It’s a mystery

At least, it’s a mystery to the New York Times why the phrase “Allahu Ackbar” has become synonymous with terrorism:

When H. A. Hellyer is out walking with his family, strangers sometimes approach him and declare, “Allahu akbar!”

RES_d9a28254-94e0-48b9-aa16-c2d467f16ac9SELRES_3ad5f98a-35b5-49d0-850d-c990a37560bfSELRES_7b62172d-4292-4cdc-a53d-5bcef31d7408SELRES_5a1912fd-94d8-4209-9025-b22fe1ce7809SELRES_d74be42a-80bc-484e-bbc1-10729004b017Many Westerners may find it hard to believe these days, but Mr. Hellyer does not recoil in fear.

“I’ll be walking out with my kids,” he said, “and someone will say: ‘Oh, they’re so cute. Allahu akbar.’ And I’ll joke: ‘Thank you — now stop talking to my kids.’”

The Arabic phrase, which means simply “God is great,” has, it sometimes seems, become intertwined with terrorism.

I wonder how on Earth such a connection could be made?  As he often does, David Burge cuts right to the chase:

Allahu Ackbar

It’s telling that one of the top priorities of the NYT and other major outlets after EVERY. SINGLE. ATTACK. is to leap to the defense of Islam and Muslims. I get it: we’re not supposed to judge an entire people by the actions of a few. The problem is, it’s not just the actions of a few and frankly, the foundations of that faith are more than a little problematic.

For what it’s worth, I spent quite some time overseas interacting with Muslims in their home nations. I don’t recall a single time the phrase “Allahu ackbar” was uttered in such a casual fashion as the NYT describes. I heard plenty of “inshallah,” (if God wills) and “Alhamdulillah” (basically “praise Allah”).  But what the NYT is trying to get us to do is ignore observable reality: when the phrase “Allahu ackbar” pops up in the West outside of a mosque, bad things happen.  I just have one response to them for that attempt at obfuscation:

Go to hell, Wormtongue.

Advertisements

Hagiography exemplified

hag·i·og·ra·phyˌ   haɡēˈäɡrəfē,/        noun

1. The writing of the lives of saints.
derogatory: adulatory writing about another person.
– biography that idealizes its subject.

See for example the New York Times article about “How Mao Molded Communism to Create a New China.”  In amongst the portrait of Mao as a “tiger” and “monkey king,” the article completely fails to mention Mao as the greatest mass murderer in history, responsible for an estimated 45 million deaths.

It’s as if the newspaper’s “Red Century” series is meant to indoctrinate a new generation into believing communism wasn’t all that bad

For more fun examples, see the Times’ story on “Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Odd Journey From Victim to Criminal”…   (Note to the Times: entering a ‘naked plea’ — essentially “no contest” — on charges of desertion tends to have that effect.)

Pravda on the Hudson

The New York Times has been running a series of articles noting the centennial of the October Revolution in Russia in 1917.  It’s certainly a good idea to keep people mindful of the impact of what the Times is calling the “Red Century,” as the only way to learn from history is to study it.

The problem is it seems most of the time in these writings that the Times hasn’t learned a thing:

DIAB47wVwAAq3M0

To be fair, such headlines are in keeping with long tradition at the Times, always looking on the bright side of Communism.  Their tweet today is a classic:

chinese women

“For all its flaws…”  Wow.  ‘Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?’  To be fair, the Times article being advertised does reveal it wasn’t all sunshine and roses for women under Mao.  But the tweet headline above comes from the closing paragraph, thus putting emphasis on the alleged positive developments.  Not once, however, does it mention the impact of millions of Chinese girls aborted–sometimes due to State force– because of China’s one-child policy conflicting with the traditional Chinese preference for male children.  A rather amazing omission.  Guess the Times considers abortion accessibility hand in hand with women “dreaming big.”

When I’m shaking my head in amazement that so many young people today see collectivism in a positive light, I have to remember this is what their vulnerable young minds are being fed.  This is simply more of the subversion I referred to in yesterday’s post: treason spread out over time.  With a century of well-documented communist experience behind us, modern defenders of centralized planning and top-down social organization are left only with the No True Scotsman defense for Communism: “it’s never really been tried”–all the efforts of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot notwithstanding.  If only a society would fully embrace it, it could work, they say.

After all,

DKnknmDV4AAaKCv

I wonder what “big dreams” the young woman in the photo above might have had…

Don’t think she’s alone, either

We’re living in a time when many masks and pretenses are dropping.  In this case, it’s because one side believes they’ve achieved enough power to no longer need hiding:

Among her elite social circles in Washington, DC, and the Hamptons, Washington Post religion writer Sally Quinn did not keep her use of black magic a secret. In a lengthy and glowing profile, the Washingtonian reveals that Quinn’s fascination and outright use of the dark arts were just another part of her wide and varied social scene.

***

Ouija boards, astrological charts, palm reading, talismans—Quinn embraces it all. And yes, she has been in contact with her husband since his passing. Through a medium. Repeatedly.

Some friends have voiced reservations that Quinn is now showing all her cards, so to speak. “Don’t play up the voodoo too much,” one implored. But Sally does nothing by halves. (emphasis added) She reveals that, in her less mellow days, she put hexes on three people who promptly wound up having their lives ruined, or ended.  ((Since she believes she was responsible, shouldn’t this be tantamount to admission of assault and murder?  After all, we’re told repeatedly to accept the sincerely held beliefs of everyone…  — Jemison))

Quinn co-founded a regular column on religion in the Post that later morphed into a standalone website, but neglected to mention these little tidbits until it came time to write her memoir.  Thus, under the cloak of ‘journalism,’ she published many columns seeking to undermine orthodox Christian beliefs and their proponants.  Contrast this approach to that of the late Charlie Reese, who made a point of ensuring his readers knew where he was coming from by publishing periodical columns about it.

[Note: I recommend regular readers here to look at the three linked columns in the previous sentence.  I read Reese’s columns as a young adult.  He, along with Thomas Sowell, caused me to think deeply about governance and economics, though they are far being from my only influences.  Reese’s transparency about his worldview was the inspiration for the “About” tab at the top of this blog, where you can get a basic overview of where I’m coming from.  It’s a practice I think should be standard among writers who aspire to be more than mere propagandists.]

Why would Quinn conceal her beliefs as a columnist for a decade, only revealing them when it was time to cash out?  Likely because for that decade she was but one of many agents undermining the historical value systems of this nation, an effort moving much swifter and closer to its goals than the now-revered 1960s.  That Quinn felt free to “tell all” in this month’s book shows two things, I think:

  1. She does not fear social, much less physical, repercussion
  2. She and her publisher believe there is a large audience for what she now says openly

Keep in mind this woman moved in the highest social circles of Washington D.C.  According to a reviewer, the memoir contains many examples of highly selfish, manipulative and admittedly demonic-spirited behavior.  While the reviewer occasionally seems to cringe at the material, she concludes by quoting the author’s expectation of respect, and calls it “courageous.” — the same label applied to anyone who publicly jettisons and/or attacks Christian beliefs.   D.C seems filled to overflowing with such “courage” today, and its true colors are showing through.

Does it become more apparent now why I’ve long nicknamed that city “Mordor?”

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”  (Ephesians 6:12)

Stealing inheritances

I know of someone whose parents, while he was just a wee lad, broke into several antique stores, amassing a tidy little sum fencing the artifacts before retiring from such activity.  Then the family settled into the quiet life of the “Nouveau riche.”  There was just one problem: eventually the authorities broke the case and discovered who was responsible for the string of thefts.  By this time, my acquaintance was just entering a fairly respectable college, fully expecting to afford the tuition with ease.

That is, until his parents were exposed and all their assets seized.  But since it would be unfair to deny him such a great educational opportunity just because his parents had broken the law, the court ruled the family could keep the money and send him to school. The various antique store owners and their families were astonished.

Outrageous, no?

OK – confession time.  The above is made up, and I don’t actually know of such a case. But there are apparently a lot of people who would agree with the fictional court ruling above.  These are the people who want to allow the children of illegal immigrants to stay in the United States, despite their parents breaking the law to get them here.

“But a child shouldn’t have to suffer for their parents’ actions!”  It’s an easy statement to agree with, emotionally.  And yet children do suffer the consequences of their parents’ actions every day.   Children are fatherless because of “no-fault” divorces.  Children live in poverty because their parents failed to acquire skills or motivation to work a decent paying job. Children are beaten when parents abuse alcohol or drugs and fly into rages. On and on the list could go.

Our nation is being played emotionally yet again to allow people to stay here who never had any right to be here in the first place.  I understand sending away people who’ve lived here their whole life seems cruel.  But is it compassion to allow wave after wave of invaders to break into America, depressing wages and driving up social spending for those already legally here?  Does it serve justice to have an immigration policy that, in effect says, “you have to follow this specific process… unless you can successfully hide out illegally in the U.S. long enough to become a sob story when you’re discovered?” Does it build confidence in the integrity of our institutions when those charged with enforcing the law go out of their way to obstruct it:

The NYPD says the (DACA) protesters arrested outside Trump Tower (Tuesday) won’t have to be fingerprinted if they provide their information willingly — no fingerprints means no arrest information transmitted to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

After all, we wouldn’t want to deport any of these people who are now so bold as to say “yeah, we broke the law to get here, but we deserve to stay anyway!”

The other heartstring being pulled is “if you enforce the law it will break up families!” This is only because the United States is one of the few nations left in the world where geography of birth confers citizenship (via a grossly expanded reading of the 14th Amendment*, which was dealing with the end of slavery, not immigration in general).  The Founders talked about “securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity.” That means the descendants of Americans.  One should not receive automatic citizenship unless at least one of your biological parents is already an American (even if they themselves are a naturalized citizen).  Our current process created an “anchor baby” loophole through which hundreds of thousands of migrants have put down dubious roots in our land.

And it is our land.  Not just anybody’s.  To state otherwise is to void any semblance of a nation-state or international borders.  It’s understandable that parents want to provide the best life they can for their children.  But they must do so legally.  Allowing the children of illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. is the moral equivalent of allowing my fictional acquaintance to keep the ill-gotten gains his parents arranged.

So no, enforcement doesn’t mean breaking up families.  It means they should all go back.  Thirty years ago Ronald Reagan was played a fool by agreeing to a deal for amnesty in return for better border security and stricter immigration.  As we all know, only the first half of that deal occurred.  I guarantee Congress will try the same thing again, now the Trump has (properly) put this issue back to the legislature instead of trying to rule by Executive Order as his predecessor did.  We cannot allow our Congresscritters to hold stricter immigration and border security hostage to the demands of people who literally have no legal standing to be in the United States in the first place.  We must communicate to them clearly and loudly that we won’t consent to a second sucker’s deal.  On a tangential note, isn’t it interesting the GOP couldn’t fulfill its promise of repealing Obamacare, but within hours of the Administration’s DACA announcement there is already bipartisan support building to let the “Dreamers” (a propaganda term if there ever was one) remain in the U.S.?  Who, exactly, do these “representatives” represent?

Build the Wall.  Deport the lawbreaking illegal immigrants — all of them.  

This is not a race issue.  It is not a “realizing the American dream” issue.  It is an issue of whether we are a nation of laws, and one that is willing to defend the inheritance intended to be handed down to future generations.  If we fail this test we may as well erase the borders from all maps, because they will have become meaningless.

And our children will watch helplessly as invaders finish squandering the legacy of their ancestors.  

Let’s remember that when anti-American globalists try to play the emotion card.

(*) – The 14th Amendment is by far the single longest amendment to the Constitution, and the various broad judicial readings of its provisions have dramatically changed the way in which our system of governance operates.  But that’s a post for another time…

Leading the little ones astray

And [Jesus] said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.  (Luke 17:1-2)

The post is also known as Reason #34,892 to stop entrusting your children’s indoctrination education to others:

An elite charter school in California has been rocked by scandal since the end of the last school year, when a kindergarten teacher read her class a pair of books advocating transgender ideology, and a male kindergartener was reintroduced to the class as a girl.

Now first-graders at Rocklin Academy Gateway risk a trip to the principal’s office if they refer to their transgender classmate by the wrong name or gender pronoun, said Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family group based in Sacramento.

“There was a little girl who had been in class with the little boy all last year,” Ms. England said. “They’re in different classes now, but she saw him on the playground yesterday and called him by his name. The little girl was told ‘you can’t do that, his name is this name,’ and ‘you need to call him a “her.”’ Then she was called to the principal’s office.”

We had this quaint notion about thirty years ago that there was a “culture war” going on in this country.  That is no longer the case.  There is a spiritual — and all to often, physical — war for the soul of this nation under way.  Six year olds have enough to be confused about as they observe the world around them without adults trying to teach them there are upteen numbers of “genders,” and that one can flow from one to another.

In a more civilized era we’d have called this what it is: child abuse.  Anyone with this agenda should not be allowed within 100 miles of society’s most vulnerable minds and hearts.

What are we doing to protect those hearts?  What are we doing to push back against the present — and growing — darkness of this world?

Taxpayer-funded propaganda

Atlanta has installed “rainbow” crosswalks at one of its intersections… at a price of $196,000:

In 2015, the largely gay community at 10th and Piedmont raised money to paint the intersection, stretching across the heart of Midtown, as a sign of unity during Atlanta Pride Week.

This year, the city decided to make it permanent, announcing the decision on the one-year anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub massacre. City confirmed Monday the new crosswalks cost the city $196,000 to install and would last 10 years…

To be clear, the crosswalk is actually made up of thermoplastic tiles, not paint. And while they did cost $196,000 to install, that cost actually makes up 0.3 of 1 percent of the city’s transportation budget. Plus, they’re expected to last for 10 years before any heavy maintenance is required.

If others raised money for this artistic propaganda, why did the city have to spend money to ‘make it permanent?’  As the story points out, people expressed concern about the cost (73% against the cost, according to the station’s poll), but not over what the project symbolizes.  Guess all this propaganda is having the desired effect.  I doubt, however, the city will really get 10 years out of this.  Few aspects of any municipal roads last that long.  (Note how the last paragraph quoted above goes out of its way to minimize the cost of this kowtowing.)

This begs the question: if the city is willing to foot the expense of fancy-sounding marked-up “thermoplastic tiles” to make gays feel better and ‘more accepted,’ then why not other groups?  It would seem the equal protection clause of the Constitution could mean the city is now on the hook to create expensive crosswalks to commemorate, say, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, or any other aggrieved group.

Cities need to remain neutral, neither hindering nor promoting such groups.  But that won’t happen, because today virtue-signaling is more important than anything else… including fiscal responsibility.  Enjoy paying your taxes, Atlanta residents!