuums all over the place which more devout, more militant, and more savage Muslims filled.

We should be learning by now that there is no group of Muslims in the Middle East we can trust.

As I’ve said many times, our failures in the Middle East result from our failure to admit who the enemy is.  Not admitting the ideology that drives the enemy:  Islam.  Not admitting the doctrines that rules Islam:  deception, intolerance, intrigue, violence.

Russia gets it.  They have been much closer neighbors to the Middle East than we have been.  We have been dealing with the relatively civilized Middle East Muslim oil barons who will appear to be whatever is required to broker their oil deal with the US.  We only wish the grass roots were like the oil barons.  Russia understands the grass roots.  They understand what they are dealing with.  That is why they understand that Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad-types are the only things that bring reasonable order out of the chaos spawned by Islam.  We haven’t caught on yet.  We still believe “nation-building” and recreating the Middle East in our image is the way.  Yah, sure, you betcha.

Here is a recent headline about Donald Trump’s take on Russian bombing in Syria:

Russian airstrikes in Syria 'OK' with Trump

And I agree.  Here is an excerpt of what he says about it…

"We always give weapons, we give billions of dollars in weapons and then they turn them against us. We have no control. So we don't know the other people that we're supposed to be backing," Trump said of U.S. involvement in the region. "We don't even know who we are backing."

Given our recent history in the Middle East and the nature of Islam which the US has refused to admit, Trump is the ONLY candidate who “gets it.”