One hundred years ago, on this day, March 15th, the “ides of March,” Czar Nicholas II of Russia, under pressure, abdicated, ending the dynasty that had ruled Russia since 1613. The end result was not the liberal democracy that many hoped for, but, rather, seventy years of communism, a period far worse than anything under the czars. When the czar abdicated, nobody could have foreseen the ultimate outcome. The czar himself brought attention to the fact that the day was the “ides of March,” the day Julius Caesar was assassinated, changing the course of Roman history, ending the Roman Republic, replacing it with the Roman Empire. The term became popular through Shakespeare’s famous play, “Julius Cesar.”
Today, March 15th, The Netherlands is voting for a new government. It’s the first time ever that Holland has received this much media attention. Once again, an uncertain future awaits the country and the European Union; that is, if Geert Wilder’s ‘Party for Freedom’ makes significant gains and goes on to form a government. Mr. Wilders has been labeled Holland’s Donald Trump. He’s a populist, who wants to restore his country to what it was, ending the multiculturalism that has fundamentally changed the country. In addition, he wants to leave the EU. He also wants to ban the Koran and Islamic schools and has called for the closure of all mosques; and end the wearing of burqas and hijabs, requiring people to wear western style clothing.
The election result is likely to have a profound effect on France and Germany who hold elections later this year. If a populist government comes to power in the Netherlands, then, maybe populism will see gains in the two biggest European countries, France and Germany. This could make 2017 as significant a year as 1989 and 1848 in European history. Change is in the air. But, as with Russia a century ago, the future of change is unpredictable. Sweeping populism may sweep away the European Union, but what will replace it? Will liberal social democracy be replaced by more nationalistic forms of government? Could a swing to the right in the Netherlands lead to similar swings elsewhere on the continent? The European Union, which turns 60 in ten days, may have to go back to the drawing board.
It’s not just the election that is making news in Holland. For over four centuries the Dutch, once a great maritime power, have had a peace treaty with Turkey. But now, the two NATO members are going through a verbal conflict that could easily get out of hand. The basic problem is immigration. Millions of Turks live in Holland, Germany and other EU countries. The Turkish president wants to send members of his government to speak to these Turkish citizens, so that they will vote for Mr, Erdogan in a referendum that will grant the president more powers. Naturally, Holland does not want the Turkish election to be conducted in Holland. Allowing Ankara to do so would expose the lie that Muslims are assimilated and are, in fact, Dutch. They are not, identifying primarily with their own religion and culture, not with that of the host country.
A Turkish government minister was not allowed to address a rally in Holland. Consequently, relations have been negatively affected.
The Netherlands isn’t the only European country that’s hitting the headlines internationally. The United Kingdom is also in the news.
It’s taken nine months for the groundwork to be laid for Britain to activate Article 50 and apply to leave the European Union. It’s been a rocky road, with members of Britain’s ruling elite doing everything possible to undermine the will of the people, expressed in June’s Brexit vote. The unelected House of Lords was the final hurdle.
As if invoking Article 50 is not difficult enough, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party picked the same time to demand another referendum.
This time, she believes the Scots will vote to leave the United Kingdom as the majority of Scots voted to remain in the European Union.
In effect, what Ms. Sturgeon wants is to replace English domination with German domination. Ignorant of history (except possibly watching “Braveheart” over and over again!), Ms. Sturgeon has no problem replacing London with Berlin.
When the UK completes its negotiations with the EU settling Brexit terms, Ms. Sturgeon’s Scotland will have to act quickly and apply to use the euro. It will also need massive amounts of aid as Scotland has needed English financial support ever since it voted to join the union with England, over three centuries ago.
Scottish loyalists will have to get used to shopping with a new currency – and won’t even be able to stay home and watch the BBC!
For over a decade she’s been called “the most powerful woman in the world”. In recent weeks, she has received the accolade “Leader of the Free World” as many nations see America turning its back on its international role.
But she may not even be in power one year from now.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, generously allowed into the country one million asylum seekers in recent months. On Monday, one of those migrants staged a terrorist attack in Berlin, killing twelve and seriously injuring almost 50. The attacker stole a heavy goods vehicle and drove into Christmas shoppers in one of the capital’s famous Christmas markets. The method copied the attack in Nice, France, which killed 84 people in July.
Many Berliners thought themselves immune from attack. Their liberal city welcomed migrants. Now, many Germans are doing a rethink. The right-wing AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) party looks set to gain at the polls next year. Their anti-immigrant policy is in stark contrast to their “conservative” Chancellor and other centrist parties. Germans could easily follow British and American voters by turning away from the liberal immigration policies of the past.
“Everything has changed for Merkel after Berlin terror attack, says expert” was the headline Thursday morning in the British Daily Express. ‘Angela Merkel’s open-door migrant policy will come slamming shut and Germany will become a Big Brother state after the Berlin Christmas market terror attack, a leading political commentator has warned.” (Alix Culbertson)
The article continues: “Josef Joffe said Germany has only had to deal with no or low victim lone-wolf attacks, unlike many other Western countries, until this year but after a spate of seven in 2016 the government will be forced to change the way the country is run.”
At the same time, there is concern across Europe about America’s commitment to the continent’s democracies. Many are now looking to Germany and Angela Merkel to take over America’s seven decade leading role in western Europe.
“President-elect Donald Trump hasn’t taken the oath of office or outlined his administration’s plans for the nation’s foreign policy, but his election has already forced the United States’ European allies to contemplate a future where the United States might no longer underwrite Europe’s security. Faced with an American president who has dismissed alliances such as NATO while denigrating liberal values, Germany will assume an increasingly consequential role as a leader in the turbulent transatlantic order while it takes gradual steps to shore up its lagging military capabilities. But the prospect of nationalist victories in important European elections next year raises an under-discussed question: as the European project comes under unprecedented strain and prepares to face a President who promises to turn the United States away from the world, could a fractured and increasingly nationalistic Europe come to fear a more powerful Germany again?”
The following paragraph is of particular interest: “In a profound twist of historical irony that is not yet appreciated widely, only 71 years after World War II, a sitting German chancellor has warned the next leader of the United States to respect the transatlantic order’s commitment to the rule of law and liberal values.” (“Could Europe fear Germany again?” by Adam Twardowski, Small Wars Journal, December 19th.)
Political Revolution Is Brewing in Europe
Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician who leads the anti-immigrant party, was found guilty this week of inflammatory language against Moroccan immigrants, all Muslims. The following was written by Mr. Wilders and appeared in “The Gatestone Institute’s” newsletter:
The German authorities are dangerously underestimating the threat of Islam . . . They have betrayed their own citizens.
Let no-one tell you that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.
Out of political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to acknowledge that its all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
We will have to de-islamize our societies . . . But it all begins with politicians with the courage to face and speak the truth.
More and more citizens are aware of that. This is why a political revolution is brewing in Europe. Patriotic parties are rapidly growing everywhere. They are Europe’s only hope for a better future.
Prince Charles warns against religious persecution
Prince Charles has spoken out about the danger of religious persecution, warning against a repeat of “the horrors of the past.” Delivering BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day, the Prince of Wales said the rise of populist groups “aggressive” to minority faiths had “deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days” of the 1930s. The prince said the scale of religious persecution around the world was “not widely appreciated” and was not limited to Christians, but included many other minority faiths. He went on: “That, nearly seventy years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is, to me, beyond all belief.” The Prince said: “Whichever religious path we follow, the destination is the same – to value and respect the other person, accepting their right to live out their peaceful response to the love of God.”
ANGLOS ON DECLINE
It may not be too serious yet, but a group of Californians has just opened an “embassy” in Moscow. They are seeking international recognition for an independent California.
Don’t think it’s not possible.
Many Scots want independence from the United Kingdom, with a call this week for a second referendum within two years; many Australians want to sever the tie with the Crown after the Queen’s reign ends.
These three developments all have something in common – they reflect the decline of the Anglo-Saxons and the increasing presence of non-Anglo immigrants. Watch for more fragmentation in the Anglosphere. It’s inevitable considering the low Anglo-Saxon birthrate everywhere. California, remember, is now a majority Spanish speaking state.
THE FALL OF ALEPPO
I took the latest Economist magazine to a medical appointment yesterday, expecting to have to wait for some time. The doctor commented on the depressing cover on “The Fall of Aleppo.” I’m pleased to say that he did not ask: “What’s Aleppo?” You have to be a presidential candidate to be that ill-informed. Rather, he asked me what the difference is between East and West Aleppo.
I started to explain that East Aleppo was the “rebel” side, made up mostly of Sunni Muslims; West is where the pro-government Shi’ites live. The rebels have now been defeated, not by a few hundred Syrian troops, but by Shia volunteers from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Afghanistan; together with Russian air power.
He jokingly asked what my solution would be to the 1,400-year-old Shia-Sunni conflict. We then joked about attempts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which goes back even longer. It has been suggested that Donald Trump’s 35-year-old Jewish son-in-law could make a difference and resolve the conflict!
After I left, I remembered one of the funniest scenes in the movie “The Flintstones,” supposedly set in prehistoric times. As the paperboy delivered the morning newspaper, if you look carefully you can see the headline from 3000+ years ago: “Mideast peace talks fail.”
One small change has taken place in the Middle East and that’s in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, from where the BBC’s James Longman has been reporting to the world about the developments in Aleppo, 180 miles away. Apparently, the 29-year-old, good-looking, athletic reporter has quite a female following. Hundreds of thousands around the world who, until recently, thought Beirut was a root vegetable, an expensive perfume or a new wine at the local liquor store, are now becoming interested in Middle East affairs, so much so they eagerly turn to BBC World News first thing in the morning.
It is, however, having a negative affect on news channels. Fox started it all by employing attractive blondes, seemingly a requirement for employment at the news channel. Now even men on global news networks are being chosen according to their physical appearance.
Fortunately, Mr. Longman also knows his Middle East. Born in England, he is fluent in both French and Arabic, which give him a distinct advantage in the region. His reporting on the area is worth watching.
The BBC, like other networks, does not give enough attention to the religious divisions that exist in the Middle East. Religion is at the core of all the sectarian violence that afflicts the region. It may be difficult for people raised in secular England to fully comprehend this.
The Jewish-Palestinian conflict has the potential to lead to World War III. Increasingly, it seems that the Shia-Sunni conflict could do the same.
Some in the West think the solution is the end of religion. Another solution is found in the Lord’s Prayer, in the words “Thy Kingdom Come.” (Matthew 6:10)
When that Kingdom comes, the Bible shows us that the true religion of the Messiah will be imposed over all the false religions. You can read about this in the book of the Old Testament prophet, Zechariah, which looks to the future Millennial rule of Jesus Christ.
“And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, on them there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the Lord strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.” (Zech. 14:16-19)
Egypt is 90% Muslim, and is a country that is witnessing a continued decline in its Christian population, which has been persecuted and discriminated against for generations. The latest outrage was a bomb going off in Cairo’s St Mark’s Cathedral. This passage of scripture shows that the Egyptians will in the future be forced to change from the Islamic religion to the true religion.
Christians should also take note, especially at this time of the year. Christmas is not mentioned in this passage. Rather, we see the biblical Feast of Tabernacles mentioned; once thought of as a Jewish festival, it will, in the future, be observed by everybody. At the same time, we will see the end of all the sectarian violence that today is at the root of all the suffering and violence in the area.
WE’VE COME A LONG WAY
PBS’s “The Hollow Crown” is taking us through Shakespeare’s historical plays and the last kings of the Plantagents, England’s bloodiest dynasty. They reigned for over 300 years, from 1154 to 1485. The last thirty years saw the Wars of the Roses, as the two royal houses of York and Lancaster battled for supremacy.
The series has inspired me to read Alison Weir’s “The Wars of the Roses,” first published in 1995. The following paragraph should be of interest to all.
“Formal education was provided for boys only. Women were seen as the inferior sex and regarded as the chattels of men. The author of “The Goodman of Paris” (c. 1393) advised wives to behave like faithful dogs in order to please their husbands, and Margaret Paston of Norfolk referred to John Paston as “right worshipful husband” in her letters. The husband was lord of his family as God reigned supreme over the universe. The chief duty of a wife, therefore, was to be submissive. If there was discord in a marriage, or infertility, people automatically assumed it was the wife’s fault. Women had virtually no freedom beyond that which their fathers or husbands allowed them. Within these confines, however, many managed businesses, shops, farms or noble estates, and proved themselves the equal to men.” (page 17)
An anti-police riot, Islamic terror attacks and a massive increase in the numbers of immigrants all add to America’s growing racial strains. In spite of all this, the Establishment continues its rapid push for a dramatic increase in the numbers of non-whites and the end of conservative white America.
The terror attacks at the weekend did not result in any fatalities but were an unpleasant experience for people in three states. More will certainly come. The result will likely be a swing to the right politically.
Bret Stephens, a former editor of the Jerusalem Post, who now writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal, observed this week that “as terrorist attacks become more common, tolerance for liberal pieties will wane.”
England was the first country to react with the anti-foreigner Brexit vote; Germany has voted in three regional elections in the last few weeks, each time rejecting the liberal immigration policy of Chancellor Angela Merkel; now the US is set to vote. It will be a close election, but Donald Trump has the advantage when it comes to security. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor President Obama can utter the words “radical Islam” and, following three terror attacks at the weekend, both are calling for more Muslim immigration.
In Germany, the AfD (Alternative for Deutschland Party), with an anti-immigrant program, gained the most in regional elections. Some are saying that this is reminiscent of the 1930’s, that the AfD is composed of neo-Nazis. Note the following from the London Daily Mail:
“Are the anti-immigration AfD exactly the same as the Nazis? No, of course not. And it would be a mistake to write off all their voters as racists or extremists.
Many of them are ordinary, working-class Germans, alarmed by the influx of so many newcomers and by the reports of sexual assaults in cities such as Munich and Cologne. In that respect, they are not so different from the 3.8 million people who voted for UKIP in our last general election.
Well, up to a point. For what’s truly disturbing is that AfD officials tried to book a rally in Munich’s Hofbräukeller, the beer hall where Hitler gave his first speech as a member of the Nazi Party in October 1919.
And they have also tried to revive the word ‘volkisch’ — conjuring up folksy images of the country’s home-grown culture — which the Nazis used to set Germans apart from their supposed racial inferiors.” (Dominic Sandbrook).
Clearly, the current invasion is having a dramatic effect on domestic politics.
In the Muslim world, most people believe the West is at war with Islam. Long memories of the Crusades, when western Christendom was at war with Islam for two centuries, continue to drive national direction – Israel is “the crusader state,” the modern equivalent of the medieval Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem established by the Crusaders in the eleventh century.
The Muslims are not the only ones driven by history. Central Europeans are mostly against taking in refugees. They remember that Islamists got to the gates of Vienna as recently as 1683. The Siege of Vienna took place on September 11th of that year, resulting in the defeat of the Muslims by the next day. It was the end of another push for the destruction of Christianity by Islam. It’s interesting to note that the re-emergence of extremist Sunni Islam appeared on the same date, September 11th, 2001. A message was clearly being sent: “we’re back – and this time we will defeat you.” Their goal is the destruction of the West.
And how does the West react? With compromise. “Let’s bring them all to America and they will change!!!” The naivety is sometimes astounding, but it shows just how deeply entrenched is the ideal of multiculturalism. Here’s a few lines from Bloomberg News in an editorial from today’s Lansing State Journal: “Refugees go to the considerable strain of moving to the US because they seek opportunities to work hard and improve their lives. Thus, they can be a boon to their new communities – creating jobs, stabilizing shrinking school districts, revitalizing blighted neighborhoods, and helping communities thrive”. Think about the stabilization of shrinking school districts – with a higher birthrate, Islam would soon be the dominant religion in many of our schools.
These statements are at variance with former Muslim writer, Salman Rushdie who addressed an audience in New York on C-Span. He pointed out that when a Muslim moves from the Middle East to Detroit, he is NOT looking to better himself and take advantage of the American way of life. Rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to America.” On a television news program yesterday, Muslims in the Minneapolis area (mostly Somalis) were stopped and asked if they liked the US or would prefer to live in a Muslim country. Every single one said they would prefer to live in a Muslim country.
The Bloomberg article ended with this message of compromise: “On the other hand, consider the costs of denying entry to any more Syrian refugees. It would feed Islamic State’s narrative that the US is anti-Muslim, and weaken America’s global leadership.”
In other words, we must just lie down and play dead. Let the invasion continue!
There are enough racial problems at home, without inviting more into the country. A few nights of rioting in Charlotte, North Carolina, started with the death of another African-American male at the hands of the police. Hardly mentioned by the liberal US media was the fact that the shooter was a black police office. The BBC, to its shame, did not mention it, for over 24 hours.
High rates of unemployment amongst African-Americans deserve a mention in the context of the ratcheted up rate of immigration by refugees – the Syrians will be helped to find jobs by government agencies, at the expense of mostly black Americans and Hispanics. Clearly, Democrats feel secure with their non-white base, even as they make life harder for them!
President Obama has also shown his “racist” side by badgering blacks to vote for Hillary, claiming he will feel personally insulted if they vote for Trump. This reminds me of one of the he worst aspects of African politics, when a tribal chief tells everybody in the tribe who to vote for – it makes democracy impossible.
The race to end white America, traditional America, is speeding up. Soon whites will be a minority, which is what Senator Edward Kennedy had in mind back in 1965 when he sponsored a new Immigration bill. At the time he promised that it would not change the demographics in the country.
Today, Friday, it has been revealed that the Obama Administration has instructed the FBI to rush through approval for citizenship for those entering the country from sensitive (i.e. Middle Eastern) areas. This will give the Democrats more votes and is a clear sign that politics comes before what’s best for the country. A further 110,000 refugees from the Middle east will start arriving October 1st. Already 85,000 have arrived this fiscal year (USA Today 9/15).
Perhaps Mr. Obama is feeling guilty. Having badly let down Syria, he now wants to give a home to many Syrians as possible, even though some are likely to be terrorists. ISIS has said more than once that it is sending its soldiers to Europe and America alongside the refugees.
There is clearly no true security in this world when our leaders make some irrational decisions.
It’s not surprising that I’ve received an invitation from the local police to attend a “Safety and Security” seminar for area churches. With an influx of people from the Middle East where attacks on churches have been routine, plus the additional factor of homegrown terrorists, churches need to boost security.
Christians should not lose heart faced with these growing threats. Rather, we should be encouraged by the words of the Apostle Paul:
“and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Phil 4:7).
“Lark Rise to Candleford” is a BBC series set in 1895. It’s about two geographically close communities, one poor and the other fairly affluent, and how characters inter-act with each other. The series started in 2008 and ran for four seasons.
My wife and I have been watching it when time permits. We are now halfway through the third season.
We usually watch it after the latest episode of “Agatha Raisin,” set in contemporary England. Shown originally on Sky TV and filmed in the Cotswolds, one of the most beautiful areas in the country, Agatha Raisin is an amateur detective (Agatha! Get it?), who has moved from London to the Cotswolds for a change of pace. She must be having second thoughts as the small village she lives in has at least one murder per week. Every murder is tastefully done – no extreme violence here, no, not in England. No guns.
The two series could not be more different. We unhesitatingly recommend the former, but are not likely to continue to watch the latter.
In 1895 the residents of Lark Rise and Candleford all lived in accordance with strict societal rules. These included biblical standards of morality. This cannot be said about the residents in Agatha Raisin’s village, or even of Agatha herself. Agatha Christie would be appalled. And Queen Victoria would certainly not have been amused!
What a difference 120 years has made to the family and morality.
Pause for a moment and think of how much it has cost us on both sides of the Atlantic.
The high costs of welfare are largely to cover-up the breakdown of the family system in this new liberal age. These welfare rolls have put us on a toboggan slide to insolvency. They have also added to the violence in our society as mothers often choose single parenthood over marriage as a way to get more benefits; boys without fathers are more inclined toward crime and violence.
A report from England two days ago highlighted how teenage girls there are increasingly unhappy. Family breakdown leads to unhappiness and increases the likelihood of addictions and suicide.
The anti-biblical society we have created has put 65 million babies to death in the US alone, following the 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion. These 65 million have been replaced by an equal number of immigrants, many of whom make no attempt to assimilate, while some are openly hostile toward us. Aside from the moral consideration, wouldn’t it have been better to raise those 65 million babies to be productive members of society? Faced with growing existential threats, they would also have added to our military strength; after all, the greatest strength is people, not technology.
Generous welfare benefits in western countries are also contributing to the migrant crisis, as hundreds of thousands of economic migrants are attracted to the West by all the freebies. Not all are refugees fleeing wars and persecution.
It’s a complete mess. It’s clearly time for a rethink. It’s time to restore the family to its traditional role and reverse the role of the state.
Christians believe that God created the family system — “male and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27). “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). To a certain extent, this is still a basic principle of our law – the marriage relationship takes precedence over other relationships.
However, what we fail to see is that within the biblical parameters we have the perfect welfare system. For thousands of years, this was the foundation of every society, a family system in which the various members of a family helped and supported each other. It is still the basic unit of most cultures around the world.
The irony is that, in the event of a financial collapse, which is inevitable at some point, we would see the family unit restored, as people would have to help each other again.
We might even see some sense come back into the financial system. One of the characters in the first season of “Lark Rise” is now serving time in debtors’ prison. Until 1905, in Britain at least, people were sent to prison for their debts, until family members could save the money to pay off the debt and get them out. Today, the accumulation of debt in the western world is no longer a crime – and it’s even legally possible for people to walk away from their debts. This cannot be good for the economy.
The more Biblically aware Victorians believed that “if a man doesn’t work, neither should he eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10) They would have been appalled at the very idea of state welfare.
Another scripture that influenced the Victorians was written by the Apostle Paul. “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (I Timothy 5:8).
The family system was the foundation of society. It’s taken quite a battering in the last century, but still survives – and will be needed once again in the event of a national or international calamity.
After my post “Hate will never win,” at least one website stated that I support guns in church. This is not the case. Jesus Christ said: “They that live by the sword shall die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52). I do not feel it is appropriate for people to carry a weapon in church. I will, however, add that I do feel this is a matter of personal conviction.
Forty years ago my wife and I lived in Rhodesia where I worked as a District Officer in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This meant that I worked in the administration of tribal areas under a District Commissioner. Although the area we lived in was relatively peaceful, there was a civil war going on and we were allowed to carry guns to defend ourselves. District Officers had the most dangerous job in the country – many were killed including my predecessor Ian Fyffe and a colleague Jimmy Souter.
I chose not to carry a gun, based on the scripture quoted above.
On the same website, it was suggested that I support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. For the record, I do not support either.
Mr. Trump sees Islam as the problem in the attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando. Mrs. Clinton blames guns. Note the following comment from Tuesday’s Wall St Journal:
“As the presidential campaign unfolds, Americans will get the chance to decide, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, what kind of approach they favor to combat jihadist terror. This election’s two candidates, more than any other presidential contenders in the era of terrorism, present starkly different profiles on the subject, notes our Washington bureau chief Gerald F. Seib. Donald Trump appeared to hint Monday that President Barack Obama may be sympathetic to radical Islamists he said inspired the gunman in the nightclub attack. Mr. Trump also criticized both the president and Hillary Clinton for what he claims are lax immigration laws that contributed to the rampage. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, pushed for stricter gun laws, including the reinstatement of a ban on the sort of assault weapons used by the Florida gunman. (WSJ “The 10-Point” by Gerard Baker, 6/14/16)
Why does it have to be one or the other?
I remember some years ago a Canadian MP (Member of Parliament) explaining to an American audience the difference between a republic and a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. In the United States, on every issue, he explained, the country quickly divides, with both sides running rapidly towards the barricades. In the Canadian system, on the other hand, both sides start opposed, but gradually work toward the center to achieve a compromise.
America is the only country in the western world where parents and grandparents have to worry on a daily basis about their children and grandchildren going to school. I called the school of one of my grandchildren recently, concerned about security. I was partially reassured, but only partially. I do think more can be done, within the parameters of the Second Amendment, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” At the time this was written, the threats were both foreign and domestic. That remains the case today and would include ISIS and those inspired by ISIS, like Omar Mateen.
The right to bear arms goes back a thousand years – it is not peculiarly American.
It was a medieval English king who first ordered that every male over the age of 14 carry a lethal weapon to defend himself against the French. For centuries the law required that all males do four hours of archery practice after church on a Sunday. Again, this was because of the threat from France. English colonists had the right to bear arms before the American Revolution, which would not have happened if the people could not carry guns. In the French and Indian Wars they had to protect themselves against the Indians – and the French! Today, the threat is more from radical Islamists and domestic terrorists. People need to be able to defend themselves, but a balance has to be struck. Adam Lanza and Omar Mateen – and others — have shown the need for this.
Mrs. Clinton is right on this issue – and may win the election because of her stance. People are scared and may think that banning assault weapons will stop terror attacks.
But, having said that, I believe that the greater problem lies in our immigration policies. On this Trump is right. Something needs to be done. As if to emphasize this point, an ISIS terrorist went to the home of a French couple barely 24 hours after the attack in Florida, shot dead the man and stabbed his partner to death, all in the presence of their three-year-old son. On the same day, a 54-year-old Muslim immigrant seized hostages at a Wal-Mart in Amarillo, Texas, holding them for two hours, before he was shot. Together with the massacre in Florida, the only factor common to all three incidents was the Muslim factor; yet the public is being told the first was due to homophobia and the latter was a “work-related incident.” At least the French admitted the involvement of ISIS. When are we in the US going to wake up?
When Mrs. Clinton and President Obama ridicule Trump for his stance on Muslim immigration, they are showing an appalling ignorance of history. Islam tried to conquer the West a number of times in previous centuries. We are now living through the latest Islamic expansion into the West, made possible by the naivety of political correctness. The two liberal leaders are also hiding the fact that their best friend and closest advisor, respectively, are both Muslims and that the Clinton Foundation receives a lot of donations from the Middle East, surely a conflict of interest.
While we are on the subject of Muslim immigration, I mentioned in a recent blog, “Confusion Reigns,” that Japan has not got a problem with Islamic terrorism because they don’t allow Muslim immigration.
Within 24 hours of my posting the article, the BBC had a segment on Muslim immigrants to Japan. The BBC was critical of the fact that Japan was not doing enough to help refugees by taking in Syrian and other immigrants. It was mentioned that, in 2015, Japan only took in 24 Muslims. I checked with another source that said it was 27.
It should be noted that Germany took in one million in the same year (not all Muslims), and is expected to take in a further half a million this year. Additionally, Chancellor Merkel is ready to give 80 million Muslim Turks visa free travel within the EU.
So Japan has taken in some Muslims, but hardly enough to threaten the security of the country. In fact, it’s hardly enough for a single mosque!
Since my last posting, it has been revealed that Omar Mateen was a “closet gay,” who regularly frequented the nightclub he attacked. I am reminded of an article in “Science” magazine written in the late 90’s. The article showed that scientific research done on heterosexual males showed that the more anti-gay men were, the more likely they were to have the problem themselves. I have often thought of that article in the 17 years since I read it, as I’ve listened to religious leaders and others rant about homosexuals. “Methinks they protest too much.” My apologies to Shakespeare and Queen Gertrude (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II)!
At the beginning of the Tony Awards on TV last night, James Corden, Master of Ceremonies, paid a tribute to the victims of Sunday’s massacre in Florida, proclaiming that “hate will never win!”
History (and prophecy) shows that this is not the case. Hate is, rather, on the increase.
A BBC anchorman yesterday made a ridiculous statement, saying that the perpetrator of the attack on the gay nightclub was not motivated by his Islamic beliefs, but rather a hatred of gays. Clearly, he is not familiar with Islamic beliefs. Gays are routinely punished throughout the Middle East by being thrown off the tops of tall buildings.
“The Koran forbids any sexual relationship other than in marriage between a man and a woman.” (“Islamawareness.net. “Islamic view about homosexuality.”) “We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: “do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” (Koran 7:80-81). “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” (Abu Dawud 38:4448).
In western countries, gays tend to be liberal and, therefore, in favor of Islamic immigration. I’ve often wondered when the two would clash. They exploded early Sunday morning in Orlando, Florida.
Predictably, the liberal media, including the BBC, said that the attack once again raised the issue of gun control. This may be the case in Washington, DC, but the only “gun control” discussed in America’s heartland is the need for everybody to be opposed – increasing fear means there is a greater need for guns! A few hours after the mass shooting, somebody came up to me before a church service and asked what I thought about people bringing guns to church. The attack on the gay nightclub could just as easily have taken place at a Christian church – dozens of churches have been attacked by Islamists in the Middle East and Pakistan.
Of course, you don’t have to be a Muslim to attack a church. Exactly a year ago a young white male walked into a predominantly black church and shot nine people dead.
While the liberal media are raising the issue of gun control, conservatives tend to question Islamic immigration. The attacker was a 29-year-old US born citizen, with Afghani parents. Second generation Americans of Islamic origin are seen increasingly as a growing problem in the United States and elsewhere. According to one television report Monday morning, the attacker when a teenager jumped for joy in High School while watching the events of September 11th, 2001. His father apologized for his son’s actions, but is running for office in Afghanistan representing the Taliban, who are allied to ISIS. Can Islam co-exist in a liberal western democracy? It doesn’t seem like it can.
But it’s not just Muslims that hate. Christians can be hate-filled, too. Sometimes, this can be done innocently, without intended malice.
I sat and listened to a sermon online recently when we were not able to go to church. As we had two of our grand daughters with us, we picked a youth-oriented sermon about the biblical king Josiah, who ascended the throne at a very young age and tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord. The sermon was a very good one, except for one sentence, which went something like this: “We all know that Jesus would never have mixed with gay people . . .”
We do? There’s nothing in the gospels that says that. In fact, gay people are not mentioned once. Of course, the word “gay” referring to people who prefer the same sex, did not come into the language until well into the twentieth century. This statement was made before impressionable young people who probably went away believing what they heard, not questioning the truth of the statement. Rather, the gospels show us that Jesus mixed with “publicans and sinners,” including prostitutes. Jesus said: “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” (Matthew 9:12).
There must have been gay people at the time as we see in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, written about 25 years after Christ’s death. He wrote: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor 6: 9-10). It should be noted, here, that the Apostle Paul treated all three sexual sins equally. The Greek shows that the three sins listed all involve penetration. The only sexual relationship sanctioned in scripture is between a man and wife within a loving and committed marriage. Christians should speak out in support of this teaching, condemning all sexual sin. Sadly, many Christians are quick to condemn the last of these while treating the other two lightly. This only breeds hatred.
Michael Morrell, former Deputy director of the CIA and author of “The Great War of our time,” warned this morning on CBS that we can expect more attacks like the one in Orlando. Focusing on the ISIS connection, Mr. Morrell warned of the growing danger from radical Islamism. Presidential candidate Donald Trump called on President Obama to use the term “radical Islamists” to describe the perpetrator – the president has consistently refused to use the two words together.
James Corden is wrong. Hate is winning. It’s always been there but now radical Islam has been added to the mix. With growing numbers of Muslims in western countries, acts such as the one yesterday, will inevitably become more common. Christians should be very careful not to contribute to the hate.
A British quality Sunday newspaper is a joy to behold. Only three are left, now that The Independent on Sunday has folded. The three are the Sunday Times, the Observer and the Sunday Telegraph. Friends brought me a copy of the latter, a conservative paper, when they arrived in the US from England a few days ago. I am very grateful for the paper, even though it’s a few days old.
In actual fact, it’s now eight day old, but still very relevant.
On the front page are two articles that reveal a great deal about Britain today.
The lead article, “Migration pressure on schools revealed,” by Tim Ross, highlights the reality of an extra 700,000 foreign language pupils in British public (state) schools. (Multiply that by five to get the US equivalent.) Additional funds are needed when pupils speak multiple languages. The cost to the UK taxpayer will run into the multiple millions.
The immigrants profiled in the article are from other EU countries. They do not include the latest refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, nor do they include Indians and Africans who have been entering the UK for decades. Free movement of peoples within the European Union, including the United Kingdom, has led to this situation. It may be a decisive factor in June’s referendum, when the British people get the opportunity to vote on remaining or leaving the Union.
A second front-page article bears the headline “Terror suspects win human rights battle” by Robert Verkaik and Robert Mendick. The first two paragraphs read: “Six Algerian terror suspects with links to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are to be allowed to stay in Britain after the Home Secretary admitted defeat in a 10-year legal battle to deport them. The move follows a challenge under the Human Rights Act which found that the men were at risk of torture if they were deported to Algeria.” No doubt these men, linked to terror, will be entitled to receive state benefits in the UK. This means that their terrorist activities will be financed by the British taxpayer. The taxpayer has already had to pay out for ten years of legal fees to cover both sides in the dispute.
After finishing the paper yesterday (Sunday) I read the Lansing State Journal. A front page article informed readers that Michigan is about to see a “surge” of Syrian refugees. Again, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill, pushing much-needed road repair further down the list of priorities. Additionally, there is also the prospect of future terrorist acts.
Is anyone in government sane???
TRUMP vs CAMERON
Staying in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron described Donald Trump’s attitude to Muslim immigration as “stupid, divisive and wrong.” This does not bode well for the Atlantic alliance or the Special Relationship that has existed between Britain and America since FDR and Churchill. Mr. Trump said earlier today that he does not think he and Mr. Cameron will have a very good relationship should he enter the White House.
Considering the terrorist acts that have been perpetrated against the West by Islamic terrorists, we should also ask who is really “stupid” here? I wonder why leaders throughout the Western world seem so determined to encourage the Islamization of their countries? As Donald Trump put it today: “It sounds like he (Mr. Cameron) is not willing to address the problem either.”
The Islamic presence, fairly recent in the context of US and British history, has itself led to division. A further comment from the BBC’s website followed:
“He (Trump) is also involved in a spat with new London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
The US presidential contender said he would not forgive Mr. Khan for calling him “ignorant” – and challenged the Mayor to take part in an IQ test, an offer mocked by Mr. Khan’s team.”
Further division no doubt lies ahead.
Mr. Trump is also calling on Muslims “to turn people in.” In a television interview shown on British television’s ITV (not the BBC) the presumptive Republican nominee said he is not anti-Muslim, but rather anti-terror. He called on practicing Muslims to cooperate with the police in their fight against Islamic terror.
EU FACES ‘POPULIST UPRISING’
Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s intelligence service, MI6, warned today of the consequences to Europe if the continent does not get on top of the migrant crisis. “If Europe cannot act together to persuade the majority of its citizens that it can gain control of the migratory crisis, then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising which is already stirring. The stakes are very high and the UK referendum is the first roll of the dice in a bigger, geopolitical game.”
“Sir Richard also warned against offering visa-free travel to Turkish nationals, describing the move as like storing gasoline near a fire.” (BBC News website.)
"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened." — Sir Winston Churchill