Problem Solved

Sunday, February 19, AD 2017



The Pope has solved the problem of Islamic terrorism by defining it out of existence:


“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.

What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.

“No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent,” Francis said, while also suggesting—as he has on other occasions—that terrorism is primarily a result of economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”

The Pope also reiterated his conviction that all religions promote peace and that the danger of violent radicalization exists equally in all religions.

“There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia,” he said.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Problem Solved

  • I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: there goes Europe. This pope is hastening the dechristianization of Europe and the Islamification of it.

  • Just about every time he opens his mouth he reveals himself to be deeply mediocre man who hasn’t an idea in his head that isn’t derivative and derivative of the sort of kultursmog you find in the education and social services subculture. No clue what the College of Cardinals thought they were doing when they put this man in charge.

  • The sooner this Pope is replaced, the less terrified I’ll be!

  • haha Art– that is quite a term- “deeply mediocre”! 🙂
    ALSO love “kultursmog ” I agree with you completely.
    Re the Cardinals -they were smogged.

  • Until the Vatican is under attack and the heads of the prelates are severed from their shoulders will the pontiff understand the difference between religions and ideology. How the Koran can be associated with peacefulness and harmony is beyond me. The conquest of world to Islam by means of barbaric intimidation and death if conversion isn’t achieved…Well that’s not religion.

    When Pope Francis steps over the heads of his aquantice’s then he might take a different view of the real threat of Islam.

  • He is so incredibly naive.

  • “No clue what the College of Cardinals thought they were doing when they put this man in charge.”

    I think some thought he couldn’t be such a fool. I think some hoped he would be.

  • People on their knees praying do not murder. Saying the rosary for world peace prevents a person from homicide. While busy praying a person cannot do any harm. Faith is a gift from God. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. There must be freedom to acknowledge God and to accept oneself but only in prayer can one’s destiny be accomplished. Prayer itself is the only act that is dear to the heart of God, the rest are acceptable, but prayer is the finest form of worship.
    If Allah wanted all infidels wiped out, Allah could do it in a single act of the will.
    It seems to me that the jihadists are over reacting.

  • Absurd on the face of it. Pope Francis is an embarrassment to himself and the Church.

  • If good people on here think the Popes take on Islam is wacky, read the rest of his garbage on so called man made global warming. Then in a few weeks he has as his guest Paul Elrich the ‘famous’ population bomb abortionist.

  • The woman in the video says she believes a reform of Islam is possible. I think that she is quite wrong.

  • Terrorism does not exist? Now I can rest easy. What happened in San Bernardino was probably just a dream.

  • I stopped taking Pope Francis seriously when he invited Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb to the Vatican. Why not invite Adolph Hitler, and that Muslim who wants to turn the Vatican into a mosque. Maybe Pope has.

  • P.S. The Vatican is held in trust for all future generations, our Constitutional Posteriy and all peoples of the world for all time. The Vatican may not be taxed or sold off because it is held in trust for all persons, living and yet to come, therefore, It does not belong to Pope Francis. The bones of Saints Peter and Paul will rise up and defend the Faith at the Vatican.

  • Seriously, desperately out of touch with reality.

    In Genk, Belgium, when I visited my daughter there 2 years ago, the Catholic Church has to have a cyclone fence around it and security patrol 24/7, to prevent the Muslim street thugs from vandalizing and desecration it.

    Wake up, Pope Dhimmi!

  • No father lies to his children like this, particularly when they are suffering unjustly. Pope Cahastisement is no father.

  • Mary De Voe is completely correct.
    Defense of the Faith coming from the Vatican will happen. It will be refreshing and sweet, and the tasteless days of PF will have been like so many liberial nightmares…. Indigestion and flatulence. “Come now Holy Spirit and renew the face of the Earth.”

Bear Growls: What is the Common Denominator?

Thursday, December 1, AD 2016

I was afraid that our bruin friend was in hibernation at Saint Corbinian’s Bear, but he just posted a barnburner:

This is why I love this country. The vaudeville acts. True, they’re amateurish and predictable, but the old “Searching for a Reason” (sometimes “Motive”) routine never fails to crack me up. But note the new gag. It’s kinda okay because he was “scared to pray in public.”

So, Muslims are scared to pray in public because… no matter what they do, America will roll over and show its cultural belly? Because when they’re bent over praying, they might get trampled from everyone kissing their a**es?

Hey, I’ve got a great PR strategy for scared Muslims. Murder as many innocent people as possible shouting Allahu Akbar. Because then no one will have any reason to mistrust you or dislike you when you’re praying.

And the big hook drags yet another loser off the stage of life, to make room for the next hilarious act, Muslim leaders failing to make an unqualified condemnation of terrorism while singing the ever-popular “Backlash” song.

BTW, can I be the first to blame the election of Trump? I mean, seriously, what CHOICE did poor little Amtar have? Muslims are the cuckoo in the American nest. The Bear just doesn’t trust them, and never will. It’s not just here. The Bear has the Green Eggs and Ham approach to Pope Francis’ “Great Abrahamic Religion That Worships the Exact Same God We Do and are Practically Catholic.”

THAT is the Bear’s litmus test. Slobber all over Muslims, and you are forever written off as an unserious person who values your PR above truth – even revealed truth. The Bear will waste no further time on you, because you’re an idiot or a liar. The Bear has simplified his life by crossing off nearly everyone in the world with a title in front of their names.

Muslims kill far more people in America than Bears. But when someone gets mauled to death by a Bear do we start whining about “Bear Backlash?” The Bear supports non-violent, cultural backlash. Remove Muslims from top place of America’s Culturally Protected Groups. It’s been a long time since Blacks were there. They are really far back in the pack. The Bear says give them a turn at Number 1 again and take Muslims off the list entirely.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Bear Growls: What is the Common Denominator?

  • “ idiot or a liar.” No one is that stupid.

  • “The Bear will waste no further time on you, because you’re (either) an idiot or a liar.”
    Thank you. My wife is always referring to me as “such a bear”, now I finally understand why.
    She also tells me “most people don’t think like you do”, to which I, an engineer reply -why is it my fault that other people don’t think. 😉

  • “The Bear will waste no further time on you, because you’re an idiot or a liar.”

    Why not both?

  • Hah! “The Bear has the Green Eggs and Ham approach to Pope Francis’ “Great Abrahamic Religion That Worships the Exact Same God We Do and are Practically Catholic.”
    Bear that made me look up a few sources on the deeper meaning of Dr. Seuss! Always learning when I read this site.

    I never did like Dr. Seuss– drawings or words. Just uncomfortable.

  • God mortified me as I verbally attacked a big black panhandler this week outside a bodega….saying, ” why aren’t you working, trucking jobs are going unanswered.” ( I’m large and athletic ). He answered me with a speech defect that almost made him unintelligible. I melted in 1 second and gave him money twice…talk about stereotyping.
    Muslims though serve in our military and in the NYC police force and can really be moderate because they don’t really believe in the Koran 100% just as a high percent of Catholics don’t believe in wifely obedience which is 6 times referenced or mandated in the NT…heck…read St. JPII on it…he was with the high percent.
    We…we non muslims… believe ardently in the Koran mandating conversion or else…..but apparently Muslims in our army and police are as cafeteria about sharia as many Catholics are about the death penalty or wifely obedience. Most Catholics and most Muslims are cafeteria….in the second case….thank God.

  • The Bear is two months behind schedule on his novel, Judging Angels, and is devoting time to contractual obligations, rather than his ephemeris right now. Two Muslims the DOD forced my son to serve alongside with in Afghanistan due to the same massive denial of reality almost killed him, and did kill his sgt and teammate on night one at their FOB. Thanks to HESCO and the distracting effects of his 40 mm grenade launcher, and a coin toss that had them take over his friend’s tower and kill him, instead of my son, he lived. I won’t bore everyone with my own qualifications, but I feel I have a sufficient insight into worldwide and domestic Muslims to have an opinion.

  • The Bear has been devoting all his time to his dubious novel, Judging Angels, which involves contractual obligations, and not been maintaining his ephemeris. He’ll be back, just as soon as final edit is done and the thing is submitted.

  • I am looking forward to buying a copy of Judging Angels my bruin friend when it comes out.

  • Bear,
    . The problem with personal experience and anecdotes ( and I’ve had it with blacks…escaped from 4 in a telephone truck; scared a 6’7″ easily 300 lb. one off with a weapon after he challenged me twice to a fight; and had a near lethal street fight with one in 2013 )….is that one is probably going to see like I do…90% of them as dangerous while the data might be different by ? 40% in my case.
    As of 2015, there were abour 5800 Muslims in the US armed forces but Michelle Malkin in National Review came up with less than ten incidents like your son’s…not a hundred or fifty or twenty. 15,000 served in WWII for the US….as noted in the wiki article on Muslims in our armed forces.

  • ps…the real figure could well be a hundred but my brother while Captain in combat was marked for death by a white soldier he had stopped during that white’s fornication with a local woman. His master Sergeant sent the man to the front immediately. The number of such fragging murders by fellow white Baptized is also iffy.

  • My interest here was to try to understand the ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ reference. Here is a website that explains it and seems to mean that once we get to know Muslims we will like them, which is undoubtedly true–in most cases that is.

  • Breitbart is reporting the good muslim was in a class where his assignment was to write about microagressions on campus. I guess he took the class because he already had the macroagression thing down pat.

  • Bill Warner has a channel on Youtube titled “Political Islam” which I have learned a lot from. The Bear’s words are those of wisdom.

  • On Microagression… if you tell someone they should be offended by something, most emotionalists will eventually talk themselves into being offended. Since society and culture took God and “offering it up” out of society and culture, we’re left with the perpetually offended, whose only recourse is violence (which is 100% ironic). One of my childhood wounds was hearing my dad say, daily, “sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” Sadly, I think the pendulum has swung way too far & fast in the opposite direction.

  • As someone who has worked on campuses for 20 plus years and having taught many Muslims, I would like to note that universities try very hard to accommodate prayer for Muslims. Some provide special places. Yes, there are some complaints occasionally if the students are disrupting the normal course of business. But that is normal for any student, not just Muslims. So this student’s complain is bogus. I have had students seek to opt out of class so they can go pray. In other words. they believe the instructor should give them special benefits for this. Even in the Vatican of Islam, Saudi Arabia, students must be in class during prayer times. The students AND the schools know requests for special consideration on campus is not practical and most Muslim students comply. But, this Somali fellow was not among “most”. He was clearly a troubled young man.

  • I did finally hear a justification for the “Muslims follow the same God we do” that I can accept as not some sort of make-nice — basically, because they believe they follow the God of Abraham.
    They might be wrong in every single ever loving detail about what Himself wishes, they may make the Westborough Baptist activist/funding group look like nice people, but that is the same God.
    Did I emphasize really, really wrong in description a few times? Not nearly enough, and definitely not too much.
    It’s a little like talking to someone who “believes in science,” but when you get to talking with them they don’t support the scientific method, or logic, or rules of evidence, or even have the idea of theories right…they do it by following what “scientists say.” They’re wrong, which is a different thing. *grin*

Your Tax Dollars at Play

Monday, June 20, AD 2016





The Department of Homeland Security is fully on board with the policy of the Obama administration of let’s pretend that Islamic terrorism does not exist:



A new Department of Homeland Security report urges rejecting use of Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “sharia” in programs aimed at countering terrorist radicalization among American youth.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council report recommends that the department focus on American milliennials by allocating up to $100 million in new funding. It also urges greater private sector cooperation, including with Muslim communities, to counter what is described as a “new generation of threats to the Homeland related to the threat of violent extremism.”

The funds would be used for hiring experts and new social media programs and technology to influence young people not to join terror groups.

“The department’s CVE efforts are an attempt to protect our nation’s young people from extremists who prey upon the Millennial generation,” the report says.

“The department must reframe the conversation to reflect this reality and design a robust program around the protection of our youth, which must include predator awareness and an understanding of radicalization. In doing so, our citizens will be better equipped for this threat.”

Under the section on terminology, the report calls for rejecting use of an “us versus them” mentality by shunning Islamic language in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs, or CVE, the Obama administration’s euphemism that seeks to avoid references to Islam.

Under a section on recommended actions on terminology, the report says DHS should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

Government agencies should employ “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,’” states the June 2016 report by the Council’s countering violent extremism subcommittee.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Your Tax Dollars at Play

  • Could you imagine FDR’s administration saying; “We must be sensitive to the Nazis expression of identity and ideology.”
    Words like; anti-Semitism, racial hygiene, Master Race are not appropriate when connected to a national socialist program.

    Not acknowledging who the enemy is and hiding behind a failed political correctness agenda is treason! Obama is a cancer.

  • The Alinskyites are fundamentally transforming America into the Balkans: blood feuds, class war, destitution, dependency, religious warfare.
    Waving the bloody shirt, they exploit increasingly frequent Islamic massacres to attack American Liberties: free speech, the right to bear arms, . . .
    It is almost as bad as Orwell imagined. But, they’re working on it.
    You no longer live in a free country. This is the reason they are intent on confiscating all Americans’ guns.
    Let’s pretend that Obama doesn’t exist. You need to resist in any way you can.

  • This administration isn’t serious about protecting Americans from Islamist terror.
    It doesn’t serve the left’s agendas to do so. As T. Shaw said in his post above,
    dead and maimed Americans become a useful bloody shirt to wave, a
    crisis to exploit.
    The left wants to eliminate the Second Amendment, and each time a mass
    shooting is allowed to happen, gun control gains a bit of traction. Censorship
    and penalizing “hate speech” are made to seem justifiable each time a
    mass shooting is allowed. Increasing government intrusion and surveillance
    of ordinary citizens is made to seem necessary each time a mass shooting
    is allowed. Dead, those folks in Orlando are much more useful to our present
    rulers than they ever were alive. As T. Shaw put it above, they’ve become
    a bloody shirt to wave, a tool to advance an agenda.
    We’ll never see this administration do anything substantive about our wide-
    open borders or our conspicuous lack of screening of our ever-increasing
    flood of ‘refugees’. Agencies like the FBI will continue to be hamstrung by
    idiotic PC measures like the DHS policy described in this Freebeacon article.
    This administration isn’t serious about combating terror at home because
    instances of terror are too useful politically. The Orlando shooter had
    telegraphed his intentions for a very long time, was on several lists as a
    person of interest, and yet he was left alone to kill. The next time this
    administration needs a bloody shirt to wave, it needs only sit on its thumbs
    like it did with Orlando and let another shooter drop another sweet crisis
    in its lap.

  • DHS has got bigger fish to fry –that elusive phantasm called right wing extremism, for example.
    Hey! Just because it doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean they have to stop seeking it out!

  • Our American English is the product of our melting pot or cultural blending – the request not to use foreign words seems like a throwback to some of the nativist and know nothing, isolationist responses of the past.

  • That’s irony

  • “The double think is strong in this report”
    —Darth Orwell

Attorney General Lynch and Let’s Pretend

Monday, June 20, AD 2016



Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that only redacted versions of Omar Mateen’s three 911 calls will be released to the public.

However, Mateen’s pledge of allegiance to ISIS and support for the Boston bombers will not be released as not to ‘re-victimize’ those who lived through the attack.

‘We’ll be releasing a partial transcript of the calls between the killer and the hostage negotiators so people can, in fact, see the type of interaction that was had there,’ Lynch told ABC News

I say partial because we’re not going to be, for example, broadcasting his pledges of allegiance. We are trying not to re-victimize those who went through that horror,’ she added.

FBI Director James Comey said the shooter was involved in precisely three calls to a 911 dispatcher at approximately 2.30am on June 12.

Go here to read the rest.  Come again?  The transcripts would re-victimize those who went through that horror?  Those poor souls are dead.  After that, it is hard to re-victimize them.  In any case, how can the transcripts that indicate that Mateen’s motivation was Jihad re-victimize anyone?

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Attorney General Lynch and Let’s Pretend

  • Newspeak meet Pravda

  • First, this ‘redaction’ should not survive a court challenge. What will the AG say, there is a ‘national security interest’? C’mon.

    Second, the 911 recordings belong to an agency of the state of Florida. Does the AG even have any legal authority to take this position? If she does then the legal situation regarding in this country is worse that we think.

  • Re-victimize? With words? I mean sticks and stones, people. The dead don’t care, and the survivors are in the same boat as survivors of any other horrific event. Sounds like the AG is concerned that Mateen’s motives may be taken at face value if the recordings are released in full, and that could negatively impact the guns’r’bad’m’kayy framework so hastily constructed around this Islamist terrorist attack on US soil.

  • This is what happens when you put Chip Diller in charge of law enforcement and homeland security.

  • It seems like Attorney General Lynch and Bishop Lynch have the same difficulty with plainly speaking the truth- and I think that difficulty is rooted in the fact that they both have divided hearts and loyalties .

  • “This is what happens when you put Chip Diller in charge of law enforcement and homeland security.”

  • “Second, the 911 recordings belong to an agency of the state of Florida. Does the AG even have any legal authority to take this position? If she does then the legal situation regarding in this country is worse that we think.”

    Obama’s current AG has a “lot of brass on her face” as my father used to say. She does not have the authority to violate FOIA laws at will based on the expressed subjecting standard of “inflammation. What a joke!!!!

  • So, this is super confusing. The entire country already knows it’s Allah. So, why do they have to redact it and/or change the word from Allah to God?

  • Because they assume that all of the country is as uninformed as the majority of their most dedicated voters. Never underestimate the sheer contempt that these people have for most of the American people.

The “I” Word

Monday, June 13, AD 2016




Carl Olsen at Catholic World Report looks at the inability of many of our leaders to utter the “I” word:


The same facts can be found in the essential March 2015 essay “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood of The Atlantic. Over a year later, his insistence that all of us, including our political and religious leaders, take seriously the theological premises of ISIS in order to confront Islamism directly and intelligently sounds even more urgently upon us:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.

Alas, many leaders refuse to be so acquainted, and thus acquit themselves poorly. President Obama, in a statement made yesterday, said that “this was an act of terror and an act of hate”, refused to indicate the obvious connections to radical Islam, and then managed to turn the horrific event into a litmus test of American tolerance:

In the coming hours and days, we’ll learn about the victims of this tragedy. Their names. Their faces. Who they were. The joy that they brought to families and to friends, and the difference that they made in this world. Say a prayer for them and say a prayer for their families — that God give them the strength to bear the unbearable. And that He give us all the strength to be there for them, and the strength and courage to change. We need to demonstrate that we are defined more — as a country — by the way they lived their lives than by the hate of the man who took them from us.

As Jim Geraghty of National Review fumed in his “Morning Jolt” newsletter: “Some Islamist bastard goes on a killing spree, and suddenly Americans need to prove they have the right values?” In the world of progressive moral calculations, certain actions are always the fault, in some way, of the American people. Likewise, the Archbishop of Chicago was also unable to identify the ideological motives at hand:

“For you here today and throughout the whole lesbian and gay community, who are particularly touched by the heinous crimes committed in Orlando, motivated by hate, driven perhaps by mental instability and certainly empowered by a culture of violence, know this: the Archdiocese of Chicago stands with you. I stand with you,” the letter read.

“Let our shared grief and our common faith in Jesus, who called the persecuted blessed, unite us so that hatred and intolerance are not allowed to flourish, so that those who suffer mental illness know the support of a compassionate society, so that we find the courage to face forthrightly the falsehood that weapons of combat belong anywhere in the civilian population…”

What makes Abp. Cupich’s statement all the more disappointing is that he also states, “We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity.” But no mention of Islamism, radical Islam, ISIS, or related matters. Those are empty words. You might as well walk in the Sahara Desert and hope you’ll fall into an Olympic-sized swimming pool every time you jump off a sand dune.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The “I” Word

  • It is high time the Catholic media point this stuff out and recognize that Abp. Cupich’s posturing is representative of almost every Catholic bishop in this country.

  • But the real basis of all ideologies is economic; ideologies is the product of the forces and relations of production.

    As Karl Kautsky, speaking of the Hussite revolutionaries of the 15th century and the Anabaptists of the 16th put it, “The direction of social development does not depend on the use of peaceful methods or violent struggles. It is determined by the progress and needs of the methods of production. If the outcome of violent revolutionary struggles does not correspond to the inten¬tions of the revolutionary combatants, this only signifies that these intentions stand in opposition to the development of the needs of production.
    Violent revolutionary struggles can never determine the direction of social development, they can only in certain circumstances accelerate their pace…”

    Bloch, too, speaks of “the reflexes of these actual struggles [in the relations of production] in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas…”

    Islam is merely the superstructure; what we should analyze is the base.

  • The idea that all ideologies are at base about economics is complete and total hogwash, a Marxian hangover from the 19th century. Such statements do not survive a half hour of historical analysis.

  • Your last question is profound.
    “How can you lead the fight against a problem when you simultaneously act to make the problem worse.”

    That question applies to many of the adopted sins that the current administration cuddles.

    Abortion on demand.
    Transgender acceptance.

    If they are not labeled as problems but viewed only as choices than you haven’t begun to solve any of the illnesses, you only postpone the solutions.
    You increase the number of confused individuals and the illnesses grow.

    Take pornography.
    Protected by the freedom of speech and press, it’s an acceptable form of entertainment. Yet it is adding to an epidemic of perverse behavior and misunderstandings on the identity of and respect for the opposite sex. Promiscuity and the increase in STD’s are linked to a distorted acceptance of a contagion that has grave consequences.

    Yet….the illnesses are not important enough for the public to address them as a least not a problem enough to write in legislation that would make it painful for promotion of pornography via all forms of media. Until the general consensus views it as a serious problem, the degradation continues.

    Mental illness is treatable, yet the action today is acceptance and pride of the illnesses.

  • and certainly empowered by a culture of violence

    Cupich did identify Islam, only not by name.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The idea that all ideologies are at base about economics is complete and total hogwash…”

    Of course it is. Ideologies are not “about” economics; they are determined by economics – A very different proposition.

    It is the forces and, particularly, the relations of production, that determine peoples’ outlook and world-view, along with the structures and institutions of society.

  • “Of course it is. Ideologies are not “about” economics; they are determined by economics – A very different proposition.”

    And equally hogwash. What economic basis led to Islam sweeping across the Middle East and Africa in a few decades of the seventh century? The idiocy that some intellectuals will believe is absolutely stunning.

  • What do you say about “it’s the economy, stupid”?
    Just the recognition that food sources, means of gathering or producing can effect the development of cult and culture is not necessarily Marxism. It speaks to recognizing that meeting people’s perceived needs is a road to power. Two chickens in every pot!
    I agree with Donald McClarey that it doesn’t explain the history of Islam.
    Our president and Mrs. Clinton have each at times suggested that poverty is at the root of radicalization of young people but I think we have seen that to be false.
    Islam is simply diabolical.

  • What do you say about “it’s the economy, stupid”?

    I’d say that it was damn lie, since the recession was over.
    So maybe forget Marx and focus on Gramsci. It’s the narrative stupid (and economic narratives are the easiest sells).
    I’ll concede that why that should be so raises interesting/troublesome questions.

  • Donald R McClarey asks, “What economic basis led to Islam sweeping across the Middle East and Africa in a few decades of the seventh century?”

    The whole epoch, from the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 9th century has been named by historians as the Volkswanderung. The Arabs, like the Franks, the Burgundians, the Goths, the Huns, the Mongols and others too numerous to count, were pastoral peoples, accustomed to migrate with their herds and flocks, as Gibbon recognised. This is the economic structure that made the conquest possible.

    Belloc explains very well why Islam was so readily accepted by the conquered peoples of the Middle East and North Africa: “There was indebtedness everywhere; the power of money and consequent usury. There was slavery everywhere. Society reposed upon it, as ours reposes upon wage slavery today… There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men’s lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges… To all this Islam came as a vast relief and a solution of strain. The slave who admitted that Mohammed was the prophet of God and that the new teaching had, therefore, divine authority, ceased to be a slave. The slave who adopted Islam was henceforward free. The debtor who “accepted” was rid of his debts. Usury was forbidden. The small farmer was relieved not only of his debts but of his crushing taxation. Above all, justice could be had without buying it from lawyers. . . .” Note how economic impulses predominate.

  • As usual MPS Belloc was a poor historian. The conditions he noted had existed for centuries without any Arab mass conquest. The conditions he noted existed under the Arabs, after their conquest of much of the then known world, with a vengeance. The conditions he noted existed under the Eastern Empire that successfully resisted the Islamic tide for eight centuries. Your citation of Belloc merely underlines that the thesis that all ideologies are determined by economics is simply hogwash. What caused the Islamic conquests was the birth of a fanatical new faith that initially swept all before it. There was no economic basis for its success. Contra Belloc there was little mass conversion of the subject populations to Islam for economic advantage. That was a slow process that took centuries under Islamic domination, hence the survival of a Coptic minority in Egypt down to our own day.

    As Christ said, Man does not live by bread alone, and contra Marx that is certainly the case in the realms of ideas and faiths.

  • over at over at Mahound’s Paradise I read:
    Alexis de Tocqueville:
    I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself
    Letter to Arthur de Gobineau, 1843:

Murder as Censorship

Wednesday, January 7, AD 2015

32 Responses to Murder as Censorship

  • I posted this on another site as well: while we Americans often deride the French as “cheese eating surrender monkeys”, the mere fact that this magazine exists AND continued to poke fun at Mohammed even after being firebombed, tells me that in some ways, the French may be tougher than we are. Can you picture ANY American magazine doing that?

  • Odd that 11 were only injured as though the murderers were very intent on escape unlike the more radical
    types who would have stayed, killed all and if police arrived, killed themselves. These could be two independent sympathizers who are technically unaffiliated. Affiliated IS people would not have left half injured in my little opinion since they consciously aim at totally frightening adversaries….at least prior to the coalition’s bombing campaign….and Kobani where their reputation halted.

  • bill bannon, they ARE affiliated with IS. How? By a similar reading of the Quran.

    Listen to Fr Douglas Bazi from a refugee camp in Ankawa, Kurdistan, Iraq on December 29, 2014: “I care about my people. I don’t care about the ‘Middle East.’ The Middle East for almost 2,000 years has been the same. It’s the same war, the same conflict. So, why do I have to put my people inside that war? Why?…I am angry because I know Islam very well. In Baghdad they blew up my church. I drove by three bombings, and twice my car was destroyed. I got shot in my leg by an AK-47 – by Islam, and they kidnapped me for nine days…You know who represents Islam very well? ISIL. They are the true Islam. So if someone [from the West] says, ‘No, they do not represent Islam, Hamas does not represent Islam, Hezbollah does not represent Islam.’ Who’s left then? Come on guys. Come on. Wake up. You know, stop saying those stupid things – it’s just stupid. What for? If I lose the last drop of our blood [by encouraging Christians to stay], what is the point of that?” See

  • There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If just 1% of them are radicals bent on spreading Islam by the sword, then that means there are 16 million radical terrorists Muslims. However, sadly the percentage who are radical is likely much higher.
    That said, I have worked with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims. In fact, I once had a Shiite Muslim for a boss. He kept a Koran on his desk at work and read it regularly. I never caught him doing his five daily prayers, but he would shut the door to his office for privacy. And his written language which I tried to one time to write is really quite beautiful – Farsci as I recall. Now while I absolutely oppose Islam as a false religion, I would never ever insult him or any other Muslim. My attitude was not inspired by fear of him but out of respect and awe for his devotion. We Catholic Christians should be half as devoted.
    So yes, Islam has to be defeated as a false religion (and Jesus Christ will defeat it once and for all at the end of time), and yes, the only thing that radical Muslims (in a minority, true, but nevertheless a significant minority) will respect is overwhelming and unremitting force. I wish that were not the case, but it is. However, I will not show disrespect to the Muslims with whom I work. They do not seem to be radicals. They just want to come to work, get a paycheck and go home to wife and children as normal people do. Unfortunately, Islam as a religion breeds fanaticism more than any other religion. Only atheistic communism and Nazism are worse in murdering people.

  • “We Catholic Christians should be half as devoted.”

    Absolutely correct Paul. I recall the nominally Catholic Liam Neeson once expressed admiration for Islam’s mandatory five daily prayers and said he wished Catholicism had something like it. Many then jumped in on the internet to say “We do!” and proceeded to describe the Liturgy of the Hours. Not mandatory, for sure, but similar in intent. The 1st century Didache told Christians they should pray the Our Father three times a day.

    We should be half as devoted.

  • Interesting that you say that, Tom D. One day at work a Sunni Muslim engineering co-worker caught me praying my Rosary during lunch time and remarked that he had a similar practice with his Muslim prayer beads. He admired that I unashamedly prayed the Rosary during my lunchtime runs regardless of who was looking. We developed a friendship after that and exchanged books to read. I found that I could be a witness for Christ without being my normal caustic, irascible, judgmental self – oh what a surprise! He eventually left the company for what I assume were greener pastures elsewhere. Hopefully I have left on him a positive memory of what being a Catholic really means.

  • That brings up another subject Paul: most Catholics are unaware that there is a large varieties of ‘prayer beads’ in Christianity. Chaplet is the generic term – the rosary is a specific chaplet, but there are many others. Some are said on a standard rosary, some have dedicated chaplets with different bead counts (one example being the Chaplet of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady). Another ‘non-circular chaplet’ [yes, that is an oxymoron] is the Pater Noster. Also, Eastern churches have a prayer bead called the Chotki. which has 25-100 beads; on each is said the Jesus Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, Have mercy on me, a sinner”. There is a rich history here that is almost forgotten today.

  • Tom,
    They claimed they were Al Qaeda but spoke fluent French according to the noon news. I know independents are lethal….I’m just thinking that thankfully they were not thorough in their murder as I think IS Chechens would be. A $20 motion detector near the office front door would have alerted the bodyguard during the meeting they were having …who was also killed. I have several motion detectors…being under a lukewarm pistol threat by a non religious ghetto dude I choked out after he broke into an evergreen covered window of ours and stole a lethal weapon inter alia. I did something else to him but that will never be detailed in print…evah…and I stand corrected in that by God. Warning….burglars love windows covered by evergreens…who knew. Ours was a holly tree that had to sting him with those leaves that went all the way to the window….hence his anger at my relieving him of our things out on the sidewalk as he was escaping.
    Speaking of tradition, I’ve discovered a new penance besides watching Piers Morgan gun debates…eating defrosted mushrooms…though which is worse is hard to discern.

  • bill, such lines are already blurring:
    What is driving French nationals to join Islamic State? [BBC News 11/19/2014

    With delicate features and an unkempt beard, Maxime Hauchard, 22, helped to carry out executions in the arid Syrian landscape.
    He was once, according to his uncle, a calm and happy little boy. “He was never even naughty as a child,” Pascal Hauchard said.
    But this week, Maxime became the latest name in the roll-call of Western recruits fighting alongside Islamic State.
    He had already given a Skype interview to French television, describing life in Syria and his desire to become a martyr.
    It’s an odd kind of celebrity for a French boy from rural Normandy who, according to local reports, converted to Islam at the age of 17.

    But converts appear to make up a striking number of the French citizens attracted to the militants’ cause…
    “They do it on purpose, of course they do,” says Professor Jean-Pierre Filiu, from the School of International Affairs at Sciences-Po.
    “Western recruits have no military value [to militant groups] at the moment; they have no [perhaps less is now the correct word – Tom] training or expertise. Their value is in propaganda and recruitment. Militant leaders want to use European Muslims as hostages for their own propaganda, to generate fear of a fifth column back home. And it’s working.

  • The worthiness of being devoted is totally dependent on the worthiness of the object of that devotion.

  • TomD,
    I agree with you. I think IS has been dumping fast trained recruits with some experienced troops into Kobani as soon as they saw it was turning against them as we bombed committedly after being half committed in the beginning because we list Turkish Kurd groups as terrorist. When Peshmerga entered with heavier weapons from Iraq ( stage 3) , I’ll bet IS upped the number of Euro recruits further being sent to Kobani which they know is a losing hand by now…lbut withdrawing causes recruit fails itself. They are users…they probably lost over 3K to bombs in Kobani by now. It’s fish in a barrel.

  • I’d like to hear those devoted Islamists stand up and tell us what they are devoted to, that separates them from their fellows.

  • . France has no death penalty by Constitution since 2007 but in the 1960’s and 70’s, France guillotined a number of people. So if caught, these men will get life sentences which to Pope Francis and maybe three others on earth is a hidden guillotine.

  • Anzlyne,
    Bukhari is canonical as an hadith author. So for Sunnis, this is virtually the Koran itself. The men in paradise will get 72 dark eyed houri plus their wives but they’ll be able to visit one without the others knowing.

    “The statement of Allah, Beautiful fair females restrained [i.e. chained] in pavilions. Narrated Qaisi, Allah’s Apostle said, ‘In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.’” Bukhari vol.6:402 and prior p.374

    So……there will be some trust issues in Paradise I suspect. You can see the draw in this to the unemployed young muslim males who can’t afford one wife and family now in real reality. They are promised a prodigal non reality. It’s strangely for the unemployed young male….a rediculous compensation for his life here on earth. And yes….it’s carnal….the opposite of Christ saying of Heaven….” they will neither marry nor be given in marriage for they shall be as the angels “. You’ll know your earthly spouse as a special friend but sex as an affirmation by them will be unnecessary since you are totally affirmed by God and in God.

  • And his written language which I tried to one time to write is really quite beautiful – Farsci as I recall

    But Arabic and Farsi preceded Islam. What could have been of the Middle East if Islam did not happen?

  • . The three suspects are identified by name…not caught yet.

  • “But Arabic and Farsi preceded Islam. What could have been of the Middle East if Islam did not happen?” That’s true. And sad. We get a glimpse into this by looking at the Middle Eastern countries in the 1970’s when all Faiths lived in relative peace. Mum tells me growing up in Lebanon, Muslim girls donned the mini skirts and fashion hairstyles of the era. There was no hijab. These same girls who are now grown women are wrapped and their husbands have possibly taken on another wife…

    The goal of Islam is to instil fear. Death due to an attack is just a by-product and bonus of their ultimate goal of ingrained fear. They want the citizens of a country to be afraid to speak their own mind or live their own way, particularly if it does not adhere to an Islamic State ideal. And it seems to be working in the West.

    Since the Sydney Siege, the security around the city has been extraordinary. And the mood is somber. And people think twice about going to large crowd events (it’s always at the back of the mind that something could possibly happen).

    Just a little anecdote, we took our children to a public pool yesterday. There were many women dressed in burhkinis (Burkha type swim wear). A mother came dressed in a regular swim wear with a flowering shawl over her swim wear, because she wasn’t comfortable showing her figure. Fair enough. The guard on duty told her she was not allowed to swim with the shawl on. So she got out and sat on the bench and watched her husband and children swim. I struck up a conversation with her as I was not swimming either, and my husband and children were. I asked her about what the lifeguard said. She told me she wasn’t comfortable with her body to take the shawl off. I noted to her that there are many women covering not only their bodies, but their legs and head. And this seems to be allowed. She just shrugged. I told her if I were here I would get back into the water and if the guard said anything to her then she should pull him up on the Burhkini situation. In the West we pander, and keep quiet.

    The only solution to preventing further attacks in the West, is to close the boarders to Muslims. Period.

    Unfortunately this may be too late in France (and Australia), because most of the fanatics are second generation born.

    The boarders need to be closed non-the-less. Today and looking to the future, there is no such thing as a harmonious society where Islam is involved.

  • What could have been of the Middle East if Islam did not happen?
    Zoroastrianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Manicheeism

  • Daily Beast says one killed other two captured….cnn not saying.

  • Pingback: France & Islam: Islamist Terror Strikes Paris -
  • The “religion of peace” strikes again.

  • 6:03 Reuters…Policewoman killed in Southern France by a seemingly different man, bullet proof vest, and an assault rifle. Daily Beast yesterday was incorrect about original three…one surrendered, two on the loose.

  • Charlie Hedo’s editor and one of France’s leading cartoonists, Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, had been named as an al-Qaeda target in a list published in the terror group’s magazine Inspire in 2013.

    In an interview, he said, “It might sound a bit pompous, but I would prefer to die on my feet rather than live on my knees.”

  • Ezabelle wrote, “The only solution to preventing further attacks in the West, is to close the boarders to Muslims. Period.”

    Including, I suppose, Mustapha Ourad, Charlie Hebdo’s copy edditor, killed in the attack and Ahmed Merabet, one of the two police officers also killed.

    Should France deport Rachida Dati, who, as Minister of Justice (garde des Sceaux), introduced the headscarf ban in public schools?

  • “Should France deport Rachida Dati, who, as Minister of Justice (garde des Sceaux), introduced the headscarf ban in public schools?”

    You can’t deport people that are born in that country. Unfortunately.

    The people you mention are bad Muslims. In that, they probably are the equivalent to what we call “cafeteria Catholics”. True Islam is exactly what we have seen over the last decades on the numerous attacks on the western way of life.

    These brothers (the attackers) were born in France, orphaned and led a life of dope-smoking/rapping/laziness and ended up joining a terrorist organisation.

    It is bad policy to open the boarders to cultures if that country is not willing to work at assimilation. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of many in the Muslim community, to allow immigration to continue. With many (not all), they want the benefits of a western way of life, but do not respect our western values in return.

    I’m second generation Lebanese Christian. I was taught to love and respect my western country. My parents assimilated into Western society.

    Go to the SouthWest of Sydney and see the ghettos that Muslims have created. Many do not learn English and are highly dependant on government handouts and have so much time on their hands that they become heavily involved in fundamentalist work.

    My parents didn’t have time to becoming fundamentalists in anything because like many other Christian immigrants, they worked.

    I don’t see this in the Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist etc communities. Why? Because Islam’s objective: to make the nations they occupy Muslim by a) making the people Muslim b) making the land Muslim. There exists an agenda.

    These men in Paris are well known criminals who are deeply involved in the radicalisation of other youth. Expect more attacks. In the name of Islam. Not in the name of any other Faith.

    After Sydney, I can’t help but look at a hijab with judgement. I don’t like to, but that’s just the name they have created for themselves.

    Yes, close the borders, till the next generation learns to assimilate. Some European countries have done just that.

  • Michael PS,
    What about deporting any muslims connected via emails, twitter, etc. with jihadist thinking?

  • Ezabelle

    Of course, a great many Muslim immigrants to Metropolitan France were already French citizens by birth in French overseas territories. It was French conservative politicians who were loudest in their insistence that “the Mediterranean divides France, just as the Seine divides Paris.”

    That said, many Muslims, and especially Muslim women, are manifesting their confidence in the Republic and proclaiming their adherence to its values.

    The president of the Muslim women’s movement, « Ni Putes Ni Soumises » [Neither Sluts nor Door-mats] Sihem Habchi, in a forceful attack on “multiculturalism” has demanded “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those men who force us to bow our heads”

    Rachida Dati, who certainly considers herself a Muslim, said of the hijab, “the laïcité of state schools is not restricted, in the case of pupils, to respect for their freedom of conscience: it imposes a duty of restraint on pupils in their behaviour, since they find themselves in a place pertaining to the public sphere. Pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them ‘the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs’ in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school.”

    Fadela Amara, another Muslim cabinet minister, when she was Secretary of State for Urban Policies described fundamentalism as something clung to by some Muslims through ignorance and isolation in ghetto communities that will vanish when they are given better opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences. “For this generation,” she declared, “the crucial issues are laïcité, gender equality and gender desegregation, based upon living together in harmony throughout the world, and not only in France” She hailed the insistence of the Jules Ferry laws on making education at every level free, obligatory and lay.

  • Blessed Mother promised a third world war of unimaginable proportions. Enter the third world war of unimaginable proportions.

  • Zoroastrianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Manicheeism

    All dealt with without Islam (although Zoroastrainism as I understand is still around in pockets).

  • Michael,

    Yes, I applaude the likes of Habdchi, Dati and Amara. Their common sense and reason speaks volumes. But unfortunately they are in the minority and Im not confident, being women, they yield much power or influence within their community, on a grass-roots level, where the problems begin.

    Muslim clerics and community leaders do not speak out enough against their own. You could compare it to the Catholic Bishops who “protected” or moved around paedophile clerics..? The problem however is far worse because of Islam’s ideology to conquer.

    Gaddafi defined it best when he told the Muslim world not to go out to conquer through fighting and wars, but rather to immigrate and conquer through natural attrition. Now that attrition has begun to have its effect over a few generations, how then do you manage the damage done to the safety and values of a western free society? I’m not confident you can without stopping the intake.

  • c matt

    So is Nestorianism (Assyrian Church of the East, St Thomas Christians in India) as is Monophysitism (Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians)

  • Ezabelle wrote, “to immigrate and conquer through natural attrition.”

    Bur birthrates are declining dramatically in the Muslim world, with those countries (like Algeria and Iran) that have seen the greatest growth in female literacy being worst hit.

    Iran has seen a decrease in the average number of births from 6.08 per woman in the early 1980s to 1.8 births per woman in 2007; a decline that took a century in the West has occurred in Iran in a single generation.

    Once “ignorance and isolation are replaced by opportunities of intellectual enlightenment and of acquiring elementary knowledge in history and the sciences,” the old belief systems will wither away and with women in the forefront of that shift, as we are seeing in France today. Already we see higher rates of employment among immigrant women that among their male counterparts; something that is bound to bring about a change in family dynamics.

    Also, in France, one sees the rise of the « beurgeoisie » (an excuciating pun on the Verlan word « beure » = Arab) Those who have passed difficult competitive exams, have been introduced into the officer cadre of the General Staff or the most sought-after civilian administrative corps, are exasperated by anything that might create the sort of hostile prejudice that would put a limit to their irreproachable careers. They think only of keeping their heads down and hiding themselves – and who can blame them?

What Islamic Terrorism?

Saturday, August 30, AD 2014

10 Responses to What Islamic Terrorism?

  • The roo’s are in cahoots with the wallabies.

  • Eric Holder tried to say at one point in the video that he did not want to insult any religion – any religion that is except the orthodox Catholic Christian faith. And at several points he tried to say or imply that radical Islam does not reflect what Islam really teaches, which is demonstrably not true. The Koran commands its followers to lie to non-Islamics, and even to subject to dhimmitude or death Jews and Christians. How Eric Holder can be so deluded after the execution of that American reporter recently is beyond understanding. Indeed, I doubt that he or anyone else in the Administration is deluded. Rather, they ARE the enemy just as radical Islam is the enemy.

  • The appointments by this administration and national security risks are obscene.
    It gives fuel to Paul Primavera’s conclusion. This administration is evil.
    Anti-Christian is putting it mildly.
    Anti- Liberty is suitable.

    Let’s work hard to open the boarders for Islamic terrorist. Then the administration has accomplished what it has set out to do. Bring America to it’s knees.

  • If the government of America would pigeon hole Islam, all of Islam, not just “Radical Islam”, as a political ideology, and not at all as a religion, it would be more effective in battling this enemy, and it would be more truthful. Much like Nazism, or Communism, Islam is a political system bent on world domination. If it has no recognition as a religion, Islam will have no religious liberty rights under the Constitution. Their mosques seen as only meeting places for their version of Communist cell meetings. Once they are condemned as followers of a political system which seeks the destruction of America, Muslims will be much easier to combat and defeat at least within American borders.

  • James,
    What you quite rightly recommend as the proper and correct treatment of Islam in America is what the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama is doing (or trying to do) with orthodox Christianity, whether Bible-believing Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians who oppose homosexual marriage and abortion or traditional-minded Roman Catholics of the same persuasion. Barack Hussein Obama and his minions from hell treat real Christians (not the faux Christians of the social justice variety) with contempt and disdain, and extoll and laud the false religion of Islam.
    I do not advocate a Crusade, but if things continue as they are continuing, then the response of Mattathias and the Maccabean brothers may sadly be the only viable response left. I do NOT want that and I pray it comes not to pass, but we face the twin threats of godless liberal progressivism on the one side and radical militant Islam on the other. Satan often attacks with a two-prong strategy just as he did in the 16th century with the Protestant rebellion on the one side and the Ottoman Turks on the other.
    Pray for the conversion of that evil and reprobate gangster sitting in the Oval Office and his wife Jezebel.
    PS, I met a Deacon when out to the left coast during the past four weeks for my new “neutrons ‘R us” job. He had a previous blog entry about how wonderful it was to swim in Democratic waters when the swimming pool at his gym was visited by the Obama children. I was utterly ashamed and disgusted – not at the children for they are innocent – but at his reveling in being in Democratic waters. Why does a cleric brag about being a Democrat when that Party legitimatizes the murder of unborn children, sanctifies the filth of homosexual relations, and equivocates an evil religion like Islam with the truth of Christianity? The Church Herself is infected with this pernicious cancer called liberal progressivism. Attitudes like this are the reason why we lack the courage to face down radical Islam. We have no moral strength.

  • From James’ excellent post above: ” . . .seeks the destruction of America . . . ”

    James, in five words, provides all you need to know re: Obama, Holder, ISIS, Dem traitors.

    These quislings don’t perceive Islamic murderers as threats. Killers like Fort Hood, massacre-artist (work place violence!) Major Hasan are allies with ISIS, Obama, Holder, et al.

  • Rush Limbuagh put it best. Obama and Holder are the same. Obama holds the Catholic Church in contempt. He is open about it. Democrats who call themselves Catholic do not care. The USCCB will want to “dialouge”.

    Prayers for strength are needed. Catholics helped to elect Obama to ever office he has held.

  • Didn’t Obama lump all his opponents thusly:

    “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or … or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said.

    Holder on the other hand, lumps all Obama opponents as racists who hate a black President.

    Failing to list radical Islam theology as a threat to the US simply has to be a deliberate attempt to avoid that subject.

  • “They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists.”
    “sovereign citizens” constitute the state, the nation, the United States of America with their sovereign personhood.
    More proof that Obama and Holder are traitors.

  • Pingback: Demons Tremble before the Real Presence -

Impotence as Foreign Policy: Part II

Monday, May 12, AD 2014

Bring back our girs

Fresh off their laurels of establishing that the US has no policy regarding Vladimir Putin except to post disapproving internet pics, go here to read all about it, the Obama administration is trying the same thing in regard to the kidnaping of hundreds of Christian girls by the Boko Haram Islamic terrorists in Nigeria.  Needless to say that the pictures mention nothing about the main problem in Nigeria:  an inept and corrupt government and their Keystone Kops military, both of which are terrified by the terrorists who enjoy a fair amount of support among the half of Nigeria which is Muslim.


Mark Steyn gets to the heart of why the Obama administration does these idiot dog and pony shows:



The blogger Daniel Payne wrote this week that “modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing“. He was musing on a press release for some or other “Day of Action” that is, as usual, a day of inaction:

Diverse grassroots groups are organizing and participating in events such as walks, rallies and concerts and calling on government to reduce climate pollution, transition off fossil fuels and commit to a clean energy future.

It’s that easy! You go to a concert and someone “calls on government” to do something, and the world gets fixed.

There’s something slightly weird about taking a hashtag – which on the Internet at least has a functional purpose – and getting a big black felt marker and writing it on a piece of cardboard and holding it up, as if somehow the comforting props of social media can be extended beyond the computer and out into the real world. Maybe the talismanic hashtag never required a computer in the first place. Maybe way back during the Don Pacifico showdown all Lord Palmerston had to do was tell the Greeks #BringBackOurJew.

As Mr Payne notes, these days progressive “action” just requires “calling on government” to act. But it’s sobering to reflect that the urge to call on someone else to do something is now so reflexive and ingrained that even “the government” – or in this case the wife of “the government” – is now calling on someone else to do something.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Impotence as Foreign Policy: Part II

  • Precisely.

    What defines a man is not what he imagines but what he does or does not do.

  • When I saw her # bring back our girls, I just wondered who she is addressing? Who does she want to bring them back? Just makes no sense at all.

  • I posted this on the original ‘fecklessness’ thread:
    More fecklessness: Dr Meriam Yahia Ibrahim (the wife of U.S. citizen Daniel Wani and the mother of 20 month old Martin Wani, who also is a U.S. citizen) was arrested and jailed in Khartoum in February 2014 on a charge of apostasy for being a Muslim woman – her father is Muslim – who married a Christian and adultery since Islamic law does not recognize their marriage, pregnant, has been beaten, denied medical care, and threatened with 100 lashes and death upon conviction. Her son is incarcerated with his mother because Islamic law prohibits his Christian father from having custody. The U.S. Embassy will not assist him without a DNA test proving that he is the son of Daniel Wani but the jail will not allow the testing.

    Yesterday the Sudanese court officially sentenced Dr. Ibrahim to 100 lashes and death. Her son, a U.S. citizen, will now pass into the Sudanese foster care system. Happy Mother’s Day. See

    “Modern liberalism, at its core, is an ideology of talking, not doing“. It seems we are usually too scared to even do any talking. Groupthink at work.

  • Someone should be buying those girls via undercovers posing as rich muslims but…days ago. I think they will machine gun the girls at the approach of any forces and they are not going to feed them much longer if he was partly unwittingly signalling that cash is needed in his “selling them” video. The Bin Laden thing is different in that no hostages were at risk.

  • Every time I see a photo of Moochelle, I think of Jezebel the wife of Ahab, and the story of Naboth the Jezreelite. The Obamas fill me with such loathing and contempt.

  • Let’s imagine for a moment TR lived in the digital age:

    #Pedicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!

    Even our sloganeering isn’t what it used to be.

  • “Someone should be buying those girls….”

    Because if you want more of something, incentivize it, right?

  • “Even our sloganeering isn’t what it used to be.”

    Yep. Teddy had Perdicaris released within less than a month and a half. His threat was backed up by battleships and several companies of Marines, and the fact that everyone knew that when TR made a threat it was a promise.

  • Maybe Obama could go apologize for something and offer Michelle up as a swap??? Better yet, he could give Boko Harim a case of autograph copies of “Dreams of my Father whoremongering drunkard Socialist.”

    This is a serious and tragic event…..the presidency of the first Muslim of the U.S.A. And yes the inability to tell Americans the truth. The girls and their families are in my prayers.

  • Ernst,
    How do you picture an armed attack working on suicidal men who think they get many girls in paradise if they die fighting for Islam? You can kill them later when you’ve bought the girls into safety.

  • This is pathetic.
    The girls were kidnapped nearly a month ago; having tested the waters of public opinion, they decide to do something as a token of their concern.

    Wife to husband: ” What are you doing today?”
    Husband: “Nothing.”
    Wife: ” But you did that yesterday!”
    Husband: ” I haven’t finished yet.”

  • Buying the girls back only gets more girls kidnapped for ransom.

    Doing this right means using American Special Ops backed up by a Marine Expeditionary Force and Naval Air assets.

    So the Nigerians’ best bet would be to kidnap about twice as many Muslim girls and do a straight up exchange.

  • “.. girls were kidnapped nearly a month ago; having tested the waters of public opinion, they decide to do something as a token of their concern.” Don the Kiwi

    Everything is a play, a ploy! Shallow selfish amateurs who talk and preen and game the world.
    How do we get out of this?

  • Repealing the 17th and 19th amendments would be a good start. So would restricting the franchise to the 53% of adults who actually pay taxes, or some other kind of skin-in-the-game type requirement. Requiring would-be voters to demonstrate a minimum of civic literacy awareness wouldn’t hurt either, but that would go over about as well as Voter ID laws.

  • Pingback: Politico Wants Envoy for Persecuted Christians - God & Caesar
  • “Requiring would-be voters to demonstrate a minimum of civic literacy awareness wouldn’t hurt either, but that would go over about as well as Voter ID laws.”
    Voter ID laws prevent fraud. Land ownership, literacy and the rest rely upon the age of informed consent at emancipation. Otherwise, the voters represent the minors.

  • As effete as they are in international affairs, they are efficacious in ruining America . . . [sigh]


    Soon enough it will be bullets.

  • I disagree with you T.Shaw. Obama in 2008 led the Democrats to the peak of their political power since their win in 1964. Under Obama’s presidency, the Republicans have taken control of more state legislatures than at any time since Calvin Coolidge was President, retaken the House and it looks like the GOP will probably retake the Senate. It is possible that historians will look back on Obama as the last gasp of FDR’s New Deal, the swan song of the welfare state in this country. We shall see.

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.
    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:

  • “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.”

    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:

  • 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.

Mosque Opponents: Be Careful What You Wish For, You Might Get It

Saturday, August 28, AD 2010

The debate over the so-called Ground Zero mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York has raised public interest in, and opposition to, other proposed or recently built mosques and Islamic centers throughout the country.

In areas where Muslim migration or immigration has been significant, some citizens have attempted to discourage construction of new mosques. Few come right out and cite the threat of terrorism; more often they seem to resort to time-honored NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) tactics such as creative interpretation of zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I understand the need to be vigilant regarding the potential for violent subversion, as well as the dangers of taking such a politically correct approach to militant Islam that people hesitate to report obvious suspicious activity for fear of being labeled bigots (as seems to have happened in the Fort Hood massacre case).

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Mosque Opponents: Be Careful What You Wish For, You Might Get It

  • Outstanding article — thank you!!

    Question (and please forgive this social-networking-backward-participant!):

    Why doesn’t American Catholic enable readers to SHARE this via Facebook? (Maybe I’m flunking the IQ test and missed the link??? I just did a “copy & paste” on the link above on my FB page . . . Sad to say, I am still trying to figure out this RSS stuff!!!)

    Thank you!

  • Elaine,

    You raise some very valid points. But, did Catholicism, or the perversion therof, and Catholics or any Christians for that matter murder 3000 innocents on September 11? Or have Catholics or Christians committed bombings in recent years or pose threats of bombings around the world?

    I think the problem here is that the Muslims who have proposed this mosque have displayed absolutely NO sensitivity to the families of victims of 9/11 while demanding all the tolerance in the world from those 9/11 families,as well as other citizens. These “moderate” Muslims claim that they want to build bridges but all they are doing by forcing the building of this mosque at this partiular ultra-sensitive location is burning bridges. Why is this location so important when there are over 100 mosques located in NYC already? How is this mosque being funded? By terrorist organizations or not? I believe in order for the community as a whole to benefit from this mosque our government and our citizens must be as certain as possible that this mosque is not funded by terrorist organizations and will not be used as a terrorist training center under the guise of religious freedom. If the mayor and others would be willing to look into the mosque’s financial funding I believe that this would allay many peoples’ fears.

    I do understand that the people behind the building of the mosque has a right to be built according to civil law. But, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, if zoning laws and aesthetics can trump one’s right to build why could the sensitivity to those families who had loved ones killed by a single act of war trump one’s right to build?

    As to the issue of this mosque being two blocks away from the primary ground zero site: Would you agree that wherever the planes hit or any of its part on 9/11 should be considered Ground Zero? If so, then so should the Burlington building since a part of the plane hit that building.

    I think this whole controversy could have been avoided if the NYC commission had shown some prudential judgment and declared the Burlingtion building as a historical landmark.

  • I agree that it wasn’t a good idea for the mosque/Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero. I see nothing wrong with encouraging them to build elsewhere. The $64,000 question, however, is whether or not the local government has a right to explicitly FORBID them to build at the site. That’s where the danger of setting a bad precedent comes in.

  • Elaine a ban on construction of new places of worship would be clearly unconstitutional and would not stand up in court longer than the time it takes a Chicago alderman to pocket a bribe. No one has been disputing the right of the Flim Flam Imam and his Cordoba Initiative (Dhimmis Always Welcome!) to build this Mosque, but whether it is right for them to do so. I am keenly aware of the frequent divergence of a legal right and a moral right. My opposition might well not exist if a local group of Muslims had wished to put up a Mosque for local worship. I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.

  • I thought this post by Bob Murphy about the Glenn Beck rally today was a propos:

    Of course Mr. Beck and his fans have every legal right to hold a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech.

    Nonetheless, we are asking that they hold their rally a few blocks away, and on a different date. There are 364 other days in the year; what’s wrong with them?
    Now look, we know full well that Mr. Beck and his supporters claim that they are trying to heal racial division. Intellectually, we black Americans know that just because we have been brutalized by angry white conservative males for as long as we can remember, that doesn’t mean that all angry white conservative males pose a threat to our physical safety.

    But this isn’t about logic or rationality. This is about sensitivity to our feelings. Surely Mr. Beck can understand why a majority of American blacks wouldn’t appreciate him holding a rally on the anniversary of Dr. King’s famous speech. If he goes ahead with his plans, he won’t promote racial unity. So we ask him to hold the rally in a different place, on a different date.

  • Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.

  • As usual, Blackadder mistakes cuteness for substance. By now Blackadder is aware that the objections to the Mosque are not grounded in a general objection to anything at all being built near Ground Zero.

  • “Teresa – Did you seriously just say that Christians have not bombed or killed significant numbers of people? Check the stats on our current wars sometime.”

    Our wars being the equivalent of Bin Laden’s murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children? Moral equivalency: the opiate of the politically correct.

  • While I agree with Donald that the proposed ban shouldn’t pass constitutional muster (there’s a case that states you can’t ban all forms of religious speech-I think it’s Rosenberger v. Rectors & Vistors of UVA), you are absolutely right in stating that the opposition to the mosque establishes a precedent that is far more dangerous to Catholics than to Muslims insofar as some are advocating legal means to interfere with the building of the mosque.

  • “I think the Flim Flam Imam clearly has an agenda that has little to do with worshiping Allah, and quite a bit to do with furthering his Cordoba Initiative which has one message for gullible Western elites and another message for his backers in the Middle East.”

    Donald, I agree.

    If Alveda King has no problem with the rally I don’t see why any other person, of any color black, white, red, brown etc., should have a problem with Beck and others honoring Martin Luther King Jr’s message of equality for all. Yeah, and if he didn’t do anything honoring Martin Luther King the Left would make accusations about no person caring about blacks and spreading King’s message, so Your “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” according to liberalism.

    First, is that an admission that our nation is rooted in Christian values?

    Second, Did we really go to war as “Christians” or as a nation fighting against terrorism and for our nation’s national defense?

    Third, I didn’t know that a group of Christians not associated with the U.S. government went off on their own and specifically targeted a building or another location just to murder Iraqi inocents? I think your the person who is a little confused with reality, Martin.

    Fourth, Please name me one war in history that has had no civilian casualties?

  • I’m with Gen’l. (Vinegar) Joe Stillwell, “Don’t let the bastards wear you down.”

  • It isn’t even a matter of where the mosque is being built – replace the entire WTC site with the biggest mosque in the world, no problem – PROVIDED Islam changes its ways.

    I realize all the 1st Amendment issues involved here – but until I am no longer considered such subhuman filth that I cannot enter the precincts of Mecca, then I’m going to hold that Moslems must be curbed in what they do in the United States. Not stopped – not expelled; just carefully curtailed to ensure that everyone, especially in the Moslem world, knows that we have not lost our back bone.

    Tolerance does not mean going along happily with whatever someone wants to do – it is a two way street and it requires some compromise. We can easily tolerate a mosque in Manhattan – but we can’t tolerate it hard by Ground Zero…not now, and not until Islam changes its tune.

    Mark Noonan

  • Blackadder,

    I wonder if the author of that piece can find even a single black man brutalized by a conservative white man in the past 40 years.

  • We might just consider the possibility that these local pols want to limit the quantum of non-taxable property in that particular locality. Piggy, but unsurprising.

    It is not a novelty for houses of worship to face zoning tangles. Given the size of the metropolitan New York area, you will have to excuse me if I suggest that prohibiting the placement of a 13 story building of a particular character at a historic site of modest dimensions is a measure different in kind than prohibiting all construction of houses of worship in a given municipality.


    As far as I am aware, the Marine Corps does not have an icon of St. Michael on their weaponry and al-Qaeda does not do civil affairs projects.

  • Here’s my $64,000,000.03 question.

    If religious freedom/tolerance requires a $100 million mosque over the WTC site. How is religious liberty/tolerance served by denying the rebuild of THE Orthodox Church that THE muslim terrorists destroyed on 11 Sep 2001?


    No! It’s much worse than that! USMC heroes wear (gasp) US flags on their uniforms.

    Re AQ civil affairs projects: They’re helping make Americans good. They believe the only good American is a dead American.

  • Lot of assumptions in this post; the assumption that the REAL motive folks have is fear of terrorism, and that they can’t possibly object for the reasons they give:

    zoning ordinances, claims of decreased property values, or claims of real or potential problems with traffic, noise, etc.

    Evidence for this claim? I know that the blog Beers with Demo did the research to show a pattern of harassment against a church in his area, but a blanket claim that 1) Mosques are being unusually opposed and 2) it is because of fears of terrorism is a claim that requires more than just a claim to be taken seriously.

    There’s also the issue of using charged terms inaccurately. NIMBY, while meaning “not in my back yard,” also implies that something is not opposed in general. (Example, opposing wind power generators in your area while promoting wind energy in general.)
    People who are worried about Islamic terror risings from Mosques are going to be bright enough to remember the home mosques of the 9/11 terrorists were far, far away, and would appose them in general, not just specific.

    Your notion of equivalence between “there shall be no non-profit organizational buildings in our district” and “no, you may not build a triumphalist religious center on the ruins created by said religion” is mind bending.

  • Martin-
    Go troll someplace else.

  • Wow. Far-ranging discussion.

    First, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The religion piece really has no bearing on the discussion over the Cordoba Mosque proposed for Ground Zero.

    How many mosques are there in Manhattan? About a hundred? Sounds like pretty free exercise of religion to me.

    Second: I challenge any black person who reads this blogs, or any black person who’s a friend of someone who reads this blog, to tell me the date of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. I had to memorize parts of it as a child (stand down, racialists: I’m Black). Never knew what day it was given; barely knew it was in August. Glenn Beck planned this rally (which I wish I had had time to attend)for the last Saturday in August. An lo and behold, what date did that happen to fall on? Why, August 28! August the 28th, which happened to be an anniversary of Dr. King’s speech!

    Why should a mosque be built at the site of a murder committed by people motivated by Islam? Why should a church of any type be built at the site of the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people (and others, including Catholic Saints)? Why should the Japanese in Hawaii build a temple at the site of the sunken USS Arizona?

    Answer? None of them should. Because it’s disrespectful. Why is this so hard to grasp? And what does it tell those who truly hate us about whether we will truly resist them?

    It is not un-Christian to stand up for common politeness.

  • Gee, RR, why didn’t you link to this much more recent article on those idiots?

    Those morons were accused of racial hate crimes and seem to be gang related. Notably, not “conservative white men”– just idiot gang members. (is that redundant?)

  • What are you trying to prove by arguing that white people no longer attack black people? For one, it’s a sad, callous, and absurd battle to fight. Do you, like, remember this one time, in, like, 1992 in LA where, like, some white cops beat up this black guy named Rodney King? White on black violence occurs a lot, as does black on white, white on white, black on black, brown on black, brown on white, brown on brown, white on brown, black on brown, etc, etc, etc.

    Also, please STOP calling it a mosque. A mosque is specifically a Muslim holy place where only prayer can be conducted. This is a Muslim community center, similar to a YMCA. It will have a culinary school, basketball courts, etc. With a prayer room on one or two of the fifteen or so floors.

    I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

    It is utterly absurd to demand that “Islam” renounce its terroristic ways before the community center is built, as Mr. Noonan said. A religion cannot change its ways. People can change their ways, but abstract nouns cannot. And the people behind this community center have no terroristic tendencies to modify. Furthermore, there is no central authority for Islam as there is for Catholicism. In fact, some radical sects of Muslims hate opposing Islamic sects more than they hate America. Like al-Qaeda. Bin Laden hates America not “for our freedoms” but because we prop up the (in his mind) heretical Saud monarchy in Arabia.

    Quite frankly, it’s astounding that a debate over a Muslim community center is occurring in 21st century America. As someone who would never have voted for George Bush, I will say that I am so grateful that he modeled Christ’s love to American Muslims by not targeting them after 9/11, as seems to be occurring now.

  • Pingback: Opponents of mosque may soon see tables turned | Holy Post | National Post
  • I would like to ask everyone – Do you think that Islam can be a “moderate” religion? I am not saying Muslims cannot be moderates, but can the religion itself really ever be considered moderate since it follows Sharia law?

    If Sharia law is one of the precepts of Islam then why wouldn’t Sharia law fall under the guise of religious freedom and challenge the constitution in several capacities and force all of us citizens to respect and follow Sharia as well? Is Sharia law and the Constitution really compatible?

    If those who believe in the “letter of the Constitution” instead of the “spirit of the Constitution” with regards to religious freedom truly believe that religious freedom is absolute without taking into account our national security interests (as it seems to me) how could one deny Muslims the “right” to follow their “moderate” religion that includes Sharia Law which would also impose Sharia Laws on the non-Muslim citizens when that clearly clashes with our Constitution?

    You might want to look at a some things that Sharia law demands:

    1 – Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

    2 – A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

    3 – A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

    4 – A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

    5 – It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

    6 – A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

    7 – The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

    8 – A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

    9 – A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

    10 – A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

    11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

    12 – Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

    13 – Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

    14 – It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

    15 – A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

    16 – Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

    17 – No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

    18 – A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

    19 – H***sexuality is punishable by death.

    20 – There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

    21 – Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

    22 – Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

    23 – There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

    24 – A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

    25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

    26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

    27 – A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

    28 – The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

    29- A woman loses custody if she remarries.

    30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

    31 – A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

    32 – A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

    33 – A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

    The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

  • Ryan-
    who are you talking to?
    NO ONE was talking about “whites never attack blacks”. Blackadder posted a quote of someone claiming that “angry white conservative males” have been brutalizing blacks for “as long as they can remember,” and someone else challenged him to find a single case of a white conservative assaulting a black person. RR then posted an article that implied but did not claim anti-Dem motives, and which five minutes of research showed to just be gang idiots.

    Secondly, go yell at the Cordoba House proponents, and even the initiative itself; half the time, they call it a mosque. (Generally when they want to drum up the religion side of it; when it’s more flattering to emphasize the “community center” side, it becomes a building that includes a mosque.)

    If the reading comprehension and careful consideration of the argument you’ve shown in this post is standard for you, no wonder you can’t see how this is a topic for valid debate. Straw men with only a nodding acquaintance to the topic aren’t very good aids to understanding.

    A wise lady once told me that if you can’t argue the other side of something, you have no business arguing your own side because you clearly don’t know enough about the topic. I try to keep it in mind, maybe you should try it?

  • In response to jihad etc…

    I am not sure where you are getting your information on what jihad and sharia is….but you have incorrect information. Jihad and sharia is much more complex then what you have stated. As I have reserached this extensively I will just point out very plainly and in layman terms what jihad is. Jihad means “struggle”.
    More commonly known in the Muslim world as an internal spiritual struggle to be better and serve God. It can also mean warfare where one needs to defend themselves when attacked- so it has two meanings to it. There are a lot of inaccuracies in your e-mail and I do not have time to go over them now…but one just to correct one is that bride money is not given for sexual organs. Bride money is called “mehr” and it is an obligatory gift that the groom must give his wife so that she is not left with nothing if he decides to leave her. It is the right of a woman and not a man. Actually in researching Muslims I found that there are a lot of similaries to Catholicism…and then there were differences as well. An interesting bit of information I came across was “Marriage helps men and women to develop along natural lines and head towards development and success through mutual co-operation. Marriage prevents immorality licentiousness and irresponsibility. The spouses in marriage agree to share rights and responsibilities to develop a happy family”….doesn’t that sound like something Catholics believe in as well? What happened on 9/11 was plain WRONG. I have friends who are Muslims and they beleive it is wrong…they say that the people who did this are crazy. So I have to think before I judge anyone and encourage you to do the same.

  • Sandy-
    please do not misrepresent your study, which seems to have been of the more modern and mild forms of Islam, as representative of Islam in general.

    Also, your definition of “mehr” is incorrect, (In Canada, it often functions like a pre-nup– often enough that a basic google will bring up a LOT of legal help boards.) as is your characterization of Jihaad.
    (links to, which is affiliated with Al-Mawrid Islamic Research foundation out of Pakistan.)

  • Foxfier, white conservatives can’t be in gangs?

  • RR,

    Gangs are color neutral, but I’m having a hard time picturing how a conservative could be in a gang since gang life and activities run counter to conservative values. My guess is that you’re perhaps angling toward skinheads because the media like to call them conservatives. However, conservatives have about as much appreciation for neo-nazis as they do racist gangs/parties typically associated with the left, which is to say none.

  • “Gang life and activities run counter to conservative values”

    Well, it goes without saying that violence, vandalism, drug use, other criminal activity, and intimidation of non-members go against conservative values (and probably even the values of most moderates and liberals I know).

    But, isn’t it true that gang membership, especially among urban teens, basically takes the place of the families they don’t have — giving them a structure, culture and sense of belonging that they don’t get from absent or incarcerated or unknown fathers, mothers who change boyfriends as often as they change clothes, being shuffled from one relative to another, etc.?

    So in that sense, gang membership does express (albeit in a perverted or distorted fashion) one very important “conservative” value: the absolute primacy of the family as the basic unit of society, and the consequences that result when it is undermined or destroyed.

  • I can think of Catholic terrorism pretty easily: the IRA. And that was specifically religio-nationalist.

    True to some extent. But it wasn’t expansionist.

  • Actually I think in a number of areas there are limits on, if not the building of churches, at least the size of churches. Where I once lived this limit made it impractical to build a Catholic Church as the size limit was too small for what was required to meet the needs of the Catholic population without building multiple small churches. Those restrictions were placed in the 90’s as I recall. No big First Ammendment concerns have been raised. Perhaps they should.

  • Mary Margaret Cannon,

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

    Until recently, did not allow this function ( does I believe).

    But today I noticed this option was now available and I have just finished adding this particular function.


  • Hey, why not make a page, too? You can set it up to autopublish your blog with the “notes” feed, or us

  • Foxfier,

    We have ‘something’ on Facebook, not sure what.

    I’m going to investigate and get this set-up/streamlined for greater social-networking-optimization (SNO).

  • Scott Gentries might want to take a look at this:

  • …Might strike home if the primary arguments weren’t specifically related to the history and culture of Islam, Ryan.


  • RL, if conservatives can’t be in gangs by definition then sure there are no white conservatives in gangs. There are no Catholics in gangs either then.

  • i would like to point out that the proposal only bars new buildings, and not changing the use to of already constructed ones. the mosque near to us was once a church, a church was previously a synagogue, and the nigerian christian group uses a clothing warehouse.

  • Teresa, half of what you said is inaccurate / disinformation. if the USA followed the other half, maybe they wont have millions of inmates that the taxpayer has to support.

  • I would just like to point out a couple of things that are on point:

    1. It’s not a mosque. It’s a community center, and you can read here: the words of the chairman of the project, stating that one of the many goals of it is to include prayer centers for those of Christian and Jewish faiths in hopes that this will strengthen interfaith relations.

    2. I’m not usually a fan of Charlie Brooker, but he hit one point straight on the head when he said that being a 2 minute walk and around the corner is not at all the same thing as being AT the same location. He said something like, he’s used a bathroom 2 minutes away from Buckingham Palace, and has yet to be arrested for defecating on the Queen’s pillow. We’re talking about Manhattan, and if you’ve ever been there, it’s a crowded place. How close is too close, exactly?

    3. To the person who said Catholic/Christian extremists haven’t bombed or killed significant numbers of people in recent years, I ask: Have you ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? Visit Belfast or Glasgow sometime and ask around – just… be careful in which neighborhood you ask and what colors you’re wearing when you do.

  • 4. On the topic of how Muslim women are clothed, ask yourself if you’ve ever questioned the chaste garb (and lifestyle, for that matter) of nuns and priests. I bet you just take it as a matter of course, because it’s what you’re used to. Of course, there is spousal abuse and other unsavory activity that goes on among members of the Islamic faith, but again, look closer to home. Surely you cannot insist that no Catholic or Christian has ever abused another human being.

  • Brian,


    The IRA is a nationalist organization. To be more accurate, they are a violent Marxist nationalist organization looking to impose communism under the guise of being “Irish” and “Catholic”.

    Being Catholic has nothing to do with it.

    They don’t espouse anything Christian AT ALL.

    You’ve never heard them saying they are dying in the name of Jesus. Only in the name of Ireland.

    You need to do better than that to espouse your anti-Christian bigotry around here.

  • Brian,

    Again your bias is grossly revealing itself.

    Religious wear their clericals as a choice, not in being imposed.

    Whilst on the other hand Muslims force women to wear burkas, regardless of their religiosity.

  • Brian, you’re exposing your ignorance or willful blindness– the folks building it called it a mosque until their PR guys realized that was not so good. They also called it the Cordoba House, until word got around what that indicated, especially with the 9/11/11 opening date.

    Also, you’re pointing to an opinion piece in the NY Times. Not exactly hard, unbiased facts– I notice you didn’t bother to do the research Powerline did about another time that “chairman” spoke in the NYTimes.

    As Teresa pointed out above, a building destroyed by chunks of the plane on 9/11 is part of ground zero.