A reminder: Lt. Col. (Ret) Allen West is speaking here at The Landings, Monday ,Feb. 15 at the SIRC "President's Day Dinner." There are a very few seats available for anyone who still would like to come.
Allen is currently the president and CEO of The National Center for Policy Analysis.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Their goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.
NCPA brings together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, education, energy and the environment. In doing so, we propose reforms that liberate consumers workers, entrepreneurs and the power of the marketplace.
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/about/#sthash.2d4GWNTG.dpuf
===
This is from a very old and dear friend, former partner in my father's law firm and fellow memo reader who. felt compelled to respond to "my severest critic's" comment as follows: "Dick, your socialist friend, as a “provider” at the VA, doesn’t know what he is talking about. My limited experience with the VA, shortly after I left active duty in 1971, was horrible. After that, I told C------ that if ever I was old, sick, and too poor to be treated, other than by the VA, she was to take me to the nearest veterinarian and have me euthanized. We need to terminate the VA “providers” (I would hope with extreme prejudice) and issue vouchers to eligible veterans and let them use these vouchers in what is left of the free market for health care in this country
I hope all is well with you and Lynn. M------"
and
This from another friend and fellow memo reader and prominent D.C. lawyer: "Well, for your severest critic's concern about constipation, All-Brans Buds are just the thing."
and
Another response from a dear friend and fellow memo reader and whose son is a fellow Marine - Semper Fi: "Regarding the VA, our son waited 8-9 months to see them. His back was badly injured in a mortar attack in Afghanistan. They told him he'd need to go to Charleston, SC to see a doctor. He's attending Armstrong full time and is paying out of pocket to see a chiropractor up to 4 times per month, which has helped him. The VA has been worthless.
Also, two of A------- fellow Marine Cpls. committed suicide this past summer. The VA was of no help to them. It's criminal.
By the way, he is the Student Veterans of America fundraising chair at Armstrong, and is also counseling fellow vets. So proud of him.
I am sick to death of "progressives." Period.
/rant
K--"
Allen is currently the president and CEO of The National Center for Policy Analysis.
The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Their goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.
NCPA brings together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, education, energy and the environment. In doing so, we propose reforms that liberate consumers workers, entrepreneurs and the power of the marketplace.
- See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/about/#sthash.2d4GWNTG.dpuf
===
This is from a very old and dear friend, former partner in my father's law firm and fellow memo reader who. felt compelled to respond to "my severest critic's" comment as follows: "Dick, your socialist friend, as a “provider” at the VA, doesn’t know what he is talking about. My limited experience with the VA, shortly after I left active duty in 1971, was horrible. After that, I told C------ that if ever I was old, sick, and too poor to be treated, other than by the VA, she was to take me to the nearest veterinarian and have me euthanized. We need to terminate the VA “providers” (I would hope with extreme prejudice) and issue vouchers to eligible veterans and let them use these vouchers in what is left of the free market for health care in this country
I hope all is well with you and Lynn. M------"
and
This from another friend and fellow memo reader and prominent D.C. lawyer: "Well, for your severest critic's concern about constipation, All-Brans Buds are just the thing."
and
Another response from a dear friend and fellow memo reader and whose son is a fellow Marine - Semper Fi: "Regarding the VA, our son waited 8-9 months to see them. His back was badly injured in a mortar attack in Afghanistan. They told him he'd need to go to Charleston, SC to see a doctor. He's attending Armstrong full time and is paying out of pocket to see a chiropractor up to 4 times per month, which has helped him. The VA has been worthless.
Also, two of A------- fellow Marine Cpls. committed suicide this past summer. The VA was of no help to them. It's criminal.
By the way, he is the Student Veterans of America fundraising chair at Armstrong, and is also counseling fellow vets. So proud of him.
I am sick to death of "progressives." Period.
/rant
K--"
And this from another very long time friend, a brilliant patent attorney, fellow memo reader and an also some time tennis opponent:" Dick, continue to appreciate your commentaries. If you haven't read it you should read The Death of Cancer by Vincent DeVita, MD. Vince was head of NCI, Chief of Medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering and head of oncology at Yale. More importantly he was in my high school graduating class. His book describes the frustrations with the NIH and medical establishment hierarchies, the FDA and Congress, and despite all those obstructionists the great progress we have made in effectively treating cancers. J--"
And more: This from one of the dearest, most charitable friends and fellow memo reader.
"Hey Dick! Nice retort! Your friend is disgusting as are Hillary and Bernie with their
"pie in the sky". I cannot watch either of them.
Glad that my friend, Kasich, came out nicely in N.H. The more I watch our candidates, the more confused I get. Confused because I'm not happy with any of them, anymore....well, maybe Kasich.....Maybe Christie! M------"
My response: "Believe Christie, though probably effective, shot himself in the foot with his attack on Rubio. He is too much of a bull in a china shop and also repeats his same theme. I believe his attack backfired. Think he will withdraw. Keep the faith. Me
Then:
"Simply excellent writing. I read everything you write. D.S-------"
Finally: a cogent observation from one of my close family members:
"Here's my take on why the youth are voting for Sanders.
It's not about age. This is a generation for whom valedictorian
was a bad thing. There could be no valedictorians b/c someone
who didn't EARN the privilege would have their feelings hurt.
This is a generation, and I'm making a broad sweep, that received trophies
just for showing up. Again, a maneuver that made everyone "equal"
by not allowing and celebrating those who took their promise and did
something with it.
This is also a generation, sadly, that will NOT do as well as their
parents b/c the economic situation is abysmal. There is less
job security, fewer benefits, companies are not hiring full time but
part time so they don't have to give benefits, 401K etc.
So this generation is looking to be taken care of much the way their helicopter
parents took care of them, smoothed the way, wrote their applications, kept them
from experiencing the pains of reality and the that's-not-fairs of life.
It astounds me that all the talking heads do not see this. It's not about
women voting for a woman. It's about a generation being Shanghaied by
parents would couldn't tolerate/allow life's difficulties for their children.
A very black and white rigid understanding of what's going on but there you
have it.
===
Honest Reporting.Com is one of the best sites for objective reporting and learning about those sources that are not: " Reported by Daniel Pomerantz - Wednesday afternoon, Jerusalem. The Damascus Gate, one of the main entrances to Jerusalem’s Old City, a place where crowds of people come every day to work, shop, live and pray. Three Palestinian terrorists approached the Old City, carrying hidden knives, automatic weapons and explosives. When police officers questioned the men about their suspicious behavior, the Palestinians took out the hidden weapons, opened fire and began stabbing.
Police officers returned fire, killing all three assailants, averting a potentially enormous massacre. One police officer was injured and another killed: 19 year old Hadar Cohen.
How does news media usually report attacks of this sort around the world?
Last August, a would-be attacker boarded a train in Paris carrying a similar arsenal to the attackers in Israel (knives and automatic firearms). Several unarmed, off-duty US servicemen noticed the assailant preparing to fire his machine gun and subdued him before he could open fire. Almost every headline said that the Americans had “averted a massacre,” or “overpowered a gunman,” and some articles even referred to the soldiers as “heroes.”
===
===
I believe this is the Robert Kagan who was on St John's Board on which I served as well.
I have maintained for years Americans are a can do and impatient people.
Therefore, when we attempt something and fail it establishes a basis for discontent. the more we fail the bigger the discontent grows and eventually this discontent turns into a negative and rejecting reaction when we undertake something else, whether foreign or domestic. We reject the concept of being conditioned for failure. This is what we expect of Europe not America. This is what Socialism is about not Capitalism.
I have already been taken to task for citing the failure of the V.A and the list just builds.
No wonder Americans are fed up, distrust government and find appeal in the likes of Trump and Bernie and are turned off by liars like the Clinton's and politicians in general.
We hunger for the unvarnished, we seek the fresh approach, we long for being told up front what to expect and then track it as it unfolds. I see nothing wrong with this. Americans are generally fair, we are willing to allow for some leeway
That said, why should children continue to rely upon parents who came across as government and politicians? To believe so is unrealistic and downright dumb. Logic demands otherwise.
This is why I do not understand liberals and progressives who continue to pursue failed remedies and attribute their failure to lack of funding. Oh, if we only threw more good after bad. What nonsense! What hypocrisy. (See 1 below.)
===
The DHS and Dearborn's Islamic leaders followed by a Fact Check article on Obama's Mosque address. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Then our fearless leader disregards security for Iraqi Christians. (See 2b below.)
===
Bud and I served on The President's Commission on White House Fellowships during Bush 41's presidency. (See 3 below.)
===
We are having a special election March 1, to elect a sheriff. You can early vote and I took advantage of that opportunity and did so today.
I voted for John Wilcher for sheriff (on Feb 25, the candidates for sheriff will be at the Plantation Club under the auspices of the SIRC at 5 PM and I urge you to come.) and I also voted in the Ga.Primary for Kasich. He may not even be running by then and he is a bit too liberal in some respects and certainly has a dull personna but I had the good fortune of meeting him over 20 years ago, when Newt Gingrich brought him to Atlanta. He is accomplished, has a fine track record and is running a low key but honorable campaign. All of these qualities may be his undoing because Americans are so ticked off they are not focusing on the usual attributes one who hope any president, regardless of party affiliation, would possess. Finally, the fact that Kasich is the choice of The New York Times is also disturbing because they certainly would hate to see a decent Republican capture The White House.
Starting with Carter, then Clinton and Obama I believe what we seek in the person behind the Oval Office Desk has been changed forever and the standards lowered beyond recognition. Apparently anything now goes and will until whomever occupies the office changes our nation beyond recognition or wrecks the economy and we become reminiscent of a setting sun. Then, and perhaps only then, will we decide it is time to go back to a qualified candidate and, by then, it could be too late to save our Republic.
Starting with Carter, then Clinton and Obama I believe what we seek in the person behind the Oval Office Desk has been changed forever and the standards lowered beyond recognition. Apparently anything now goes and will until whomever occupies the office changes our nation beyond recognition or wrecks the economy and we become reminiscent of a setting sun. Then, and perhaps only then, will we decide it is time to go back to a qualified candidate and, by then, it could be too late to save our Republic.
I could just as easily voted for JEB but I believe Kasich might be better against whomever the Demo's select. I like Rubio as well but believe he needs a little seasoning though he might prove more articulate than either Kasich and JEB.
Of this I am sure. This time around I am totally unwilling to consider what the Demos dredge up as their burnt offering.
===
Dick
=========================================================================================
1)
- Why America Must Lead
An Essay by Robert Kagan
As world powers jockey for position on the global stage, Americans debate the role their country should play. Dr. Kagan presents his case for an involved America.
The liberal world order that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War is today being challenged by a variety of forces — by powerful authoritarian governments and anti-liberal fundamentalist movements, as well as by long-term shifts in the global economy. Great power competition has returned.
In Europe, Russia has launched the first cross-border invasion of a neighboring country since World War II. In East Asia, China is expanding its reach as a military power, seeking both economic and strategic hegemony at the risk of destabilizing that critical region. In the Middle East, Iran is expanding its influence and Islamic jihadists have gained control of more territory.
In the face of this turmoil, many Americans have come to doubt whether there is anything the United States can do or should do in response. Many assume either that it doesn’t matter very much what happens beyond America’s shores or that the United States no longer has the wisdom or capacity to shape events and prevent others from doing what they please.
Only seven years ago, pundits were talking of a “post-American world,” with a declining United States and a remarkable “rise of the rest.” These days, however, that prognosis appears to have been at best premature.
America has substantially recovered from the Great Recession, while the once-heralded “rise of the rest” has stalled. Many around the world who once decried American overseas involvement as “hegemonic” now seek greater American engagement in international affairs
If anything, many around the world see the United States as too disengaged. This view is particularly strong in the three central regions where the United States has carried the main burden of providing security since World War II: in East Asia, in the part of Europe that borders Russia, and in the Middle East. In all three of these critical regions, American allies seek more America, not less.
Among the American public, too, there are signs of greater receptivity to a more active American global role. What is missing for most Americans, however, is a sense of strategy and purpose in American foreign policy.
During the Cold War, fear of the Soviet Union and international communism did not always produce agreement on policy but did provide an answer, for most, as to why the United States needed to play an international role and what that role should be. Today, our political leaders need to remind Americans that our fundamental interests are still best served by upholding the world order — economic, political, and strategic — that was established at the end of the Second World War and that was further strengthened and entrenched by the revolutions of 1989. Americans need to recognize their nation’s central role in maintaining the present international order and muster the will to use their still formidable power and influence to support that order against its inevitable challengers.
What will this require? Above all, it means working to shore up all three pillars – politics, economics, security — of what has made the American-led world order so remarkable. There is a tendency to separate politics, economics, and security — “ideals” from “interests,” support for democracy from defense of security — but in the present world order they have all been related.
Start with the reality that a world order that supports freedom will only be supported by free nations. Supporting democracy is not just a matter of keeping faith with our own values. It is a matter of national security. Americans and other free peoples who benefit from and support the present world order therefore have an interest in supporting democracy where it exists and in pressing for greater democratic reforms in the world’s authoritarian nations, including the two great power autocracies.
Supporting democracy is not just a matter of keeping faith with our own values. It is a matter of national security.
In their economic policies, Americans need to continue promoting and strengthening the international free trade and free market regime. This, of course, means setting their own economy back on a course of sustainable growth. It means doing a better job of educating and training Americans to compete with others in an increasingly competitive international economy. It means providing a healthy environment for technological innovation.
But it also means resisting protectionist temptations and using American influence, along with other free-trading nations, to push back against some of the tendencies of state capitalism in China and elsewhere. Gaining congressional approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, and then moving to agreement on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe, are critical, and not only for their economic benefits. They also are a critical step in knitting the democratic world more closely together.
But it also means resisting protectionist temptations and using American influence, along with other free-trading nations, to push back against some of the tendencies of state capitalism in China and elsewhere.
In Asia, especially, this is more much than a trade issue. Although the United States stands to benefit from the agreement, it is, above all, a strategic issue. The United States and China are locked in a competition across the spectrum of power and influence.
Militarily, the Chinese seek to deny American access to the region and hope thereby to divide the United States from its allies. Economically, China would like to turn Asia into a region of Chinese hegemony, where every key trade relationship is with Beijing. In such a world, the United States is a net loser — providing costly security to allies but not much else, while China reaps the economic rewards and grabs the hearts and minds, and pocketbooks, of regional players.
Finally, there is the matter of American hard power. What has been true since the time of Rome remains true today: there can be no world order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its economic system, and keep the peace. Military power can be abused, wielded unwisely and ineffectively. It can be deployed to answer problems that it cannot answer or that have no answer. But it is also essential. No nation or group of nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order.
If the United States begins to look like a less reliable defender of the present order, that order will begin to unravel. It remains true today as it has since the Second World War that only the United States has the capacity and the unique geographical advantages to provide global security. There can be no stable balance of power in Europe or Asia without the United States. And while we can talk about soft power and smart power, they have been and always will be of limited value when confronting raw military power.
Despite all of the loose talk of American decline, it is in the military realm where U.S. advantages remain clearest. Even in other great power’s backyards, the United States retains the capacity, along with its powerful allies, to deter challenges to the security order. But without a U.S. willingness to play the role of providing balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers.
Without a U.S. willingness to play the role of providing balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers.
Today, as a result of the Budget Control Act and a general unwillingness to spend adequately on defense, America’s ability to play this vital role is coming increasingly under question. Current defense spending has created a readiness crisis within the armed forces. Only a handful of Army brigades are available for use in a crisis.
The army is about to be forced to cut 40,000 soldiers from its active force. There are too few ships to provide a U.S. presence in the multiple hotspots that have sprouted up around the world. As the bipartisan, congressionally-mandated National Defense Panel has argued, the U.S. military must be able to deter or stop aggression in multiple theaters, not just one, even when engaged in a large-scale war. It needs to be able to fight ISIS and deter Iran in the Middle East, deter Russia in Europe and Syria, and in Asia deter North Korea and maintain stability in the face of a rising China.
Consider the threat now posed by Iran. Whatever one thinks about the recently-concluded nuclear deal, any serious strategy aimed at resisting Iranian domination also requires confronting Iran on the several fronts of the Middle East battlefield.
In Syria, it requires a determined policy to remove Iran’s close ally, Basher al-Assad, using U.S. air power to provide cover for civilians and creating a safe zone for Syrians willing to fight. In Iraq, it requires using American forces to push back and destroy the forces of the Islamic State so that we do not have to rely, de facto, on Iranian power to do the job.
Overall, it requires a greater U.S. military commitment to the region, a reversal of both the perceived and the real withdrawal of American power. And therefore it requires a reversal of the downward trend in U.S. defense spending, which has made it harder for the military even to think about addressing these challenges, should it be called upon to do so.
The challenge we face today is to decide whether this liberal world order is worth defending and whether the United States is still willing to play the role of its principal champion. The answer to both questions ought to be “yes,” but it will require a renewal of American leadership in the international system, economically, politically, and strategically.
It will also require a renewed understanding of how important and unique the present liberal world order is, both for Americans and for peoples all across the globe. The simple fact is that for all the difficulties and suffering of the past 70 years, the period since the end of World War II has been unique in the history of the human race.
The period since the end of World War II has been unique in the history of the human race. Democratic government, once rare, has spread to over 100 nations around the world, on every continent, for peoples of all races and religions.
There has been an unprecedented growth in prosperity. Billions have been lifted out of poverty. Democratic government, once rare, has spread to over 100 nations around the world, on every continent, for peoples of all races and religions. Although the period has been marked by war, peace among the great powers has been preserved. There has been no recurrence of the two devastating world wars of the first half of the 20th century.
This world order has been a boon for billions around the world, but it has also served American interests. Any other world order, one in which the United States had to cede power and influence to China and Russia, or what is more likely, a descent into disorder, is unlikely to serve Americans’ interests as well.
Robert Kagan is a Senior Fellow, Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution
=========================================================================================
By Johanna Markind
On January 13, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson trekked to Dearborn, Michigan, where he spoke to students and law enforcement at the University of Michigan – Dearborn about the department's efforts to engage the Muslim community. He also met privately with student leaders in a meeting closed to media.
Reportedly, Johnson did not meet with leaders of the local Muslim community. He did say that he was “open to the idea of meeting with faith leaders in the future,” but it still seems odd, considering DHS billed the talk's subject as community engagement.
It's possible the secretary was simply too busy. He may have thought the students were more of a priority, given the youth of so many people attracted to ISIS and other terrorist groups, and felt he could not take the additional time needed to meet with community leaders.
Or perhaps there is more to it. Johnson's message included this plea to Muslims: “Terrorist organizations… seek to pull your youth into the pit of violent extremism. Help us to help you stop this… If you see someone turning toward violence, say something. Say something to law enforcement, or to one of your community or religious leaders.”
Contrast the secretary's comments with a poster on the website of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter, exhorting readers, “If the FBI contacts you, contact us.” The poster supplies CAIR-Michigan's telephone number, 248-559-2247. While the FBI is part of the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Homeland Security, the message is consistent with CAIR's oppositional attitude regarding government efforts to counter violent Islamism, including its opposition to a bill that would fund DHS counter-extremism efforts. The Arab American Institute has likewise been critical of government efforts to counter “violent extremism.”
Local Muslim religious leaders like Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi, leader of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, have also denied a connection between Islam and the crimes of violent Islamists.
Unlike, for example, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has called for a religious revolution within Islam, or the recently launched Muslim Reform Movement, which openly states it is in a “battle for the soul of Islam,” Elahi speaks of Islam as a victim of Islamist terrorists and urges, “Don't blame Islam for the evil actions of its enemies.”
Johnson parroted the administration's party line, “The very essence of the Islamic faith is peace,” but also called on the community to speak up against extremism in order to counter ISIS. The administration has received push back on the latter request from groups like CAIR, and it also seems contrary to the message of Elahi and other religious leaders in the Dearborn area.
For all the administration's bending over backward to include Muslim groups like CAIR and its fellow travelers within the Muslim community, perhaps the latters' efforts to obstruct government anti-terror efforts are beginning to register within the administration. Maybe the secretary thought a group that tells its constituents, “If the FBI contacts you, contact us,” wasn't the right partner for a talk urging listeners, “if you see something, say something to law enforcement.” Perhaps Johnson decided the leadership of the local Muslim community in and around Dearborn is a bit too radicalized and uncooperative to make engagement with them productive, and has written them off as a practical reality.
Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.
Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”
First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.
The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.
Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”
This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)
And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.
These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.
Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.
By Raymond Ibrahim
The fate of those Iraqi Christians who had fled from the Islamic State only to be incarcerated in the United States has finally been decided by the Obama administration: they are to be thrown back to the lions, where they will likely be persecuted if not slaughtered like so many Iraqi Christians before them.
Fifteen of the 27 Iraqi Christians, who have been held at a detention center in Otay Mesa, California, for approximately six months, are set to be deported in the coming weeks. Some have already been deported and others are being charged with immigration fraud.
Many of the Iraqi Christian community in San Diego—including U.S. citizen family members vouching for the refugees—had hopes that they would eventually be released. Mark Arabo, a spokesman for the Chaldean community, had argued that “They've escaped hell [IS]. Let's allow them to reunite with their families.” One of the detained women had begged to see her ailing mother before she died. The mother died before they could reunite, and now the daughter is to be deported, possibly back to the hell of the Islamic State.
Why are Christian minorities, who are the most to suffer from the chaos engulfing the Middle East, the least wanted in the United States?
The answer is that the Obama administration defines refugees as people “persecuted by their government.” In other words, the only “real” refugees are those made so due to the actions of Bashar Assad. As for those who are being raped, slaughtered, and enslaved based on their religious identity by so-called “rebel” forces fighting Assad—including the Islamic State—their status as refugees is evidently considered dubious at best.
As Abraham H. Miller argues in “No room in America for Christian refugees”: “What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians? Christians are still be[ing] slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along—as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust—and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?”
In fact, from the start of Western meddling in the Mideast in the context of the “Arab Spring,” Christians were demonized for being supportive of secular strongmen like Assad. In a June 4, 2012 article discussing the turmoil in Egypt and Syria, the Independent's Robert Fisk scoffed at how the Egyptian presidential candidate “Ahmed Shafiq, the Mubarak loyalist, [and rival to the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi] has the support of the Christian Copts, and Assad has the support of the Syrian Christians. The Christians support the dictators. Not much of a line, is it?”
More than three years later, the Western-supported “Arab Spring” proved an abysmal failure and the same Christian minorities that Fisk took to task were, as expected, persecuted in ways unprecedented in the modern era.
Even without defining refugees as people “persecuted by their government,” the Obama administration never seems to miss an opportunity to display its bias for Muslims against Christians. The U.S. State Dept. is in the habit of inviting scores of Muslim representatives but denying visas to solitary Christian representatives. While habitually ignoring the slaughter of Nigerian Christians at the hands of Boko Haram, the administration called for the “human rights” of the jihadi murderers. And when persecuted Copts planned on joining the anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution, Obama said no. Then there is the fact that every Arab nation the Obama administration has meddled in—especially Libya and Syria—has seen a dramatic nosedive in the human rights of Christian minorities.
The Obama administration's bias is evident even regarding to the Iraqi Christians' illegal crossing of the U.S.-Mexico border, the occasion on which they were arrested. WND correctly observes: “At the same time the Obama administration [is] deporting Christians, it has over the years allowed in hundreds of Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East who crossed the Southern border the same way the Chaldeans did.”
Meanwhile, as the Obama administration nitpicks at the definition of refugee and uses it against severely persecuted Christian minorities, it turns out that four out of five migrants—or 80 percent—are not even from Syria.
And while Christian minorities pose little threat to the United States—indeed, they actually bring benefits to U.S. security—Muslims all around the U.S. are supporting the Islamic State and Muslim clerics are relying on the refugee influx to conquer Western nations, in the Islamic tradition of Hijra, or jihad by emigration.
As Koran 4:100 puts it: “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him—his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah.”
In Islamic usage, the “cause of Allah” is synonymous with jihad to empower and enforce Allah's laws on earth, or Sharia. In this context, immigrating into Western lands is a win-win for Muslims: if they die in the process somehow, paradise is theirs; if they don't, the “locations and abundance” of the West are theirs.
All the while, true Christian refugees, fleeing the same hostile Muslim forces being allowed to enter Europe and America by the thousands, are thrown back to the lions by the Obama administration.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
=====================================================================================
3) In the Granite State, Take Nothing for Granted
By Harlan "Bud" Hockenberg
Lessons from the New Hampshire Primary Every Business Leader Needs to Know
Just a few short hours ago, the New Hampshire Primary results were announced. No matter your political preferences, some powerful lessons and cautionary tales emerged that have significant implications not only for politics but for your business.
Here are some key takeaways and what they mean for leaders of all kinds.
- Outsiders are "in." Insiders are "out."The New Hampshire primary proved, once again, that the American public is angry with the status quo and politics (and business) as usual. The "outsider" candidates flourished; the "establishment" candidates floundered. You can expect to see these strong sentiments start to infiltrate your company, if they aren't already. What worked in the past is no longer true. Constituents who might have silently disagreed now feel empowered to rise up. If your business is riding on the successes of the past, making decisions based on yesterday's facts, you are in for a very eye-opening culture change.
- Don't underestimate the Millennials.Millennials (young people born between 1981 and 1996) now comprise the largest voting demographic in the U.S., surpassing the Baby Boomers. During his recent visit to Iowa, Tom Brokaw said this group is poised to become the next "great generation" in terms of their influence and leadership mark in the United States. In businesses across the nation, this generation now is the largest group of workers in today's workforce. If you're not considering them as a key part of your strategy, and involving them in important leadership roles in your company, you're dramatically missing the mark. As the headline of a recent article states: "Ignore the Millennials at your peril."
- Decisions are made as much with the heart as with the head.During yesterday's exit interviews, I was struck by how many voters attempted to explain why they voted for a certain candidate over the others. Their reasoning wasn't always logical, nor was it always even accurate. (I heard one voter explain her reasons for voting for a candidate that were not even based on factual information.) Civics lessons aside, today's voters are overwhelmingly making decisions based on their hearts, not necessarily with their heads. You will find this happening inside your business, too, if it's not already. Employees will react to your news first with passion and heart, not always with a rational, fact-based response. Whether you need your employees to take action in the company or whether you're communicating important company information, your internal communications strategy must address the "heart" as much as the "head."
- Don't assume you know what people want.The strongest candidates on the playing field right now have taken great pains to know—truly know—their audience. The struggling candidates are the ones who've made assumptions about what their constituents want—and, as their limping poll numbers show, they haven't been right. As a business leader, learn from this. Don't assume you know what your customers, managers, or employees want, need or think. ASK them. Get to know them. Involve them. Engage them. Lead by listening.
With the South Carolina and Nevada primaries right around the corner, we can be certain that even more new realities will be revealed. Use these insights to your professional advantage. Take a lesson from the pages of the candidates who are surging. Use the failures of the other candidates as a cautionary tale for your own brand of leadership.
===================================================================
Message body
| |||||
No comments:
Post a Comment