Revisiting the PCUSA Seven Years Later

Leave a comment

The Presbyterian Church USA has long been in a theological liberal slide. The church (PCUSA) should be distinguished from the Presbyterian Church in America the conservative wing of Presbyterianism that broke away from the PCUSA about 40 years ago.

It can be confusing when two denominations have similar names and so it was recently when the PCA was confused with the PCUSA-the denomination that has officially approved on same sex marriage. The PCA worked hard to set the record straight.

In 2011 the PCUSA ordained its first gay minister.

How To Tell the Difference Between the PCA and PCUSA

When the PCA ordained it’s first gay minister I wrote this paragraph on my other blog under the blog heading, Things That Irritate Me.

You people [PCUSA] have been annoying me for quite some time. I suspect Calvin is turning in his grave when he gets the bad wind of your bad theology if you can call it that. Why don’t you say point- blank “we don’t care what the Bible says or what it means or how it applies” and get it over with rather than just killing truth an inch at a time. Go ahead and ordain gays. Anyone who cares about what Scripture says, means and applies will leave your denomination. Those that don’t, oh well.

I received the below comment from a fellow named Javier.

In reply to:

Dont be a homophobic bigot

This is how I responded to Javier.

I approved of Javier’s comment because it was sort of respectful and I do not mind respectful disagreement. When I say sort of what I mean is name calling does not lend itself to respectful dialogue but at least his comment was not a multi-paragraph tirade of name calling.

Javier assumes that because I disagree with the Presbyterian Church USA’s stance on ordaining gays I must be homophobic and a bigot to boot. To be homophobic means to be fearful of gays. I deny this. I am not fearful of gays. I disagree with the gay agenda but that does not mean I am afraid of gays. I do fear the Lord. Proverbs 1:7 says it best:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. Pro. 1:7 ESV

To fear the Lord means reverence and humility before The Maker and what He says about things. I cannot approve of what The Maker disapproves. The PCUSA has chosen to redefine what The Maker approves of and disapproves of. They are free to do this of course but it amounts to either an abandonment of Scripture or as I noted a massive redefinition and twisting of Scripture. Hence my irritation.

The second name I’ve been called is “bigot.” A bigot according to dictionary.com is “a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race.”

Dictionary.com adds that the word “bigot” is derogatory presumably because tolerance is the politically correct term for validating everything and anything and intolerance is the only great sin left to conquer. The term “bigot” combined with “homophobic” implies that not only am I fearful of gays but I also hate them since I am intolerant of their political agenda and/or lifestyle.

I deny that I hate gays and I maintain that it is possible to not hate someone who you disagree with. In fact, I am saddened that so much of our society now approves of what The Maker disapproves. In the long run this hurts gays not helps them. As to the word “tolerance.” I may tolerate a great many things. I tolerate high gas prices, whiny WI Public Ed, the gay lifestyle and the PCUSA’s freedom to do what ever the hec they want. What I won’t do is validate a great many things.

Validate means to substantiate; confirm, or give official sanction to. For example, I can tolerate the fact that many couples choose to live together without marriage but I cannot substantiate or confirm their choice from Scripture; therefore, I cannot give sanction to the practice. There is a big difference between tolerance and validation and I would argue that it is validation that is really at the heart of the gay political movement.

Bible-truth-9

All that to say is that my comments were more directed at the PCUSA than gays in general. Here we have a church group that used to know better than to approve of something that The Maker disapproves. Now they are validating what The Maker disapproves and ignoring what the Gospel teaches.

Church leaders are held to a higher standard if one is to believe Scripture (James 3:1) and unfortunately they appear to not believe the Scripture or understand the Gospel. 

So Javier, our disagreement is one of worldview and name-calling does nothing to foster understanding of world-views. I’ve given you a brief snap shot of where my worldview comes from and I would be curious as to what the basis of yours is?

Javier never responded nor did I expect him to. Name calling, shaming, stereo-typing, feigning outrage and screaming these days by the left make Javier’s single comment mild by comparison.

The PCA separated from the PCUSA about 40 years ago because they could no longer walk together. There are some things that require separation and redefining what the Bible teaches to conform to the prevailing culture is on of them. Fortunately, the PCUSA appears to be losing membership while the PCA is gaining.

Is it homophobia causing the exodus or is it people simply wanting to uphold the Scripture?

 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits… (Mt 7:15–16, ESV)

Link to the PCUSA affirmation of LGBQT

The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

Leave a comment

Winston Churchill, Great Britain’s wartime leader said this: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Yalta_Conference_(Churchill,_Roosevelt,_Stalin)_(B&W)

The “Big Three” at Yalta, 1945. The War in Europe was nearly over. A sickly Roosevelt  would die in April of 45 had given Stalin pretty much what he wanted-a big slice of eastern Europe. Churchill was not so generous but by 1945 Britain was the junior partner in the Anglo-American Alliance. It kind of reminds me of an old saying, “if you dine with the devil you better have a long spoon.”

The context of Churchill’s statement was in regards to the Anglo (and later American) alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union. Great Britain was desperate in the war against Hitler in 1941 and needed an ally. Germany foolishly invaded Russia and an instant ally was born.

Britain and Churchill were not fans of Stalin or his communism.  Stalin killed and starved hundreds of thousands of his own people and was especially hated in the Ukraine. He had recently picked a fight with tiny Finland and most western countries including Britain favored the plucky Finns. Stalin and Hitler had recently been pals and had divided up Poland, a British ally.

So, no one actually likes Stalin but…

Churchill, always colorful and usually memorable as he could turn a phrase like few others commented on Britain’s unlikely alliance with Stalin. Churchill’s comment about making a favorable reference to the devil (Stalin) was connected with the truism “that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Such is war, such is politics, such are personal relationships if we are honest and such is the world stage that a government will make alliances with some rather unsavory characters including a “devil” like Joseph Stalin.

This is the kind of  dilemma the United States faces with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Iran, as most everyone knows are the bad guys. Iran hates Israel, our only democratic friend in the entire Middle East. The Iranian mullahs support terrorism (in Palestine and elsewhere) and is rather brutal to its own people when they get out of line. Just try being trans-gendered in Iran and see what happens. Iran is also anxious to get nukes-a nightmare scenario that the US tries hard to prevent.

On the other hand try being trans-gendered in Saudi Arabia and see what happens. You get my drift.

Both countries are Moslem and both are radical by degree. Iran is Shite and Saudi Arabia is Sunni. They do not get along. Iran is mostly Persian and Saudi Arabia is Arab-antagonisms go back centuries both ethnically and religiously. Given half a chance they would gladly destroy one another a Moslem on Moslem jihad.

Problem: Saudi Arabia like Israel is an American Ally but they are an ally of a different sort.  Israel shares with us a democratic process and other values. Saudi Arabia does not.

Iran is supported by Putin’s Russia and the Chi-Coms. This makes Saudi Arabia and Iran big players in international politics and while some argue that Saudi Arabia is “not as bad” as Iran is can be a bit of hair splitting.

Case in Point: Many in the West were horrified when “moderate” Saudi-Arabia obviously assassinated journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Khashoggi’s “sin” was being a critic of the rulers of Saudi-Arabia even though he was Saudi as well.

1b72bfdb-f3b6-4b7f-b76e-70bee27a2169

If the shoe fits.

What few people know or knew is that Saudi Arabia like Iran is brutal. Mindy Belz of World Magazine details incident after incident, murder after murder (many of them Christians) in her excellent article titled Dealing in Realism.

Here is a revealing quote from the Belz article:

“The textbook language varies year-to-year, but adheres to core tenets [in state sponsored school curriculum]. It calls for violent punishment of non-Muslims and for putting homosexuals to death. All of Israel is ‘occupied Islamic territory’ the textbooks teach. And, ‘The Apes are the people of the Sabbath. the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians.'”

And lets not forget how many of the young men (11 out of 19) were Saudi nationals when the Twin Towers came down taking thousands of lives.

With an ally like that who needs enemies?

Governments are usually pragmatic like Churchill’s WW2 Britiain and will do what works (at the time). Principle is sacrificed on the altar of expediency and what works. Since Saudi Arabia hates Iran almost as much it secretly hates the West we should not be surprised that the US response was relatively mild to the Khashoggi killing although the US did pressure it’s ally to finally own up. (Some minor official in Saudi Arabia will have to bite the bullet perhaps literally.)

So, what about the other Saudi crimes detailed in Belz’s article? Should they not trouble us? And what about the textbook issue? What are little Saudi children learning about Jews and Christians? Can not the same type of thing be found in Iranian textbooks? I’ll bet it can.

I don’t think the US is naive regarding Saudi Arabia. I think the official position is we are stuck with them and at least they have not gone nuclear (but could, and probably would like to). I’m so cynical these days that I can see one of our representatives saying something like, “can’t you be a bit more discreet when you murder a political opponent?”

What should the serious Christian think about such things? Should we go along with the notion that the enemy of our enemy is our friend or should the US sanction the Saudi’s in a similar fashion to Iran? That would be Mindy Belz’s view.

The question is should the US “punish” its ally Saudi Arabia for exhibiting the same kind of behavior that its enemy Iran is guilty of?

As always Christians should try to think through thorny questions biblically. Applying biblical principles to international politics is not an easy matter especially because neither party in the US is particularly motivated to do so. It appears to me that one party actually hates the Bible and the other is mildly disinterested but needs Christian votes. I know, aren’t I the cynical one?

I think there are a number of biblical passages that can say something about how a Christian can respond to a sticky situation like Iran and Saudi Arabia.  It’s found in Romans 13:1-7 where Paul talks about the role of civil government.

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. 

 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 13:1–7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

There is a lot going on in the passage and I don’t want to write a novel so I’ll just focus on verse 4.

for he [government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

What might we observe here?

First we see that government (the he) is God’s servant for good and if you do wrong be afraid, because that’s why the government gets a sword.

So government is God’s servant for good. Therefore, killing a political opponent is wrong and the Saudi Arabian government is not acting like God’s servant for good. The institution of government is good but people in the government or in positions of power are often evil and unjust and God is not for an unjust government.

There are a lot of places one can take all this but the basic principle seems obvious-government is God’s servant for good, not bad. Belz’s conclusion that the US should sanction Saudi Arabia certainly lines up with the Saudi pattern of injustice.

To sanction Saudi Arabia in some kind of serious way would require taking a principled stand and I’d be surprised if either political party has the fortitude to stand on principle. It might cost us something and at the end of the day the ends justify the means.

Khashoggi’s death ordered by Saudi Crown Prince

images

Gosnell, the Movie

Leave a comment

I have something on my mind that I’d like to share my take on.

It’s the Gosnell movie.Gosnell_movie(1)_810_500_75_s_c1

I was curious how much money the movie earned so I asked Google the question and it sent me to an article on the Washington Times. Here’s the two opening paragraphs from the Times article.

It was a movie destined for failure — relying on crowfunding for its shoestring budget, garnering little to no attention among liberal media outlets and opening in only 673 theaters around the country.

Still, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” succeeded in its opening weekend at the box office, becoming the No. 12 film release last week. Its $1.16 million in ticket sales placed the film just behind “A Simple Favor” ($1.3 million) and just ahead of “Crazy Rich Asians” ($1 million), according to the Box Office Mojo website. The Washington Times

The first paragraph says it all. The producers could not find funding in Hollywood and had to crow fund the project. The liberal media gave the movie little attention and it only opened in 673 theaters. Star Wars: The Force Awakens by comparison opened in over 4000 theaters. Star Wars grossed over $250,000,000 million its first weekend while Gosnell movie made just over $1,200,000. Talk about David and Goliath; yet David was considered a success given the odds against it.

The question is why or better, why didn’t?

Why didn’t the movie receive hardly any attention and why was it so hard to fund despite having some pretty good actors lined up to play the parts?

The October 27th issue of World Magazine did an excellent job of detailing the “why’s” in its article titled, Shop Of Horrors by Megan Basham. I encourage the reader to follow the link to this excellent article and publication.

The first thing I’d like to point out is that the movie is about the trial of a serial killer.

Why is Gosnell a serial killer? The fact is Gosnell snipped the spines of living infants who were delivered live during an abortion. A mother also died along with scores of live babies. The primary issue was murder as opposed to the gross malpractice which was much in evidence. .

Actor/Director Nick Searcy (from the TV series Justified) went out of his way as the director and as the actor defending Gosnell to argue that race and religion played a role in Gosnell’s arrest. In other words, the producers went out their way to make the movie about the trial rather than be overtly pro-life and having to work through laws that sometimes allow abortion and sometimes prevent it-like when a baby somehow survives the process.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the movie came when it was admitted that Gosnell was sloppy in his procedures but no more inhumane of what took place in other clinics. Obviously, there are many other shops of horror. Perhaps the biggest horror story of all is the fact we are a nation that does not consider life in the womb to be life despite the rather obvious fact that it is.

That of course is what the liberals and their sympathetic media allies feared and continue to fear-truth.  Abortion takes a life; it’s simply of question of when during the pregnancy.

The story was told fairly according to the Washington Times and World Magazine something the liberal media will never do because abortion is their sacred sacrament and never may the actual truth be told.

Just consider how fast the Planned Parenthood scandal disappeared when it became known they were selling baby body parts.

fetus

Here’s my take…Conservatives who are pro-life will never get a fair shake by the left-wing media or their cheerleaders in Hollywood. We’ve come to the point where we are surprised when we can find a fair shake in publications like the Washington Times and World Magazine and in my opinion on Fox News.

So what can we do? For starters, we can support outlets that are fair and ignore the ones that are not. You know who they are.

Second, we can pay attention when someone like the producers of Gosnell make a movie that is fair and speaks truth.

Sadly, I missed the movie. It didn’t even show in my area and where it did show it was at a time that we could not make the trip.

My plan is to rectify that as soon as possible. The movie will be out on DVD so that’s one way to support truth. It will also be available through outlets like Netflix or Amazon Prime where it can be purchased for streaming or just to rent. Ether way you support those trying hard to get the message out despite the odds stacked against them.

This article appeared shortly after my initial post and is helpful since it comes from one of the producers of the movie. The Media Censorship of Our Gosnell Movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Solution to Loneliness

Leave a comment

There was a recent article in the UK’s The Telegraph that stated church attendance (Church of England-Anglican) is at an all-time low. The article goes on to say that only 1.4% of the population of Great Britain goes to church on any given Sunday. The Archbishop of Canterbury (highest cleric in the Church of England) warns of the struggle in an anti-Christian culture.

The day before The Telegraph’s article appeared the New York Times reported that the UK has appointed a Minister of Loneliness.

What is the connection between low church attendance and the UK having the need to appoint a “Minister of Loneliness”?

The quote below by Theresa May, Prime Minister of Great Britain is revealing:

“For far too many people, loneliness is the sad reality of modern life,” Mrs. May said in a statement.

“I want to confront this challenge for our society and for all of us to take action to address the loneliness endured by the elderly, by carers, by those who have lost loved ones — people who have no one to talk to or share their thoughts and experiences with.” (The Telegraph)

The most obvious connection between the two stories is that a Minister of the State is replacing the Minister of the Gospel (and the fellowship of the church) as the primary means of encouraging lonely people.

It is, as the Archbishop of Canterbury noted the struggle in living in an anti-Christian culture. I’m sure the US is not far behind.

I think it may equally obvious that the majority of the people in Great Britain no longer believe the gospel or that the true gospel is even taught since much of “the church” has been given over to post-modernism where truth is a relative concept.

What I mean by this is that the church in Great Britain has few conservative evangelical Christians but  the number is growing. (9Marks article)

It makes perfect sense that once the gospel is abandoned  along with the solid biblical teaching associated with the gospel that people would fall away from the church and look to the state to fill the perceived need.

Depending on how you count there are over 50 “one anothers” in the Scriptures. Below is small sampling:

One-Another-Bible-Verses

The above sampling illustrates how God’s people can minister to one another as a result of their faith in Christ and his finished work on the Cross.

When faithfully practiced, especially in the context of a small group ministry one  outcome is a cure for loneliness. God said it was not good for man to be alone so he created woman, but he also established the church (Matthew 16:18) and provided a broader application so that we can love another by practicing the one another’s.

The Gospel is the solution to lonliness but a person has to believe it and embrace it and of course attend the worship service of the church.

For other blogs and sermons that are about the gospel and it’s application please visit: Missio Dei Fellowship

 

 

A Tepid Response when Outrage is Required.

Leave a comment

Tepid.

Dictionary.com defines “tepid” likes this:

adjective

  1. moderately warm; lukewarm: tepid water.
  2. characterized by a lack of force or enthusiasm: tepid prose; the critics’ tepid reception for the new play.

Tepid is a great word to describe President Obama’s response to the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem-a terrorist attack launched by who else, Hamas\Palestinians. The attack took place in a house of prayer and left a number of Rabbis with duo western\Israeli citizenship dead. An Israeli Druze policeman died a bit later after the shootout with the terrorists that also left the terrorists dead. Total Israeli dead numbered five.

It didn’t take long before we heard President Obama’s tepid response in which he repeated all the catch phrases that add up to the left’s idiotic moral equivalency arguments. Such as…

“The majority of the of the Palestinian people want peace.”

Obviously. That’s why they elected Hamas to their government and have a President overtly sympathetic to Hamas\Jihadis even as he issued his own tepid response to the attack that at the same time condemned it and justified it.

Obviously. That’s why Palestinians were dancing in the streets after the attack just as they did after 9\11.

Obviously.That’s why we heard numerous Muslim clerics deplore the attack and condemn the attackers. No, wait a minute, we didn’t hear any. Where are the so-called Muslim moderates? What is the definition of a Muslim moderate anyway? Is it a Jihadi who just stops short of cutting off people’s heads?

“We urge both sides to show restraint. Enough Palestinians and Israelis have died.”

There it is, the moral equivalency response. Terrorists attack defenseless Israeli citizens in a house of prayer and Israel which warns defenseless citizens of an impending attack should show restraint.

Never mind that Hamas hides its military assets among the civilian population in the hopes that Israel will kill civilians in their response. Hamas does this knowing full well that the western media will make much of the Israeli attacks and little of Hamas’ manipulation. The western media loves to make a victim out of the perpetrator. Hamas plays the western media like a fiddle.

It is noteworthy that Israel’s President Netanyahu called on western governments to express outrage. The fact he had to ask western governments to express outrage is because like Obama’s tepid remarks the tendency of the west is to likewise be tepid in their responses to Palestinian outrages.

The west with its bent toward political correctness and pacifism nominally fights ISIS in Iraq and Syria yet urges Israeli restraint in dealing with Hamas/Palestinians who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS. Go figure.

The Israeli government just relaxed the rules for Israelis to carry guns. That’s a response that makes sense. Perhaps if one of those hapless Rabbis had a gun the death toll would have been terrorists 2KIA and Israelis 0KIA or the attack would not have happened at all. Cowards do not like to face armed citizens. The defenseless make much easier targets for a coward. And the left wonders why we Second Amendment defenders like conceal and carry. Hamas and criminals is why.

One can only conclude from Obama’s tepid remarks that he sympathizes with Hamas and believes there is validity to their cause if not their methods.

Note to President Obama: Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and will not stop until that is achieved. And by the way, we’re next. At least two of those Rabbis were Americans.

The Great Charter

Leave a comment

The Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter to the Liberties of England, is a document originally issued in Latin in the year 1215. The Great Charter is truly great, because it was the first legal document to establish that leaders did not have arbitrary power, granted under Divine Authority, but instead were subject to the law of the land.

The feudal barons forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights. In a way, it was the world’s very first written Constitution. The charter was a major part of the process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world, an ideal which was eventually transported to the New World. It would inspire the Founding Fathers to draft a new document, the United States Constitution. constitutionfacts.com

The Great Charter or Magna Carta has been on my mind this week. I first learned of it back in grade school and then again in High School in my American Government class. I wonder if it’s still taught in the public school system. I doubt it.

Consider its significance.

For the first time the power of the king was limited by law. Although the power of the king had been challenged prior to the Great Charter the establishment of the Charter was the first successful attempt to get the king to submit to the will of the people as represented by the English feudal barons. The Great Charter protected their rights whereas previously the king could and did usurp rights and would claim that since he had a “divine right” to rule he could rule any which way he chose.

The best the people could hope for was a benevolent ruler as opposed to a power mad despot. What they got was usually something in-between. The Great Charter was the first step toward a government where by a ruler’s authority was limited by the governed.

As it says above the Great Charter was the world’s first written Constitution and it inspired the Founding Fathers of our own country to draft the US Constitution. It’s where we get the idea the even the President is limited by the rule of law and not immune from being prosecuted if he ignores it or breaks it.

In the past week we Americans who are paying attention have learned (or relearned at least one thing).

Our Imperial President will not be thwarted by an election that should curb his imperial ambitions.

The Imperial President has threatened, and we have no reason to doubt him, that he will by executive fiat change the law and push through his version of immigration reform without congressional approval or input.

The fact that he said numerous times on numerous occasions that he could not do what he is about to do illustrates the depth of his hypocrisy and disdain for the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The fact the Imperial President could have accomplished all his goals in the first two years of his first term when the Imperial President had control of both houses of Congress seems to escape the notice of the compliant media and American people. The observant will ask, why now?

My answer to that question is because he thinks he can get away with it. The Imperial President is first and foremost an ideologue who promised to reshape America and as Dinsesh D’Souza has said in order to reshape something you have to undo something else. That something is the United States Great Charter that we call the Constitution. Since the new Congress will hinder his efforts at reshaping America he seeks to reshape it now; never mind the consequences.

Observers, including some liberals who have not lost their minds have noted that when the Imperial President issues his edict it will lead to a Constitutional crisis not seen in our country for a great many years. Should the Imperial President triumph in the end it will set a precedent for executive action that the progressives may live to regret.

When Speaker of the House Boehner says Congress will fight the Imperial President “tooth and nail” let us hope that he means it and that the power of the Imperial President is curbed and curbed permanently lest government of the people, by the people  and for the people be lost among a tidal wave of executive orders issued by a anti-Constitution wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

Shariah and the goal of a Caliphate

Leave a comment

IMG_1204.JPG

The picture is of self-appointed Sharia police in Germany. They ran afoul of the German police as they attempted to enforce sharia law on Germans that were drinking.

This little incident came to mind last night after I heard the President’s speech regarding taking military action against ISIS.

The President is quite right to categorize ISIS as a terrorist organization and quite right to try to form a coalition of the willing to do something about it.

There was at least one thing missing from the President’s speech and that was the word, caliphate. The goal of ISIS is a caliphate, that is Islamic rule worldwide from a central caliphate not dissimilar to the old Ottoman Empire who were the last Islamists to try it.

What the President and his advisors do not seem to get is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. One way is military conquest like ISIS is capable of doing but the other way is more subtle.

The other way is to infiltrate western cultures and claim special rights  like enforcing sharia on Moslems and non-Moslems alike.  Then when busted claim victim status. racism and cultural insensitivity.

The subtle way is probably more effective in the long run especially because most of the west is naive about caliphate goals and frankly uber sensitive to anyone who claims victim status.

It has already been established that many ISIS fighters hold western passports and that should prove that within western nations there is a ready-made “fifth column” ready to take up the cause and methods of ISIS in those western nations. I would suggest that the sharia police are already on board philosophically with their more militant cousins and their goals are identical.

The war on Islamic fascism is bigger than you seem to think Mr. President.

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: