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. 

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 Salon,  Esquire, 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.

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

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.”

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.

Truths vs. political correctness about Islam

The last thing we need is more watered-down, naïve, 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.

____________________________

About

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).

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:

https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/the-us-government-s-not-so-secret-support-for-al-qaeda-and-isis-f547b8593b0b

http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2015/09/us-military-revolt-against-obamas-decision-to-support-al-qaeda-in-syria/

http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/obama-airdrops-50-tons-of-ammo-for-to-moderate-al-qaeda-in-syria-islamic-state.html/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/28/pentagon-confirms-u-s-trained-syrian-rebels-gave-arms-al-qaeda/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/11415375/Egypt-wades-deeper-into-the-quicksand-of-Libyas-civil-war.html

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/08/30/will-egypt-follow-syria-into-civil-war

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.  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:

…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.”

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