(Before I begin a new Blog Post, I want to say how grateful I am to the Comal County (TX) Republican Women's Club and Joyce Yanuzzi. I was afforded the opportunity to speak with this group on Monday night and made many new friends. I also was fortunate to run into a few old friends, including Comal County Commissioner Jen Crownover. I had such a wonderful evening with this intelligent, engaging group of Comal County citizens, and was reminded that folks are paying very close attention to politics in 2016, Personally, I feel much better with that little bit of knowledge.)
Late Monday evening I took the time to read an editorial on FoxNews written by FoxNews contributor Greg Gutfield. I usually appreciate Gutfield's perspective, and his clear, concise and flowing style is welcome. I'm sure I'm not alone when I express an annoyance with self-important commentary that prides itself on how many times the reader has to retreat to a dictionary. Notice to all online contributors: most people don't bother with the dictionary; they just move on to the next article. Gutfield decided to pen this particular commentary after observing the collective response of the media to the events in Orlando, Florida on June 12/13th. So what did happen? How would you answer that simple question? From my optic, on July 12/13, at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando Florida, a fanatical Islamic Terrorist opened fire with various weapons and killed forty-nine innocent people. As Gutfield so deftly points out, the American people seem to be split regarding the cause of the violence in Orlando. According to Gutfield, The New York Times blamed Republicans for the attack, and the Huffington Post blamed Christians (I had trouble excepting this as fact, so I did my homework, and Gutfield is spot-on). In the South and in the Red State heartland, people blamed fanatical Islamic terrorism. I wish I had the tools to take a poll of my readers because I would be fascinated to know where you assign blame.
If we cut through the politically correct crap for a few minutes, this one is truly a no-brainer. The Left/media continues to try and create this evil boogeyman "The Christian Bigot" in America, because the are so desperate for him to exist (and yes, I made it a "he"!). The fact that we have no examples of reprisal attacks following the Boston episode, the California murders, and now this event in Orlando, is certainly a credit to the faith we have in Law Enforcement to do the job. Since the Left is unable to screech about Christians rioting in Moslem neighborhoods and burning down mosques, they have decided to blame Christians for the actual genesis of the event. And since the shooter was obviously a Muslim, it then becomes necessary to show how his actions were caused by both Donald Trump and Christian bigots, who gave the killer no other outlet for his anger (caused by bigotry and racism, no doubt). Try and hang with my, folks; I know it can get a bit confusing. Although the New York Times, which hasn't printed a political news piece worth a bucket of shit since Gettysburg, and The Huffington Post gave the appearance of focusing on two separate culprits (Republicans and Christians), make no mistake; Republican and Christian are the same in their entertaining political lexicon. Blaming conservative white America (yes, I went there) for the actions of an ISIS-inspired Muslim Extremist lunatic creates a discussion which fills the room. We were talking about President Obama's determination to never use the word Muslim in the same sentence as terrorist/terrorism, but now the subject has changed. We are now discussing the possibility that the American people might somehow hold some responsibility for the Pulse nightclub murders. The narrative for the Left doesn't change. We are always the guilty party, and must apologize. And as we consider the absurdity of that thought, we aren't really paying attention to the fact that Obama has ordered the enter federal bureaucracy to follow his strict example and not include "Muslim" in any conversation regarding the terrible events of that night.
As a former government servant, I am surprised at how quickly the federal workforce accepts these precedence-setting orders from the Executive Branch. How bad is it? Just follow the breadcrumbs, folks. Over the past eight years, we have suffered through one scandal after another, including the more famous examples at the Justice Department and IRS. When the Obama Administration arrived in DC in 2009, it issued an important set of marching orders: when an opportunity arises to replace a retiring manager from any of the various departments or agencies in the federal government, the replacement will not be the most qualified individual, it will be a political appointee. These political appointees started popping up everywhere, especially on our television screens, testifying before one Congressional Committee after another. To give credit where it is due, these folks did their job (especially that little guy from IRS who looks so much like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, that I start mumbling, "my precious, my precious", whenever I see his smirk). They stone-walled, obfuscated, cleared-their-throat, feigned ignorance, and flat-out lied to protect the Obama Administration. So when the order came down to redact all mentions of "Islamic" from details on terrorism, people understood their job quite clearly. Sadly, I had half-expected, hoped that maybe someone at the FBI or somewhere else at Justice, would stand up and say, "this is ridiculous; we are at war with Muslim extremists." But I don't blame anyone for not putting their job on the line. We all have bills to pay and families to care for.
So why is President Obama so darned set against associating the word "Muslim" with terrorism? The easy answer is to assume that somehow he is actually Muslim himself, and has been hiding the fact for years. President Obama is not a Muslim. Personally, I don't believe he's a Christian, either (just my opinion, folks). I believe that Barack Obama's religion is the kind of Socialism that his father espoused in the late 1960s, Kenya. Obama believes, as his father did, that Europe and the United States in particular, engaged in an undeclared war for many years against anyone who opposed our interests. Much of what Obama believes is in fact, true. For years, in particular the time periods following World War II and the Vietnam Conflict, our Intelligence Agencies and on occasion our Armed Forces, took action that we believed at the time was necessary for our long-term security. We did support and arm the Taliban against Russia in the 1980s, and we did support Saddam Hussein in his late-1980s war with Iran. We have also supported Israel each and every time that nation has been ambushed by multiple enemies all at once. Obama has made it clear that he believes the United States owes apologies all over the Arab world, and also in Africa (Congo, South Africa) and South America (Chile, Paraguay). Whether or not you agree with that view of our overall impact in various regions of the world, will say a lot about how you view this blog post as well.
Hopefully my perspective will help to explain why President Obama is so reticent to connect "terrorism" with Islam. He does not believe that it is helpful nor fair to make the connection, and after decades and decades of unfair treatment from the United States, Islam deserves the benefit of the doubt. I understand the argument, but I certainly do not agree.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Western Christianity More Determined Than Ever to Self-Destruct
Link: Christians Attacking Christians
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15
I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent. And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else. I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other. Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair". I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow. I will call it as I've seen it. But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself. At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined. The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward. In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a. All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit. Why is this worth mentioning? Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them. It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed.
Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune. An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community. The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden. I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria. At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan. The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse. Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research. No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves. So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.
In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation. I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime. If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam. For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a. But lets take look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West. Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community. I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs. If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States. And this is where the real tragedy takes shape. In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden. Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate. Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child. Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions. The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life. So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate. But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith. Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values. That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time. The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION". But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation. The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion. The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school. The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours. Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.
There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist. The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example. Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money. We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written. Argh. Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me. They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States. And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me. In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic. But then it happened. The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination. Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians). Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination. In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services. But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens. There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture". Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently. Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently. No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing. The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek? Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.
When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree? All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith. We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross. We believe in the resurrection; that he will return. Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love. Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor. Can we agree on that? Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there. Are we still on the same page? The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other. We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child. See how easy this is? Am I on the right track? Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today. There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil. As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other. "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance." "Catholics worship false idols". "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly". The list goes on, and on, and on. We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding. And we built this country together. We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed. What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Just How Many Muslims Have Immigrated To Europe, Anyway?
Link A. Immigration To France, Wikipedia
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
B. Immigration to Germany, Wikipedia
C. Immigration In Europe From A U.S. Perspective
D. Islam in Europe, Wikipedia
The issue of Islamic Immigration to Europe is both difficult and complicated. When I decide to educate myself on a particular subject, my first task is to collect as much information as possible. With regards to Muslim Immigration, what should be the starting point of my research? Post World War One, when the dissolution of monarchies in Germany, Turkey, Austria-Hungary and Russia, encouraged people to relocate in search of better opportunities? Or possibly just after World War Two, when Europe, which had been bled dry of healthy young men, needed immigrants to work in both the fields and in the factories? Or should we start our conversation in the late 1960's, when Paris was fresh with revolution, and terrorists were beginning to make their presence felt? Actually, I think it's better to start with the present and work our way back. A number of prominent European nations have a Muslim population that is eight percent or greater. The growing number of Muslims in Europe is a relatively new development, something that began in earnest within the last sixty years. Three times in the last fifteen hundred years, Christian armies were fortunate to defeat much larger and better equipped Muslim forces that were intent on invading the heart of Europe. For our history lesson today, take note of the Battle of Tours in 732 (against the Moors from Spain), the 1529 Battle of Vienna I (against the Ottoman Empire), and the Battle of Vienna II in 1683 (the Ottoman Empire's last foray this far into Europe). During the years of Moor control on the Iberian peninsula, and Ottoman administration in the Balkans, no doubt the number of Muslims in Europe increased. But the Moors were sent packing by Isabella and Ferdinand, and rebellions by Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century all but ended the reality of "Turkey in Europe". Muslims still exist in the Balkans, but basically only in the Albanian community, which is about as close to secular as you can get (I would guess that a mosque exists for every three houses in Kosovo, but I never saw one in use).
The increase in the number of Muslims in Europe was driven by two factors: economics and post-colonial paternalism. Whenever Europe was in need of an influx of young men to work in the factories and on the farms, the people of North Africa and the Middle East were happy to oblige (no surprise; European wars had decimated the economies of those areas as well). North Africans came to work in France, and Turks came to Germany and Scandinavia. In most instances, they put down roots and had children. In the 1960's, as France and England (and to lesser and later extent, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal), granted independence to their African colonies. For numerous reasons, guilt and a sense of paternalism being at the top of the list, Europe opened its doors to citizens of its former colonies. England was probably more affected by post-colonial immigration from India and Pakistan than Africa, but France welcomed hundreds of thousands of new immigrants from recently independent Algeria, Morocco, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Guinea. Belgium was obliged to welcome Congolese. Later, following the Biafran War, England did open its doors to thousands of displaced Ibo, although white Rhodesians weren't nearly as welcome. As for the number of Turks in Germany and Scandinavia, I don't really have an explanation. Historically, Germany has always had close relations with Turkey, which may be part of the answer. Also, following the Civil Rights marches in the United States and the televised horrors of the Algerian conflict and the Vietnam War, European societies were determined to avoid the appearance of racism. And the Immigration Statutes written into law during that time are still in effect today. In less delicate terms, once it was turned on, the faucet was never turned off. Europe continued to accept immigrants long-past the ability of its economies to comfortably provide jobs and housing. This fact, along with other socio-economic and cultural issues, is responsible for the high percentage of minorities needing government support to survive.
In 2015, roughly ten percent of the population of France self-identifies as Muslim. Austria, Belgium, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are not far behind. Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo all have a substantial Muslim population because of the historic legacy of the Ottoman Turks, but rarely do you see an observant Muslim community in the Balkans (I understand that recently, a number of really nasty extremists have popped up, who were raised in these areas, so things may be changing). As of late, politics in western Europe have definitely swung in the direction of anti-immigration, and the events of last week will only increase that statistic. Sweden, Holland, France, and even Switzerland have taken steps to tighten up their immigration controls. Given the twenty-five thousand anti-Islamic demonstrators that marched in Leipzig last week, I'm guessing Angela Merkel has something in the works as well. No doubt, the high percentage of Muslims living in European countries is connected to the rise in extremist activity. But the increased police presence and the tightening of immigration laws is a knee-jerk reaction to attack the problem at the perceived source. Why are children of Algerian immigrants, who came to France, assimilated and worked their asses off, sympathetic to Islamic extremism? Since the symptom is the same in every country, then the problem must be the same as well. These young men and women have no distraction. They don't feel as if they belong anywhere, and once the European school systems, which are bedrocked to favor the native population, spit these kids out, they had nowhere to go. And the media and entertainment industry that our generation has allowed to take over the minds of young people today, tells these kids (and the inner-city youths in the United States as well), that there is something WRONG with working in a fast food joint, or on a farm, and there is something wrong with working for an hourly wage and taking college classes at night. The television and the MP3 players are constantly reminding these young, impressionable minds, that the life of a gangster is the life to be admired, and that money and sex should come easy. If it doesn't come easy, then someone is denying you your due, and you are entitled to take it.
Remember the riots in the urban, ethnic communities of France just a few years ago? Those kids had nothing to do. Their parents were at work, sometimes holding down two jobs, and unable to battle the message coming from the entertainment industry, and when I say entertainment industry, I point the finger directly back at the United States. The hip-hop and rap music that glorifies the selling of narcotics for easy money, and killing of rivals and anyone in authority. And sex? It is in no way connected to responsibility; it's all about the act, and the sense of domination. What is occurring in our inner cities in the United States, is replicated in Europe. We don't have many children of Muslim immigrants (in comparison), but our young people are latching on to a message just as theirs are. The message they are hearing is that the easy riches come with their ideology. That women are subservient, and should always be available for sex, and that the Jew has stolen everything from you, including your heritage. These young people, in the suburbs of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, and Stockholm, are looking for an easy, quick answer and a place to belong as well. We will give you a gun, which will make you a man, and we will teach you to kill your enemy (who is the reason you can't have that Porsche you want, or those new three-hundred euro sneakers). Has it been so long since we were at that age? The mind is much like jello, waiting to be molded into the adult brain it is to become. You will rarely find a terrorist (at least a dead one) who is over the age of thirty-five. There is a reason for that.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Apologist in Chief
Link: Obama's United Nations Address
I'm sure, somewhere down the road, I will regret the title I chose for this post. I don't like being confrontational. I had my share of confrontation in the first forty-eight years, thank you. As I've said previously, I started this blog as a means of introducing my book to persons interested in national security and intelligence. Not surprisingly, I have fallen in love with this method of expression and communication, and fully intend to build this blog into something meaningful. This experience has reminded me that the majority (certainly not all) of persons interested in intelligence collection are conservative. Frankly put, its no challenge to find someone in the blogoshere who is ready to criticize the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. It has been my intention from the beginning to steer clear of politics, and in most instances I believe I have been successful. But lately, reality has hit me squarely in jaw. I enjoy writing about issues that don't have a political angle, and I endeavor to avoid politics with a partisan vein. But I will not ignore this Administration's policies on immigration or any other subject that directly impacts national security.
How is it that President Obama continues to find ways to surprise me? Yesterday, I commented that the Administration might be playing politics with national security. In fact, I considered the idea that President Obama was conducting an air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria in an effort to appear "presidential" just prior to a major national election. But today President Obama addressed the United Nations and reverted back to his "America is bad". Judge and Jury Obama declared to the world's representatives that the incident in Ferguson, Missouri was an American "failure". He also pointed out the continuation of "our own racial and ethnic tensions". First and foremost, the President of the United States should not be airing our "laundry" in front of tin-horn dictators, thugs, Marxists and psychopaths. Why was it necessary to mention the events in Ferguson? Because Obama continues to believe that the United States has not expressed enough contrition and remorse for our supposed worldwide "exploitation". President Obama was raised in a family of avowed Marxists and America-haters; its no surprise that he detests our legacy. It took some time for me to reach this point. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about birth certificates, etc., but I didn't actually believe that President Obama had disdain for his own country until the last few years. Dinesh, my apologies for not seeing the truth sooner.
During the address President Obama could not resist his trademark "Islam is wonderful and lovely and peaceful and full of butterflies and unicorns" comments. Women are beheaded in Saudi Arabia and locked up like criminals. In 2004, just outside of al-Kut, Iraq, my colleague Mike and I watched a man beat a group of Shia women with a switch "just because they were women". Mr. President, if Islam is a religion of "peace", prove it by attempting to build a Christian Church ANYWHERE in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (I'm sure someone is going to point out that some Churches already exist in these countries. The key word in my sentence is "build"). Another one of those odd "Obama paradoxes" has me a bit flummoxed. Obama has spoken on more than one occasion about the need to address homophobia in the United States, and he did us all a favor by ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. So let me get this straight: in the United States we need marriage equality and to fight the homophobia and bigotry that still exists in our society. But Islamic countries, whose laws are DIRECTLY predicated on the teachings of the Quran, and who consider homosexuality to be punishable by death, are "peace loving". Huh?
The prevailing Muslim authority in Nigeria is directly linked to Boko Haram, the group who randomly kidnaps children. In Algeria, a French tourist was beheaded today by an Algerian-based jihadi group with ties to the IS. Saudi Arabian women are denied just about every right you can imagine. We could take a country-by-country tour and I could provide lots of unpleasant stories. The truth is, I don't believe that the average Muslim person wants to kill anyone, but we must recognize that the issue of international terrorism in this generation is rooted in Islamic countries. What is an Islamic country? For my purposes, an Islamic nation is one whose laws are directly derived from the Quran. I do not refer to Turkey as an Islamic country, even though the population is over ninety percent Muslim. Turkey's constitution is centered on the secular tradition enshrined by Kemal Ataturk. What point is President Obama trying to make when he reminds us repeatedly that "Islam is a peaceful religion"? What exactly does that phrase mean?
The first time I attempted to read the Quran I did not make much progress. The book does not follow any chronological path, at least none that I could follow. I picked it up again about ten years ago, and managed to finish the book. Last year, guided by a Muslim friend (who kindly picked out an acceptable English translation), I read the Quran for a third time. Its very similar to the Christian Bible in that it has of stories of remarkable characters, astounding events, and useful lessons. The Quran, again, like the Bible, speaks of sin, punishment, and forgiveness. The real difference between the Bible and the Quran, is that in today's world, the Quran is being used to exhort people to violence. This development should not come as a surprise to us Christians, because its exactly what we did a few centuries ago.
For six years we have observed our President approach every international issue from the position of "offending party". I'm more than over this approach. No doubt in our history, the United States has been involved in some less-than-proud moments. At the same time, young Americans have bled in battlefields far and wide, in defense of someone else's freedom. I am proud to be an American. My father served in Korea and Vietnam and returned with three purple hearts to show for his commitment. Whatever it is that bothers President Obama so much that he has spent six years apologizing for America, I say its time to GET OVER IT. In our short history we have introduced the concept of human rights and liberty to a world that had grown accustomed to servitude. We have serious domestic issues to address, as does Germany, Malaysia, Laos, Rwanda, Wales, Estonia, and on and on and on. Its part of the evolution of a society. Our domestic issues have no business on the international stage.
I'm sure, somewhere down the road, I will regret the title I chose for this post. I don't like being confrontational. I had my share of confrontation in the first forty-eight years, thank you. As I've said previously, I started this blog as a means of introducing my book to persons interested in national security and intelligence. Not surprisingly, I have fallen in love with this method of expression and communication, and fully intend to build this blog into something meaningful. This experience has reminded me that the majority (certainly not all) of persons interested in intelligence collection are conservative. Frankly put, its no challenge to find someone in the blogoshere who is ready to criticize the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. It has been my intention from the beginning to steer clear of politics, and in most instances I believe I have been successful. But lately, reality has hit me squarely in jaw. I enjoy writing about issues that don't have a political angle, and I endeavor to avoid politics with a partisan vein. But I will not ignore this Administration's policies on immigration or any other subject that directly impacts national security.
How is it that President Obama continues to find ways to surprise me? Yesterday, I commented that the Administration might be playing politics with national security. In fact, I considered the idea that President Obama was conducting an air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria in an effort to appear "presidential" just prior to a major national election. But today President Obama addressed the United Nations and reverted back to his "America is bad". Judge and Jury Obama declared to the world's representatives that the incident in Ferguson, Missouri was an American "failure". He also pointed out the continuation of "our own racial and ethnic tensions". First and foremost, the President of the United States should not be airing our "laundry" in front of tin-horn dictators, thugs, Marxists and psychopaths. Why was it necessary to mention the events in Ferguson? Because Obama continues to believe that the United States has not expressed enough contrition and remorse for our supposed worldwide "exploitation". President Obama was raised in a family of avowed Marxists and America-haters; its no surprise that he detests our legacy. It took some time for me to reach this point. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about birth certificates, etc., but I didn't actually believe that President Obama had disdain for his own country until the last few years. Dinesh, my apologies for not seeing the truth sooner.
During the address President Obama could not resist his trademark "Islam is wonderful and lovely and peaceful and full of butterflies and unicorns" comments. Women are beheaded in Saudi Arabia and locked up like criminals. In 2004, just outside of al-Kut, Iraq, my colleague Mike and I watched a man beat a group of Shia women with a switch "just because they were women". Mr. President, if Islam is a religion of "peace", prove it by attempting to build a Christian Church ANYWHERE in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (I'm sure someone is going to point out that some Churches already exist in these countries. The key word in my sentence is "build"). Another one of those odd "Obama paradoxes" has me a bit flummoxed. Obama has spoken on more than one occasion about the need to address homophobia in the United States, and he did us all a favor by ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. So let me get this straight: in the United States we need marriage equality and to fight the homophobia and bigotry that still exists in our society. But Islamic countries, whose laws are DIRECTLY predicated on the teachings of the Quran, and who consider homosexuality to be punishable by death, are "peace loving". Huh?
The prevailing Muslim authority in Nigeria is directly linked to Boko Haram, the group who randomly kidnaps children. In Algeria, a French tourist was beheaded today by an Algerian-based jihadi group with ties to the IS. Saudi Arabian women are denied just about every right you can imagine. We could take a country-by-country tour and I could provide lots of unpleasant stories. The truth is, I don't believe that the average Muslim person wants to kill anyone, but we must recognize that the issue of international terrorism in this generation is rooted in Islamic countries. What is an Islamic country? For my purposes, an Islamic nation is one whose laws are directly derived from the Quran. I do not refer to Turkey as an Islamic country, even though the population is over ninety percent Muslim. Turkey's constitution is centered on the secular tradition enshrined by Kemal Ataturk. What point is President Obama trying to make when he reminds us repeatedly that "Islam is a peaceful religion"? What exactly does that phrase mean?
The first time I attempted to read the Quran I did not make much progress. The book does not follow any chronological path, at least none that I could follow. I picked it up again about ten years ago, and managed to finish the book. Last year, guided by a Muslim friend (who kindly picked out an acceptable English translation), I read the Quran for a third time. Its very similar to the Christian Bible in that it has of stories of remarkable characters, astounding events, and useful lessons. The Quran, again, like the Bible, speaks of sin, punishment, and forgiveness. The real difference between the Bible and the Quran, is that in today's world, the Quran is being used to exhort people to violence. This development should not come as a surprise to us Christians, because its exactly what we did a few centuries ago.
For six years we have observed our President approach every international issue from the position of "offending party". I'm more than over this approach. No doubt in our history, the United States has been involved in some less-than-proud moments. At the same time, young Americans have bled in battlefields far and wide, in defense of someone else's freedom. I am proud to be an American. My father served in Korea and Vietnam and returned with three purple hearts to show for his commitment. Whatever it is that bothers President Obama so much that he has spent six years apologizing for America, I say its time to GET OVER IT. In our short history we have introduced the concept of human rights and liberty to a world that had grown accustomed to servitude. We have serious domestic issues to address, as does Germany, Malaysia, Laos, Rwanda, Wales, Estonia, and on and on and on. Its part of the evolution of a society. Our domestic issues have no business on the international stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)