Muslim Appreciation Month

Sunday, August 7, AD 2016

 

u1_muslims

 

Coming soon to a state near you.  The California Assembly has designated August Muslim Appreciation Month.  Here is the text of the resolution:

 

WHEREAS, Freedom of religion holds distinction as a cherished right and a foundational value upon which the laws and ethics of the United States are based; and

WHEREAS, Enriched by the unparalleled diversity of its residents, the State of California takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by the many varied religious, political, and cultural traditions of its diverse population, including those Americans who practice Islam; and

WHEREAS, The history of Islam in this country dates back to before its founding, originating with African slaves who brought their Muslim beliefs with them to the Americas and who later contributed in numerous ways to the founding of the nation, and there are today millions of Muslim Americans, both immigrant and native-born, of diverse backgrounds and beliefs; and

WHEREAS, The United States benefits greatly from the expertise, patriotism, and humanitarianism of Muslim Americans, who represent 10 percent of America’s physicians, helping to heal hundreds of thousands of Americans each year; who have long distinguished themselves as courageous and dedicated members of the United States Armed Forces, fighting and sacrificing in every major war from the American Revolutionary War to present-day conflicts; and who regularly contribute to the health and vitality of their communities, giving food to the hungry, sheltering the needy, and providing inexpensive or free health services, among other community services; and

WHEREAS, The earliest Muslim immigrants to California mostly worked on farms and made significant contributions to early agricultural efforts, and since the abolition of the national quota on immigration in 1965 by the passage of the Hart-Celler Act, more and more Muslims have migrated to California, with approximately one million Muslim Americans currently residing in communities throughout the state, the highest number in the United States; and

WHEREAS, Similarly, there are currently more than 240 mosques in California, more than any other state in the nation, and the people of California and the greater United States benefit from the several large Muslim religious, educational, charitable, advocacy, and empowerment organizations that operate within the state, as well as from the countless prominent Muslim community leaders who distinguish themselves professionally as business owners, law professionals, doctors, engineers, teachers, and farmers, among numerous other valued professions; and

WHEREAS, Although the majority of Muslim Americans within California and throughout the nation strive to promote peace and understanding between all faiths, identities, and nationalities while upholding those values and principles that define the American people, they have nonetheless been forced to endure harassment, assault, and discrimination since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, and during the year 2015 alone, there were approximately 174 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism in the United States. It is therefore appropriate to acknowledge and promote awareness of the myriad invaluable contributions of Muslim Americans in California and across the country, and extend to them the respect and camaraderie every American deserves; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly joins communities throughout the State of California in recognizing the month of August 2016 as Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month, respectfully acknowledges the rich history and guiding virtues of Muslim Americans, and commends Muslim communities in California for the lasting positive impact they have made, and continue to make, toward the advancement of the state and the nation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

The website Creeping Sharia has noted some 50 contributions by Muslims to California over the past year:

 

  1. California: Muslim earns 15 years in prison for trying to join ISIS
  2. California: Two (More) Muslims Convicted of ISIS Terror Support in Anaheim
  3. California: Muslim Woman at LAX Threatens to Bomb America (VIDEO)
  4. California: Muslim gets 12 years in terrorism case
  5. San Bernardino terrorist’s friend linked to Muslim group arrested for 2012 jihad plot
  6. Brother of San Bernardino terrorist, 2 others arrested for immigration fraud
  7. 17 Muslims Detained, Released After Chanting Allah Akbar, Firing Rifles, Shotguns Near San Bernardino
  8. California: Muslim “Refugee” Indicted for Attempt to Support Islamic Terrorists
  9. San Diego: Brother of Muslim Killed Fighting with Islamic State Lied to FBI, Charged
  10. Muslim attack on California university campus was ISIS-inspired
  11. California: Syrian immigrant gets 8 years for lying about his Islamic terror ties
  12. California: Muslim named Jihad arrested after bomb threat on cop shop
  13. Los Angeles: Father, Shehada Issa, killed son for being gay
  14. California: Muslim Uber driver arrested for raping woman after driving her home
  15. California: Muslim indicted for attempting to join Islamic terror group
  16. Black Muslim Chases, Tackles White Trump Supporter After San Jose Rally
  17. Egyptian on Student Visa Facing Deportation for Death Threat Against Donald Trump
  18. California: “I would die and kill for Allah” – Muslim arrested for attempted murder
  19. California: Father of Jihad Suspect to Muslims: ‘Don’t Even Think About Telling Govt’
  20. Muslim Students Trap, Bully San Diego State’s Jewish President
  21. Muslims Terrorize Jewish Students at UC-Irvine Movie Screening, Police Rescue
  22. Muslims force California school system to remove forced conversion of Hindus to Islam from history
  23. Jewish Woman Forced to Hide From Muslim Thugs at UC-Irvine
  24. California: Muslim arrested in online threat to UC Santa Cruz
  25. UC Berkeley students: Chattanooga jihad justified, nothing to do with Islam
  26. Cal-Berkeley Student’s Article “On Leaving Islam” Retracted…Fearing Muslim Violence
  27. California: Muslim Pleads Guilty to Providing Material Support to ISIS, Lying on Passport
  28. California: Muslim fugitive caught, files lawsuit over hijab removal
  29. San Diego: Iraqi Immigrant Couple Enslaved Maid in Their Home
  30. California: Saudi ‘threatened to kill staff who watched him being pleasured by male aide’
  31. LA: Saudi prince arrested after bleeding woman seen trying to escape compound, more victims come forward
  32. California: Cafe Countersues Muslim Women Fraudulently Claiming Discrimination
  33. San Diego School Board Approves Creation of Islamophobia Propaganda Plan
  34. Huntington Beach (CA) school makes 7th graders sing “Believe in Allah! There is no other god”
  35. San Diego School District Expands Sharia Lunch Program
  36. San Diego: Taxpayers now funding Muslim’s halal school lunches
  37. California school district enforces sharia, bans drawings of Muhammad, keeps Islamic indoctrination
  38. California: Muslim stabs 4 on UC Merced campus before shot dead
  39. Phone records show imam at San Bernardino terrorist’s mosque knew killer’s, lied about it
  40. San Bernardino Jihadist’s Father Knew Son Supported ISIS, Told No One
  41. San Bernardino jihadists buried by mosque members in Islamic ritual
  42. California: Saudi at Culver City mosque linked to 9/11 attack
  43. LAPD Chief Panders at Terror-linked Mosque Named in Missing “28 Pages” (VIDEO)
  44. Sharia compliant: No Islamic landmarks harmed in “Independence Day” sequel
  45. Hollywood Chooses Swank Sharia-Owned Hotel Over LGBT Boycott
  46. Video: Muslim Prayers Take Over Streets of Downtown Los Angeles
  47. California: After trip to Morocco, son shoots mother, cuts her heart out
  48. Anaheim: Two (more) Muslims Arrested Trying to Join Islamic Terror Group, Wanted to Die Martyrs
  49. California: Muslim arrested in sexual assault on 13-year-old girl inside her home (video)
  50. Los Angeles: Muslim clerk caught giving undercover lottery officer $75 instead of $75K prize

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Muslim Appreciation Month

  • only 50?
    Muslim Americans should be watched by the FBI until the war with islam is over and the west has won. Of course, this will never happen, so we need to have them under surveillance forever.

  • California, formerly Alto California, first established by Fray Junipero Serra, has had its history $%&* on by the California Asembly. This same Assembly insists that Catholic institutions pay for abortions in their health care coverage.

    It is not a Christian thing to do to wish ill on people, but California’s politics have it on a path straight to hell and I don’t want to be anywhere around when they meet their reckoning.

  • It wreaks with the Democrat party odor!

  • Bill Quirk is an airhead who came from the Hayward City Council. People like him and the other legislators who voted for this have no knowledge of the history of Islam and its so called prophet. They have no knowledge (nor do they want any) of how Islam was spread by the sword from the Arabian peninsula outward. They are useful idiots.

Lost Moral Compass

Saturday, August 15, AD 2015

Yes, it’s true…
and I don’t ask for forgiveness… not anymore.
With thee, heresy has come to eden.

John Rhys-Davis (Vasco Rodrigues)-Shogun

I have been a fan of the work of actor John Rhys-Davies since I viewed his over the top performance as the Portuguese pilot Vasco Rodrigues in Shogun in 1980.  In a field dominated by the Left, he is an outspoken conservative and has achieved success through sheer ability as an actor.

In an interview this week, he lamented the current morally lost state of the West:

“There is an extraordinary silence in the West,” Rhys-Davies told Carolla. “Basically, Christianity in the Middle East and in Africa is being wiped out – I mean not just ideologically but physically, and people are being enslaved and killed because they are Christians. And your country and my country (Wales) are doing nothing about it.”

“Why is it so evolved not to judge?” Carolla replied, identifying political correctness as the culprit. “This notion that we’ve evolved into a species that’s incapable of judging other groups and what they are doing, especially when it’s beheading people or setting people on fire or throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls… I like that kind of judging. That’s evolved!”

Carolla added that the U.S. “crushing Hitler” in World War II was a “good thing” that would not be possible now because Bill Maher would be “screaming” about tolerance.

“This is a unique age,” Rhys-Davies explained. “We don’t want to be judgmental. Every other age that’s come before us has believed exactly the opposite. I mean, T.S. Eliot referred to ‘the common pursuit of true judgment.’ Yes, that’s what it’s about. Getting our judgments right, getting them accurate.”

“Why can’t we get the same nations on the same page?” Carolla asked. “There’s a lot of nations that are never going to go down this road with us, but your nation, England, they’re sane. Why can’t we get them back toward sanity?”

“I think it’s an age where politicians don’t actually say what they believe,” the actor replied. “They are afraid of being judged as being partisan. Heaven forbid we should criticize people who, after all, share a different ‘value system.’ But ‘it’s all relevant, it’s all equally relative. We’re all the same. And God and the devil, they’re the same, aren’t they, really? Right and wrong? It’s really just two faces of the same coin.’”

“We have lost our moral compass completely, and unless we find it, we’re going to lose our civilization,” Rhys-Davies cautioned. “I think we’re going to lose Western European Christian civilization anyway.”

Rhys-Davies appeared on Carolla’s podcast to promote the DVD release of his film Return to the Hiding Place, about a group of Dutch youth resistance fighters in World War II.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Lost Moral Compass

  • But, don’t you realize that more important things need our attention – climate change. We can’t let the poor and poor nations suffer from climate change 85 years from now. We got to do something about this – now.

    The unstated “fact” in man’s concern over climate changed is that God made a mistake when he created the world, plants and animal life based on oxygen and carbon dioxide. Thankfully, we have men who have discovered this dangerous mistake and can correct it before it’s too late 85 years from now.

  • But getting to that period of courage, innovation and deep faith is very painful. Sad thing is, it didn’t have to be.

  • We are losing the fight in our Lepanto. Lack of moral clarity stifles the will.

Spitting in the Face of Uncle Sam

Tuesday, September 11, AD 2012

 

Today on the eleventh anniversary of 9-11 an Egyptian mob stormed our embassy in Cairo and burned our flag.  The rioters were offended by a film that they allege is insulting to Mohammed.  The ringing response of our embassy to this insult to this country on today of all days?  An announcement perhaps that the US will no longer waste sending billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to a people who obviously despise us?   A recall of our ambassador?  A warning to the Egyptian government that repetitions of this type of behavior will lead to a severing of diplomatic relations?

No, after getting down on their hands and knees presumably, this is what the officials at our embassy said:

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Spitting in the Face of Uncle Sam

  • Well, let me start by hurting some religious feelings.

    Islam is a false religion and Allah is NOT God and Mohammed is a false prophet.

    Christianity is the only true religion, Yahweh is the only God and Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son.

  • Outside of the issue the Muslims attacking US embassies / consulates on this anniversary of 9/11, we have to recognize that Christendom Herself is in a two way struggle between militant Islam in the Middle East and atheist humanism in Western Europe and North America. We ain’t winning any battles, folks. Yes, we know the end of the story – Jesus does win. But I hope He returns soon in the Parousia because right now I don’t see much hope. Maybe I am too pessimistic.

  • That’s why I thank God for people like you, Donald, who see hope when I am blind.

  • You are not blind Paul, you merely hear the trumpet a little after I do! Life is a glorious adventure. Often hard, sometimes dangerous, but always an adventure. I try to live my life by these words of Theodore Roosevelt:

    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those timid spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

  • Interestng that you use that quote, Donald. Right after I made a decision to study for the diaconate, I had chest pains this July and was put in the hospital for installation of cardiac stents, and was diagnosed with diabetes. I started exercising and dieting after that, and two had a half weeks ago tore my left quadriceps off my knee cap. Now I am on crutches, but this too shall pass. Then I see all the crap with the DNC and this mess with how the Administration ingratiates itself with the enemies of liberty – those who attacked us on 9/11 – and I do and say what comes naturally. We have a good country. The doctors and nurses who worked on me are the best. My employer was fantastic. My priest came right away on both hospital occasions to hear my Confession. And all this that makes our nation great is denigrated by that demagogue Chicago gangster. People gave their lives on and after 9/11 for our freedom. The Administration’s response to how the Muslim fanatics treat their memory is abominable – or should I say Obominable? So maybe my reaction is an all mixed up – sorry.

  • My prayers for your swift recovery Paul!

  • Dr. Krauthammer has the appropriate response.

  • Instapundit suspects that our foreign policy is now being run according to this Klavan video:

  • I don’t know if any of you have seen the film by Dinesh D’Souza 2016 Obama’s America, I have not yet but plan to.

    However I saw him speak on TV (C-span I think) promoting the film and after listening to him I think it’s the first time I actually understand Obama. One insightful thing he said was it’s not that Obama is trying to get outcome “A” (restore the economy, increase jobs, etc.) but because he is inept he is getting outcome “B” instead (increased govt dependency, massive regulation, etc.) But he is actually trying to achieve outcome “B”. He is in fact wildly successful in terms of what he has set out to do.

    Obviously he was much more in-depth than that, but it was the main take home I got out of it.

    Another interesting thing he also said was as we can remember Regan for helping end communism; we will remember Obama as helping to establish a new Islamic caliphate.

  • Loss of words.

    Obama is behaving like a sniveling buffoon.

  • Don. Obama plans on visiting Cairo soon to make a formal apology.
    Ok. Cheap shot, however let’s remember: “We are not a Christian nation…”
    I did see 2016 movie. Please make an effort to view this work.
    The conclusions are sound im my opinion.

  • By the grace and mercy of God, Obama will be defeated this November. I can’t image having to endure another four years of this guy, but as always, God’s will be done.

    Don, if I may, there’s a web site called Locutions to the World which is very interesting. I give no opinion for or against – I’ll just leave it up to the individual. Monsignor John Esseff, a diocesan priest of Scranton, Pa., was ordained in 1953. In 1959, Padre Pio became his spiritual director. For many years, he was the spiritual director for Mother Teresa of Calcutta. He claims that for many years, he has been the spiritual director for a special soul who allegedly is receiving locutions from Our Lady. Of special interest is nos. 146, 166, 359 & 360. http://www.locutions.org/

  • “Islam is a false religion and Allah is NOT God and Mohammed is a false prophet.”

    I’ll concede on the Islam being a false religion and Mohammed being a false prophet. However, Allah is just the Arabic word for God. In Catholic bible translation in Arabic the word for God is Allah.

  • It’s pretty obvious that that statement couldn’t have been worse in tone and content. Isn’t it laughable though when read in context of the Obama administration at home? These people are so irony impaired I would say it’s funny, but it’s actually dangerous. Scoundrels.

  • I second what RL says.

  • “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others”
    And has anyone done anything about the killing of hundreds of Christians by Boko Haram?
    The response is deafeningly silent!!

  • It is shameful that Obama hasn’t the cojones to get up and denounce this attack on American sovereignty. I just read an article where Sarah Palin has spoken out on this – she’s twice the man Obama is, and she’s a woman.
    It must be getting close to the point, with the attacks on Christains in Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Tunisia and Ethiopia, where Christians will rise up and defend this naked religious persecution, sponsored by the likes of Saudi Arabia, who are spending billions in developing and populating mosques in all areas of the christian/western world – even down her in Oz and NZ.
    Bring on the Crusade???

  • Thank you, Greg M., for the clarification on the literal meaning of the word “Allah.” I should have said that the caricature of God as presented in the Quran is NOT God.

    Thank you for prayers, Donald M. et al.

    And thank the Lord Jesus for our heroes and heroines – whether from the US or from Don the K’s Australia or from England or wherever who still believe in the Lord and who still believe that freedom is worth fighting for, regardless of the Obama Administration’s ingratiation of itself with Islamic militants of death and destruction.

  • Or is it New Zealand – sorry, just took my meds – brain damage!

  • Pingback: Sptting in the Face of Uncle Sam: Part II | The American Catholic
  • Although I doubt there is much distinction between the political appointees and the permanent government in their basic dispositions, the following should be noted.

    1. It is doubtful that press releases by embassies abroad are routed to the President’s desk for pre-approval.

    2. The ambassador in Egypt is a career foreign service officer and has held ambassadorial appointments under three administrations.

    The best construction you can put on this is that it was an inept and fairly undignified effort to defuse an anticipated attack. The worst construction you can put on this is that our diplomatic corps is chock-a-bloc with post-Americans and poltroons who did not experience the indignity at all. Your call.

  • “The worst construction you can put on this is that our diplomatic corps is chock-a-bloc with post-Americans and poltroons who did not experience the indignity at all. ”

    I believe that is the true construction to put on it Art. Considering the importance of our Cairo embassy, an attack on it on the anniversary of 9-11 I rather suspect went very far up the chain, to Clinton if not to Obama.

  • So what is this alleged defamatory movie about ol’ Mo that got these folks all in a tizzy?

    My guess is there is no such movie, and it was just an excuse to stage an attack on an anniversary of 9/11.

  • I stand corrected – there actually is a movie (a really cheesy bad one at that). Still no excuse, no matter how bad it portrays Mohammed.

  • The embassy statement is stupid, but it appears to have been written prior to the attacks.

  • True BA, and they defended it after the attack as a proper response throughout all of yesterday.

  • There appears to be some question about the movie being an excuse for a previously planned attack. After all, the movie in question appears to have been out for a while.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/cnn-protests-against-film-a-diversion-attack-was-planned/

  • Pingback: The Catholic Answer to the Huffington Post » Blog Archive » Spitting in the Face of Uncle Sam: Part II
  • Don,

    They didn’t defend the statement as a response to the attack (how could they, given that it was issued prior to the attack even happening?) They did say that they stood by the statement even after the attack.

  • Which works out to the same thing BA and is even more pusillanimous. The statement was clearly their response to the attack as their tweets were in the same cowardly vein and they stood behind the statement until they became aware of popular outrage building at home. In short, they ratified the statement as their response to the attack.

  • pusillanimous = timid or cowardly.

    Had to look the meaning up.
    What a cool word – will have to remember………. 🙂

  • It is a word Don that sounds like what it means!

  • Obama for several months now had been “spiking the ‘Killed Bin Laden’ football…” e.g., “He saved GM, he killed Osama!!” Can’t help but wonder if that might have had something to do with the 9/11 anniversary violence and murder in Cairo and the Libyan embassy — Just a thought….

  • I second Katy Malone.

    Of course we are at war, and Anything we do will be held against us. There is no way out of this war but to win it.
    I read some of the comments on the other thread about whether or not the Cristeros should’ve fought back. I say yes. Fight back.

  • Paul W Primavera.
    5.58 am.

    That’s OK Paul, I’ll forgive you this once for calling me an Australian 😉

    Actually, I spent 11 of my 70 years in Oz, so I suppose you can claim some accuracy.

    I have a lot of good friends, and several cousins in Oz, and in fact, some Aussies are just about good enough to be Kiwis, once they are de-Aussiefied. 🙂

Egypt on the Brink, Obama Doing His Best Carter Imitation

Friday, January 28, AD 2011

[Updates at the bottom]

Egypt has sent out the army to the streets of Cairo with reports of gun-battles and deaths everywhere.  Media sources are reporting 870 wounded, but this can’t be confirmed as of now.

How important are the events occurring in Egypt today in reference to the United States?  Very important.

Any person of history understands that in the 20th and 21st century, how Egypt goes, goes the Middle East.  The most distinguished Islamic university is located in Cairo and militant Islamic organizations such as Al-Qaeda are off-shoots from the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist Muslim organization based in Egypt seeking to return to the days of Muhammad.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Egypt on the Brink, Obama Doing His Best Carter Imitation

  • Egyptian Sphinx eats American dove . . .

  • It is a bad day when I have to rise to the defense of Obama, but I sincerely doubt there is much that cold be done by any American administration right now. Backing one faction or another could well backfire. Other than making public statements calling for a peaceful resolution and that this is a situation that Egyptians will have to work out, I doubt there is much that an American President can do. You can bet that the Israelis are looking at this closely. They have enjoyed a Cold Peace with Egypt since the days of Sadat. They have no guarantees that the government that follows the present one will keep the same policy.

  • This is looking more and more like Iran ’79.

    You are correct, this is about stability in the Middle East. Although I don’t mean to go into this point too deep, this here is one reason that Iraq was engaged by the Bush Admin. When a powerhouse falls in an Islamic country, it isn’t usually at the hands of peace loving democrats, instead it is often at the hands of the youth that scream for democracy, but handled oh too well by older and more powerful Islamic fundamentalists.

    One point though, I do have to agree somewhat with D. McClarey. It is hard for Obama to do a lot right now. There are reports that there has been some US ties to this ordeal dating back three years. http://bit.ly/gDS7hE
    If that is the case, we better do exactly what you say and back another more liberal leader, and not let the Muslim Brotherhood take the reins.

  • I do understand what Donald and Joe are saying about the lack of influence that the Obama administration has on the outcome, but they do have influence.

    So Obama’s actions can affect the outcome to certain degrees.

  • This is a fascinating situation to watch unfold, especially with regards to its wider impact across the globe.

    Note to Obama: this should be your lesson that an internet “kill switch” is NOT a good idea under any circumstances.

    Let’s see if Mubarak goes down and if the economic circumstances that ignited these revolts in Tunisia and Egypt spread to other corners of the globe. Remember: in recent times we’ve seen riots also in Iran, Greece, France and the UK. Yes, all these countries have vastly different domestic circumstances, but don’t think that the global economy does not string all these events together.

    Curious: what more will Wikileaks have to reveal?

    Also, Obama might not have a lot he can do right now, but don’t think that our foreign aid support to nations like Egypt does not contribute to the domestic powder keg.

  • President Obama just finished his speech on the situation in Egypt.

    Basically a bunch of nice words, but nothing that puts pressure on Mubarak to make reforms or action of support for the protesters.

    He just split the difference in his speech without making a difference.

    Pretty much ineffectual flowery ‘nothing’.

    Obama is pathetic.

  • There surely is precious little this 40-something, former community agitator (a glib Al Sharpton?) and gangs of aging, hate-America hippies who spent the last 2 years dismantling the evil, unjust United States . . .

  • · I hope people remind Obama that he supports reopening the internet in Egypt the next time talk of an internet kill switch occurs

    · Isn’t it sort of bad diplomacy to admit to the whole world that you spoke with Mubarak minutes after he finished his speech?

    · Doesn’t all of Obama’s talk of government by consent over coercion just sort of reek of contradiction considering our own coercive economic policies, to say nothing of the dubious last 10 years on “human rights,” whether it be on abortion, torture, secret prisons and Guantanamo?

    ·Agreed. This was a nothing speech, designed to make him look like he has some influence over world events. He doesn’t.

  • As usual, Donald sums things up well.

    Also, on an unusually old-world conservative note for me: This underlines that democracy itself is an unmitigated good. Mubarak is certainly a dictator, but he’s willing to keep the peace in the region. It’s entirely possible that a popular government would happily participate in kicking off a regional war in a region which, however “undeveloped” by Western standards could easily stage a WW2 size war in terms of people and technology.

  • Certainly, the Egyptians will heed the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner’s call for no violence as he conducts two wars in their neighborhood, and listen attentively to the Secretary of State whose husband bombed Serbia and whose Attorney General engineered the massacre of 74 innocents at Waco in 1993. Clearly, the U.S. has the high ground here.

  • I don’t understand. Aren’t we supposed to be ‘pro’ democratic uprising? Isn’t Mubarak essentially a dictator? Or do we only support democracy when we are confident that it will support our interests? Such seems to be the case with our support for the autocracies of Tunisia, Jordan, and Egypt. In any case, I don’t think it’s likely that Egypt will turn into an Iran. Will it be a state friendly to U.S. interests? Likely not. But then, again, it may ween us from our codependent relationship with Israel. Is that a good or a bad thing? Who knows? Augustine’s total political cynicism makes a great deal of sense in these situations. May not too many innocent die, no matter what happens.

  • Daniel Larison has characteristically excellent commentary on the situation here: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

  • “I don’t understand. Aren’t we supposed to be ‘pro’ democratic uprising? Isn’t Mubarak essentially a dictator?”

    Oh, he is a dictator alright, a relatively benign one by the standards of his bad neighborhood where dictatorships are the norm, with the exception of Israel, Iraq and Turkey. I will weep no tears for his regime if it is toppled, but many people in Egypt and abroad will weep tears if he is replaced by an aggressive Islamist regime. At this point we do not know what will happen.

    “In any case, I don’t think it’s likely that Egypt will turn into an Iran.”

    Nasser was quite bad enough, and a Nasser II might be the most likely outcome. The Muslim Brotherhood would love to control Egypt as the mullahs control Iran. The Army might step in and take over. Many bad possibilities as well as good ones, and it is too early to tell how it will develop.

    “Will it be a state friendly to U.S. interests? Likely not.”

    Then that is a bad thing unless one subscribes to the isolationist fantasies of a Daniel Larison, who simply refuses to in habit this frame of reality.

    “But then, again, it may ween us from our codependent relationship with Israel.”

    Actually an Egypt hostile to Israel would likely drive the US and Israel closer together and make far more likely a general Middle Eastern war.

    It is too early to see how this Egyptian situation will play out. We should not indulge in either optimism or pessimism. We should watch and wait.

  • Donald,

    You too easily reduce the principled position of anti-interventionism to that favorite shibboleth of the post-Wilsonian: “isolationism.” Isolationism is not anti-interventionism. It does not involve the closing of borders, refusal of trade, abandonment of treaties, etc. It rather embodies a sense of limit and prudence, and recognizes the difficulties that attends involving oneself overmuch in the affairs of other countries. It is the position, more or less, of all of the Founders. One can disagree with this posiiton, of course, but it’s just not intellectually responsible to dismiss it as “isolationism”–this kind of language is name-calling masquerading as thought.

  • “It does not involve the closing of borders, refusal of trade, abandonment of treaties, etc.”

    By that standard WJ no one in American history has been an isolationist. Larison, acolyte for Pat Buchanan, isolationist in chief, is firmly in the tradition of the America Firsters, who they celebrate, who thought America could retreat into a Fortress America before Pearl Harbor. It was a foolish and dangerous policy at that time, and it is no less foolish and dangerous today. What worked for America in the Nineteenth Century, courtesy of the British Empire, will not work for America in the Twenty-First. Anti-interventionism is merely the latest gloss on, in the immortal words of Mel Brooks, “Let ’em all go to Hell, except Cave 76!”. That does not mean that American intervention is called for in all situations. As to the situation in Egypt, for example, I can’t think of anything we could do positive right now. But the idea that the US can simply ignore developments abroad and cultivate its garden here at home is merely a pleasant illusion and not a serious foreign policy.

  • Donald,
    But it’s simply *not true* that the position of Larison and Bacevich–to take two prominent contemporary anti-interventionists–is what you describe it as being: “ignore developments abroad and cultivate its garden here at home.” This is what I meant about your consistent tendency to reduce the arguments of anti-interventionists to the strawman of “isolationism.” As though the only two options were (1) involvement in *every* foreign crisis and (2) blithe ignorance of the goings on of other countries and how they affect our interests.

  • To the contrary WJ, a retreat into Fortress America is precisely the policy advocated by both Larison and Bacevich. That of course is why Bacevich, hilariously, endorsed Obama in 2008, thinking that Obama shared his isolationist predilections.

    “So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

    To appreciate that possibility requires seeing the Iraq War in perspective. As an episode in modern military history, Iraq qualifies at best as a very small war. Yet the ripples from this small war will extend far into the future, with remembrance of the event likely to have greater significance than the event itself. How Americans choose to incorporate Iraq into the nation’s historical narrative will either affirm our post-Cold War trajectory toward empire or create opportunities to set a saner course.

    The neoconservatives understand this. If history renders a negative verdict on Iraq, that judgment will discredit the doctrine of preventive war. The “freedom agenda” will command as much authority as the domino theory. Advocates of “World War IV” will be treated with the derision they deserve. The claim that open-ended “global war” offers the proper antidote to Islamic radicalism will become subject to long overdue reconsideration.

    Give the neocons this much: they appreciate the stakes. This explains the intensity with which they proclaim that, even with the fighting in Iraq entering its sixth year, we are now “winning”—as if war were an athletic contest in which nothing matters except the final score. The neoconservatives brazenly ignore or minimize all that we have flung away in lives, dollars, political influence, moral standing, and lost opportunities. They have to: once acknowledged, those costs make the folly of the entire neoconservative project apparent. All those confident manifestos calling for the United States to liberate the world’s oppressed, exercise benign global hegemony, and extend forever the “unipolar moment” end up getting filed under dumb ideas.

    Yet history’s judgment of the Iraq War will affect matters well beyond the realm of foreign policy. As was true over 40 years ago when the issue was Vietnam, how we remember Iraq will have large political and even cultural implications.

    As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary, and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the president, we are told, can “keep us safe.” Seeing the war as the debacle it has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a semblance of balance among the three branches of government.

    Above all, there is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements. The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits will remain beyond scrutiny.

    Of all the obstacles to a revival of genuine conservatism, this absence of self-awareness constitutes the greatest. As long as we refuse to see ourselves as we really are, the status quo will persist, and conservative values will continue to be marginalized. Here, too, recognition that the Iraq War has been a fool’s errand—that cheap oil, the essential lubricant of the American way of life, is gone for good—may have a salutary effect. Acknowledging failure just might open the door to self-reflection.

    None of these concerns number among those that inspired Barack Obama’s run for the White House. When it comes to foreign policy, Obama’s habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity for serious realism. His views are those of a conventional liberal. Nor has Obama expressed any interest in shrinking the presidency to its pre-imperial proportions. He does not cite Calvin Coolidge among his role models. And however inspiring, Obama’s speeches are unlikely to make much of a dent in the culture. The next generation will continue to take its cues from Hollywood rather than from the Oval Office.

    Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.

    Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail.”

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/

    In hindsight of course this seems all completely laughable, but that is what Bacevich wrote at the time. Bacevich and Larison are isolationists, and to claim otherwise, to use your phrase, is not “intellectually honest”.

  • Nothing you’ve posted from Bacevich answers the objection I’ve raised. Opposition to the Iraq War, and a recognition of its enormous cost in lives, money, and its failure to promote the security for which it was purportedly undertaken–none of this entails “isolationism” as you continue to insist. Bacevich does articulate, briefly in that section, an anti-Wilsonian realism that is more legitimately conservative–a label that I would think most writers and readers on this blog would be proud to claim–than the ridiculous idealism that forms the vocabulary and, at times, the practice, of our foreign policy. That Bacevich was wrong about Obama, who is clearly no anti-interventionist, is irrelevant. One point of agreement that I have with you is that there was never any good reason for supposing that Obama would have the courage or ability to reverse the de facto interventionist stance that has marked the last several decades of our foreign policy. There Bacevich was suffering from an illusion. But I can’t see how that fact has any bearing on the merits of anti-interventionism as a corrective to the default position we are in today.

  • Isolationism has few advocates on the right WJ who are politically signficant. (I do not consider Ron Paul politically signifcant.) Support for a robust American foreign policy abroad has been the norm for the vast majority of conservatives in this country since December 7, 1941. As to Bacevich, he did not just oppose the Iraq war. He also believes that the Cold War was an unnecessary event against a largely illusory foe. He thinks American intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan and Iraq were all mistakes. The man is a thorough going isolationist. I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with much of his writing.

  • A good review of the latest isolationist tome authored by Bacevich:

    http://afri.au.af.mil/review_full.asp?id=120

  • I am aware of Bacevich’s writing, and of his thesis that post-WWII America was unable rationally to reassess the benefits and liabilities to anti-interventionism on account of that War and its reception. We are just talking past each other now, as it seems clear to me that you believe anything *other* than Wilsonianism is “isolationism,” where I believe that one can be an anti-interventionist without being an isolationist, and that such anti-interventionism is, in fact, the conservative position. Eisenhower himself was deeply cognizant of the dangers that Wilsonianism would pose for post WWII America, and he was no isolationist. If you want to believe that any approach other than the largely failed and counterproducitve approach of military intervention is “isolationist,” then I suppose that’s your right. But it is historically unimaginative.

  • I would have bet money WJ that you were not a fan of Mr. Beck, but your use of Woodrow Wilson as a bogey-man makes me doubt that wager. 🙂 I consider both the Cold War and American interventions abroad to stop Communism to have been not romantic idealism but hard headedly realistic, just as I consider the current interventions to be. I think you mischaracterize Eisenhower, you are certainly not alone in this, as anyone familiar with the foreign policy he and John Foster Dulles pursued could not reasonably regard it as in any sense non-interventionist.

    Bacevich does not bring up reasoned critques of American interventions abroad. Reasonable people can an will disagree about particular interventions. His heated verbiage about an “American Empire” is in the best traditions of both Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky. In his world American intervention is ipso facto bad, and America should retreat to its shores and let the rest of the world get along as best it can. If this foreign policy is ever attempted by the US, I think we would not like the world produced by our attempted flight from responsibility and reality.

  • In regard to Bacevich, his transformation into a raging isolationist is fairly recent. Here, in part, is what he wrote in National Review back in 2003 when he supported the invasion of Iraq:

    “Such an approach would use the coming war against Iraq as a vehicle to persuade Arab governments that they themselves have a compelling interest in putting Islamic radicals out of business. In the Arab world, American values may not count for much, but American power counts for quite a bit. Concepts like parliaments or women’s rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, they have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group.
    The promptness with which U.S. forces dispatched the Taliban in the fall of 2001 has already provided an object lesson of what awaits any regime that knowingly harbors terrorists. By dispatching Saddam Hussein in the coming weeks, U.S. forces can provide a second lesson: that any ruler who flagrantly disregards international norms and engages in behavior that poses a threat to the United States— for example, by funding terrorist groups, subsidizing radical Islam, or nourishing anti-American hatred—can expect to share Saddam’s fate.

    Thus, taken in tandem, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and in Iraq will define red lines that a regime will violate only at its peril. In that regard, the message to the Arab world from American officials needs to be explicit and unambiguous: Respect those red lines and we will respect your existing political arrangements; disregard them and we are coming after you, with or without allies, with or without the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

    In sum, what we should demand of Arab Leaders is not ideological fealty, but simply responsible behavior. And this demand is not negotiable. We will not insist that the House of Saud declare its adherence to the principles of Jeffersonian democracy. But we will insist—as the Bush administration has yet to do—that those who rule the kingdom will ensure that Saudi Arabia cease serving as an incubator of suicidal terrorists. On that point, we will be adamant and uncompromising. And on that point, with the examples, of Afghanistan and Iraq showing that we mean what we say, we can expect compliance.

    As it pertains to a post-Saddam Iraq, such an approach would find the United States extracting itself from Iraqi affairs with reasonable promptness. This is not to say that U.S. forces would withdraw in a matter of days or even weeks, but that we would not commit ourselves to a vain effort to remake Iraq in our image, which would require another semi-permanent U.S. military garrison. Once we have established a regime that is legitimate, friendly to the United States, able to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity, and respectful of its people, Washington would do well to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

    A foreign policy based on authentically conservative principles begins by accepting the fact that the world is not infinitely malleable. It recognizes that our own resources, although great, are limited. And it never loses sight of the fact that the freedom that U.S. officials are sworn to protect is our own.”

    [Andrew J. Bacevich, “Don’t Get Greedy! For sensible, limited war aims in Iraq,” National Review, February 10, 2003.]

    Anyone can change his mind, but I always find it surprising when someone of Bacevich’s vintage decides to do an ideological remake in the course of a very short period of time. A debate between Bacevich 2003 and Bacevich 2011 would be amusing if not illuminating.

  • Well, when you consider the lies, distortions, and mismanagement at play leading up to and in the war in Iraq, and you consider further that his son was killed in that war, then this might make more sense to you. But Bacevich was strongly critical of both the decision to invade Iraq and the conditions that made that invasion seem responsible well before the death of his son.

  • Your litany is a familiar one from Iraq war opponents Wj, but Bacevich is not simply an Iraq war opponent. In the space of about two years, 2003-2005, he went from being an advocate of both the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq into being the reincarnation of William Appleman Williams. Bacevich was 56 in 2003. I guess we have to assume that he simply wasn’t paying attention the first 56 years, most of it spent either in the United States Army, or as an academic specializing in defense and foreign policy. I haven’t seen such a radical makeover in such a short time since Gerald Naus, formerly of The Cafeteria is Closed, rediscovered his inner atheist, shut down his blog, and left the Church. When such about faces involve someone who is relatively young and inexperienced I find them more understandable than someone who is deep into middle age, and, one would have thought, would have had time and opportunity to better develop their views over the span of most of a lifetime.

  • I guess that one’s child dying for the cause is probably enough to spark introspection at any age.

  • I can’t wait until the democratic reformers in the new Weimar Egypt vote in Sharia.

  • “I guess that one’s child dying for the cause is probably enough to spark introspection at any age.”

    Perhaps Bob, except that First Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich, a 27 year old West Point graduate, was killed in Iraq in 2007, well after the transformation discussed below.

  • When was the young Bakevich first put in harm’s way in the cause of freeing Weimar Iraq from Kaiser Saddam? (I honestly don’t know. The point that one’s own flesh and blood on the altar tests one’s devotion may or may not apply here).

  • He was first sent to Iraq as a platoon leader in 2006. He enlisted in the Army in 2004. (A correction to my earlier entry. First Lieutenant Bacevich was not a West Point graduate. He graduated from Boston University in 2003. He earned his commission through Officer’s Candidate School in 2005.) Bacevich the father has indicated that he was opposed to the Iraq war prior to his son’s enlistment, as articles he wrote prior to that time would indicate, although he supported the war in 2003.

Signs of despair (and hope) in Christian-Muslim relations

Wednesday, December 15, AD 2010

In his book-length interview Light of the World, Pope Benedict emphasized that, with respect to Muslims:

“The important thing here is to remain in close contact with all the current within Islam that are open to, and capable of dialogue, so as to give a change of mentality a chance to happen even where Islamism still couples a claim to truth with violence.”

Earlier in November, he renewed his call for religious freedom in Muslim countries

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Signs of despair (and hope) in Christian-Muslim relations

  • I guess Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad is living in an alternate universe from the rest of his co-religionists.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “Why do they hate us?”

  • I guess it would be a little more believable if some actual prosecutions of these perpetrators was occurring. I don’t recall hearing about a Muslim government executing some Muslim who carried out attacks against Christians. Heck, I don’t even recall arrests.

  • I’m afraid we’ll have to give it up as a bad job – Christians simply cannot live in peace and freedom under Moslem rule. Of course, they never really did – even in Islam’s most tolerant times, Christians were subjected to persecution to a lesser or greater degree, depending on the rulers and the circumstances; in modern times, it is has become nothing but a horror. For goodness sake, there is a Christian woman in Pakistan under sentence of death because of an accusation of blasphemy against Islam. This is not a society we can live amongst.

    We can, on the other hand, co-exist – even, at times, work together. But only after Christians in Moslem lands are given, at the minimum, autonomy (though I’d prefer setting up entirely independent Christian States…Assyria, part of Egypt, southern Lebanon, that sort of thing). Only when Christians can rule their own affairs – and defend themselves with arms – will Moslems first learn a bit of respect, and then perhaps some tolerance down the road.