In Citizen Tom’s blog, he wrote a post entitled “Three Things You Probably Don’t Know about Islam.” In the discussion that followed, Citizen Tom wrote:
What makes the Bible different is that it promotes freedom of religion. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and God what is God’s. The Bible says that what we each believe about God is a personal responsibility. Those on a quest for power hate that, of course. That’s why Christianity is so unpopular with power-hungry politicians.
I am communicating with Matthew VanDyke, described as “an American who fought with Libyan rebels to oust Gaddafi.” He wrote to Business Insider right after the Benghazi consulate attack with a theory about what happened, and again this week stating that he’d been proven largely correct. He is a Mensa member, and there is a LinkedIn forum only accessible to members. Here’s what he said there:
Why can’t we all just get along?
People are quick to blame “Islamophobia” for attacks on the US. If we would just accept that the Islam culture is different, they’d just leave us alone. Somehow, terrorism is the fault of Americans. Religious Americans, of course. (This is, oddly, the approximate position of Ron Paul as well: That American activities are the cause of jihadist attacks, and that they’d leave us alone if we “pulled out of their countries.”) A commenter on Citizen Tom’s fine blog seemed to evince such a belief:
What’s the difference between 110,000,000 people and 5,000 people?
In one way of looking at it, one of these numbers is 22,000 times as large as the other. But the real difference in these two groups of Americans that have had their phone records obtained by the US Government without prior court approval, is probable cause. From the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment:
The Egyptian army has reportedly relieved Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of his authority, informing the Muslim Brotherhood-linked official at 7 p.m. local time that he was no longer president. At a press conference called shortly afterward, Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi outlined a roadmap that the army said would “put an end to the state of division” that has existed in the country, marked most recently by anti-government protests that began last Wednesday and peaked on Sunday as millions of Egyptians called for Morsi’s ouster and the removal of Muslim Brotherhood influence from public life. In the year since taking office, Morsi has seen his support plummet following a series of power grabs designed to centralize the Muslim Brotherhood and control and impose Islamic norms and laws on sectors of Egyptian life. The army roadmap involves provisionally suspending the Egyptian constitution, which has become a key source of friction between Egyptian Islamists and secularists since it was hastily and controversially drafted and passed last year. Pending new presidential elections, the army installed the chief justice of Egypt’s constitutional court to run the state’s affairs and announced the formation of a technocratic government. The moves came this evening after Morsi had pledged to die rather than accede to an ultimatum issued by the army to heed the protesters’ demands, with the opposition declaring his statements to be a declaration of “civil war.” The army will now move to try to prevent Muslim Brotherhood supporters from instigating violence. A top Muslim Brotherhood leader already on Tuesday called on the movement’s supporters to “sacrifice your soul to defend Mohamed Morsy’s legitimacy.”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
A brief note on a telling dichotomy:
When the left describes something they don’t like about Christianity or Judaism, they are not shy about it. They’ll even pin bombings or shootings on “Christian terrorists” or “Tea party” people ( which to many on the left seems synonymous), before any evidence is in hand at all. But they are often strangely gently and circumspect when it comes to handling Islam:
(Hat tip to Marmoe who alerted me to the Congressional report.)
The Obama administration has pushed its intelligence agencies into purging their training materials of “anything that might be offensive to anyone, particularly anyone of Islamic faith” (a quote from the purge order).
So what, exactly, would that amount to? Apparently, any reference to Islam at all in connection with terrorists. Even calling jihadists “terrorists is” offensive to them.
(Over at Citizen Tom‘s, he and I have been engaged in a discussion related to his “Speaking Truth to Power” posts, including the follow up. One aspect of the discussion in that follow up is worth pointing out separately, I believe. I wrote, in part:)
There is, as we’ve discussed before, a distinction between the “public personae” of political figures, which have generally been quite overtly religious, and their private philosophies which are sometimes less so. This is not always different; Ronald Reagan, for example, was quite devout both privately and publicly. But for years — centuries, really — it was necessary to be publicly religious in order to be seen to be fit as a leader in the US. You would not be criticized for being Christian here. The newer sort of evangelical faith was accepted by both political sides; our first evangelical president so far as I can recall was Jimmy Carter (for whom Pat Robertson campaigned).
This attitude is being replaced, in recent decades, with a media-led outright hostility to Christianity. And in a curious juxtaposition, the modern trend is one of supplanting it in some respects with Islam as the protected faith. We now have officially appointed US Attorneys (such as William Killian) warning us that we are subject to prosecution if we write comments on social media considered demeaning to Islam. This was not something ever officially sanctioned by the US when it came to Christianity. In the described presentation, the US Attorney in Tennessee makes the assertion that posting something that is offensive to Muslims violates their civil rights, and is subject to prosecution. An excerpt:
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
“That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.
There is now a “civil right” against being offended discerned by the current administration, exactly in accordance with Sharia (and United Nations) principles. Interestingly, Killian makes quite a few false statements in his presentation, if he is quoted accurately. Most are aimed against Christians. It is interesting to speculate whether US Atty Killian is subject to prosecution for violating the “civil rights” of Christians with his offensive statements.
Ah, but do not hold your breath while waiting; Christians are not afforded such rights by our uneven current government. The change in attitudes means that professing a Christian faith is becoming more and more risky. Thus, in many circles, you are at risk of being ostracized for your beliefs just as I am in other venues. Would that this was not a part of America’s modern culture (and government) for either of us!
And it brings me back to your central topic: We are hamstrung, those of us concerned about the rise of jihadism as a threat to Western civilization, by an ever-increasing environment of rules and attitudes that make it dangerous to speak that truth to those in power — or publicly at all.
You mentioned “many strange ‘isms” and I completely agree. You’re familiar, I think, with the short film Make Mine Freedom from 1948 that touches eloquently on that topic. In that post, I wound up in a lively discussion of racism — because the film showed black and which schoolchildren together in 1948. But its message about “isms” is an important one, and needs to be spoken, even if the “power” (from government to bureaucracy to most of the media) seems thoroughly infected with them.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
New media downplays the Islamic jihadist aspect of the brothers, it seems, and implies that these “nice” and “shy” and “quiet” and “harmless” brothers just recently became radicalized. This is evidently false.
Tamerlan had been in the US since 2006, and it’s interesting to note that he apparently set up an Amazon wishlist at that time. Over the course of the next couple of years, he added books to his wishlist that suggest that his worldview was not so different then. Here are some of the books, which I’ve grouped into three categories of interest:
- How to Make Driver’s Licenses and Other ID on Your Home Computer
- The I.D. Forger: Homemade Birth Certificates & ?Other Documents Explained
- Secrets Of A Back Alley ID Man: Fake Id Construction Techniques Of The Underground
- Principles of Fraud Examination
- Document Fraud and Other Crimes of Deception
- Chechen Dictionary & Phrasebook (Hippocrene Dictionary and Phrasebook)
- The Lone Wolf And the Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule
- Allah’s Mountains: The Battle for Chechnya, New Edition
- American Mafia: A History of Its Rise to Power (John MacRae Books)
- Organized Crime: AN INSIDE GUIDE TO THE WORLD’S MOST SUCCESSFUL INDUSTRY
- Cosa Nostra: A History of the Sicilian Mafia
- Blood and Honor: Inside the Scarfo Mob, the Mafia’s Most Violent Family
- Five Families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America’s Most Powerful Mafia Empires
All of these books were added to the wishlist in 2006 or 2007.
One report notes that Tamarlan had been arrested for assaulting his girlfriend in 2009. This goes against the shy, harmless aspect … but is quite compatible with a man who follows Shariah law.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle