feed, sara-carter

Susan Rice to step down as top Biden domestic policy advisor, sources report

Susan Rice, President Biden’s top domestic policy adviser, is stepping down from her post next month, according to multiple reports.

Rice, charged with the Domestic Policy Council, and a controversial figure in the Biden White House, spent her tenure directing the Biden Administration on national policy issues that have been widely criticized by both the GOP and many independents. The Biden admins immigration policy has been one of those major issues that has plagued the White House over Biden’s tenure.

While Rice has been advising and directing policy under Biden, legislative actions on health care, student loans, policing, and stringent gun control policies have exposed a progressive agenda by one of the most leftist-Democratic administration’s in U.S. history. She was on Biden’s short-list for possible vice presidential candidates and considering how Vice President Kamala Harris is doing, this columnist is certain that many in the Biden Administration would have rather that has been the case.

According to reports from the White House, Rice’s last day will be May 26, as reported by NBC news.

 Although Rice worked under Obama and Clinton administrations as an expert on Foreign Policy, she had no experience in domestic policy issues.  She was responsible for the creation of the Domestic Policy Council, a group that brought in policy experts to deal with domestic challenges.

I’m certain that the Biden Administration will pick another extreme progressive to replace her during Biden’s last year of his first term and before the 2024 presidential elections. The question is, why is she ending her tenure now? Is there something in the works for Rice? I sure think so.

We will continue to follow this new developing story. Stay tuned.

You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC and on Truth @SaraCarterOfficial

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Sara Carter joins ‘Hannity’ to discuss Biden administration’s border failures

Susan Rice, President Biden’s top domestic policy adviser, is stepping down from her post next month, according to multiple reports.

Rice, charged with the Domestic Policy Council, and a controversial figure in the Biden White House, spent her tenure directing the Biden Administration on national policy issues that have been widely criticized by both the GOP and many independents. The Biden admins immigration policy has been one of those major issues that has plagued the White House over Biden’s tenure.

While Rice has been advising and directing policy under Biden, legislative actions on health care, student loans, policing, and stringent gun control policies have exposed a progressive agenda by one of the most leftist-Democratic administration’s in U.S. history. She was on Biden’s short-list for possible vice presidential candidates and considering how Vice President Kamala Harris is doing, this columnist is certain that many in the Biden Administration would have rather that has been the case.

According to reports from the White House, Rice’s last day will be May 26, as reported by NBC news.

 Although Rice worked under Obama and Clinton administrations as an expert on Foreign Policy, she had no experience in domestic policy issues.  She was responsible for the creation of the Domestic Policy Council, a group that brought in policy experts to deal with domestic challenges.

I’m certain that the Biden Administration will pick another extreme progressive to replace her during Biden’s last year of his first term and before the 2024 presidential elections. The question is, why is she ending her tenure now? Is there something in the works for Rice? I sure think so.

We will continue to follow this new developing story. Stay tuned.

You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC and on Truth @SaraCarterOfficial

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

DURHAM: Evidence Clinton campaign orchestrated fake Russia collusion to ‘vilify Donald Trump’

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump Russia probe concluded Monday with a 306 page report outlining the bureau’s political bias and failure to objectively investigate the false allegations made against then President Donald J. Trump that he colluded with Russia.

In the report, a copy of which was obtained by this reporter, Durham outlined in detail the process of his investigation into the bureau’s 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump, as well as his associates.

“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI, failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” stated the report released Monday. “As notes, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness.”

Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering a document related to the FISA warrant, a secret surveillance application,  of  former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page during the Russia investigation. He was the first official to be charged in a special Justice Department review of the investigation into ties between Russia and Trump.

Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a single false statement charge. He admitted to doctoring an email that the FBI used to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court’s approval to eavesdrop on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2017.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan stated on Monday, that he has reached out to “the Justice Department to have Special Counsel John Durham testify next week” on Capital Hill.

Moreover, the report states that the FBI did not sufficiently investigate the debunked dossier compiled by former British Spy Christopher Steele who relied primarily on “a U.S.-based Russian national, Igor Danchenko, to collect information that ultimately formed the core of allegations found in the reports.”

The political bias appears to be more than evident. For example, in the report Durham establishes that “Danchenko was responsible for 80 % of the ‘intel’ and 50 % of the analysis contained in the Steele Dossier.”

I think an even more stunning revelation in the report is that Durham proved how Hillary Clinton’s campaign was directly involved in trying to link President Trump to Russia. This wasn’t a secret to the Obama administration, as according to the report, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former FBI director James Come were all  briefed on Clinton’s campaign.

Could Hillary Clinton be charged?

“The Office also considered as part of its investigation the government’s handling of
certain intelligence that it received during the summer of 2016. That intelligence concerned the
purported “approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign
policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the
Russian security services.»391 We refer to that intelligence hereafter as the ‘Clinton Plan
intelligence.’ DNI John Ratcliffe declassified the following information about the Clinton Plan
intelligence in September 2020 and conveyed it to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
analysis alleging that U.S Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a
campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by
tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.
The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian
intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
According to his handwritten notes, CA Director Brennan subsequently briefed
President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including
the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her
foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming
interference by Russian security services.”

This story is ongoing and will be updated throughout the day.

You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
feed, sara-carter

Fake, AI-generated photo of Pentagon explosion causes brief drop in US stocks

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump Russia probe concluded Monday with a 306 page report outlining the bureau’s political bias and failure to objectively investigate the false allegations made against then President Donald J. Trump that he colluded with Russia.

In the report, a copy of which was obtained by this reporter, Durham outlined in detail the process of his investigation into the bureau’s 2016 Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump, as well as his associates.

“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI, failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” stated the report released Monday. “As notes, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness.”

Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering a document related to the FISA warrant, a secret surveillance application,  of  former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page during the Russia investigation. He was the first official to be charged in a special Justice Department review of the investigation into ties between Russia and Trump.

Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a single false statement charge. He admitted to doctoring an email that the FBI used to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court’s approval to eavesdrop on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2017.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan stated on Monday, that he has reached out to “the Justice Department to have Special Counsel John Durham testify next week” on Capital Hill.

Moreover, the report states that the FBI did not sufficiently investigate the debunked dossier compiled by former British Spy Christopher Steele who relied primarily on “a U.S.-based Russian national, Igor Danchenko, to collect information that ultimately formed the core of allegations found in the reports.”

The political bias appears to be more than evident. For example, in the report Durham establishes that “Danchenko was responsible for 80 % of the ‘intel’ and 50 % of the analysis contained in the Steele Dossier.”

I think an even more stunning revelation in the report is that Durham proved how Hillary Clinton’s campaign was directly involved in trying to link President Trump to Russia. This wasn’t a secret to the Obama administration, as according to the report, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former FBI director James Come were all  briefed on Clinton’s campaign.

Could Hillary Clinton be charged?

“The Office also considered as part of its investigation the government’s handling of
certain intelligence that it received during the summer of 2016. That intelligence concerned the
purported “approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign
policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the
Russian security services.»391 We refer to that intelligence hereafter as the ‘Clinton Plan
intelligence.’ DNI John Ratcliffe declassified the following information about the Clinton Plan
intelligence in September 2020 and conveyed it to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
analysis alleging that U.S Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a
campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by
tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee.
The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian
intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
According to his handwritten notes, CA Director Brennan subsequently briefed
President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including
the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her
foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming
interference by Russian security services.”

This story is ongoing and will be updated throughout the day.

You can follow Sara A. Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterDC

You may like

NOTE: The opinions expressed in the Sara Carter posts are not necessarily (but probably pretty much) the opinions of Cogny Mann.

Read More
Gene Demby race reporter
Thoughts

If Ben Carson Likes Trump, Is He Racist?

(A guest post by “The Average White Guy”)

Being the average white guy that I am, you can imagine the flood of sweet emotions that flowed from my belly this afternoon as I heard a story on NPR‘s “All Things Considered,” which was about a study that explores “the links between politics and racial bias.”

The description of the story says,

A new study looks at the link between racial bias and the Tea Party. Researchers found that people who looked at images of Barack Obama that were edited to make his skin look darker were more likely to express support for the Tea Party.”

Now I’m not going to be so stupid as to suggest that there are no white people who hate president Obama because he is black. Believe me, I’ve met a few of them myself. But it is so aggravating to be told by Gene Demby that the reason I myself hate Obama is because he is a black man.

Gene Demby, You Don’t Know Me.

You strike me in your reports as one of those black guys who sees a racist under every bush; you seem to come across sometimes as a guy who easily stereotypes whites based on preconceptions that seem to have nothing to do with the way I think or with the beliefs I hold.

I don’t hate Obama because of the color of his skin. It stuns me how many black people seem to want to reduce every issue down to the single issue of how it affects black people, how whites treat black people, who whites see themselves as white people. Says Mr. Demby,

We’ve done a few stories on whiteness in our current political moment. Whiteness is a thing that is becoming explicit in people’s understanding of themselves as white. So it sort of makes sense that here’s this guy who’s the president of the United States. He’s incredibly prominent.

For the first time in the history of the country, he is not a white person. He’s sort of the avatar of this demographic change. And so he animates and activates a lot of anxieties around whiteness becoming explicit.

I will admit I have a strong dislike for the man. But it’s not because he is black. It’s because of what he is doing to the country. I’m not sure why, but based on your frequent racial biases, I would bet that you might find that hard to believe. That’s ok. I have a similar disdain for Hillary Clinton, and it’s not because she is female. But you’ll probably want to try to sell that story to everyone else. I could expect you actually believe this to be the case. I feel sorry for you if you believe that, though. And let me ask you a question:

Did You Vote For Obama Because He Is Black?

I am stunned at the number of black people who insist that I would vote against Obama because he is black; but when I ask if they voted for him because he is black, they insist it is not because of his color, but because of his policies. It’s funny how in their minds, blacks can vote objectively but white people can’t. Is that racist thinking?

Mr. Demby, Have You Ever Heard Of Alan Keyes?

You look like a youngster to me, Mr. Demby. So maybe you were too young to be aware of a time when a guy named Alan Keyes wanted to run for president back in 1996 and 2000. It was back in the days of Bill Clinton. I wanted Keyes in so bad, compared to the white guy, Bill Clinton. I really did. Does that surprise you?

Let Me Make A List For Your Response

Let me make a list of some guys I think would make outstanding presidents, and any of whom I would vote for in a heartbeat – over Obama, Clinton, McCain, Bush (senior OR junior) and even over Trump (especially over Trump).

Ready?

Alan Keyes. Ben Carson. Tim Scott. Thomas Sowell. Colonel Allen B West. Clarence Thomas.

Should I go on? Or do you begin to see a pattern here? It’s not an exhaustive list. I could add Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and a host of others. But that would confuse the issue. Please don’t miss the point of the list.

I know you’re “color-blind” in your thinking. You’re black, after all. And we all know that blacks can’t be racist. But did you notice the list? Notice what they all share in common?

They’re all CONSERVATIVE. Did you notice that?

Oh yeah. They’re all… Never mind. You can figure this out. I will even give you a picture.

CarsonScottSowellWestThomas

There are a LOT of black people in the Tea Party. Maybe you missed that; maybe, like Jesse Jackson, you don’t really think “they’re black enough.” The relatively low proportional content of blacks in the Tea Party doesn’t mean they’re racist. It means blacks don’t always agree with their policies. But they’re not going to change their policies to make blacks feel “welcome.” They want to get ALL people – black, white and green – to understand that conservatism is the only way to save the country from slipping into a moral abyss.

EVERYONE is welcome at the Tea Party – if they agree with their ideology and vision for the country – one nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice for ALL.

But while I toss out names, let me throw another at to you.

Ever Heard Of Booker T. Washington?

Booker Taliaferro Washington was an American Author and an advisor to several American presidents in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was a republican. (Yes, Virginia. There have been black republicans before.)

Booker T has an amazing quote that testifies greatly against the Black Lives Matter movement and other members of the “black grievance industry” like Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson and the reverend Al Sharpton. Booker once said…

There is a class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

Now if a white guy were to say that, you might have a race war on your hands these days. But Booker T has a pass on this one because he is “one of you.” Or maybe he isn’t. Maybe, as Jesse Jackson said about Obama before he was elected, “he’s not black enough.”

Are You A Racist, Mr. Demby?

It seems the likes of Jesse and Al seem to think you’re not really a black man unless you think like them – as if you have exclusive claim to a special “underclass” title; and any black man or woman who doesn’t agree with you is a sellout – an uncle Tom.

Is that you? Do you recognize that I even exist? A white guy who, like Martin Luther King Jr., longs for a day when

people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. (M L King)

But from my side, we are constantly dogged in the conversation by the fact that in situations like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, where the only scars on George were on his face and the back of his head, and the only scars on Trayvon were on his knuckles, we have a president who decides to bring in the whole weight of the federal justice department and to use it as a soapbox for giving his lectures about how Trayvon could be his son.

This president is the most racially divisive president to fill the White House in the last 50 years. Do you have any sense of how many federal cases have been made over perceived “white on black” injustice, immediately dragging in the full weight of the justice department for federal investigations? How many “black on white” crimes have gotten the same treatment?

You have the privilege of living at a time where we have a black president, a black attorney general and a justice department headed up by a person of african-American descent. And yet, you insist that it ain’t over until it’s over. Sorry, but you still want to take every issue that Trump raises and every issue that resonates with me and squeeze it through your very flat and one-dimensional sausage-grinder, spitting out little “racist cakes” at the other end of the line that don’t look like me at all. They look like your prejudiced concept of what “every white man” thinks.

But it’s not me.

Illegal aliens in the economy are enough of a drain to pull the whole country down. It has nothing to do with color. It has to do with economics. While you might want to think this country is big enough to welcome everyone from everyone and let them all partake at the trough that is public assistance, the grim reality is that the system cannot afford it. It’s NOT about race. It’s about not overloading the lifeboat to the point where we all drown. But all you see is color.

And while you might not think much of religion (I don’t profess to know if you have any strong religious beliefs or not) there are many of us who recognize that it’s NOT hard to figure out the motives of the shooter in Orlando. He TOLD US what his motives were for shooting up gays in a night club were. He said he was doing it in the name of ISIS and in the name of ALLAH. HE was acting on his firmly held radical Islamic beliefs. If you want to pick up the narrative that it wasn’t that,  and that it must have been something else, and that this kind of behavior doesn’t represent “true Islam,” then we are worlds apart on why we want controls and better screening of the Muslims entering this country.

But it’s not because I’m racist. And you don’t  know me.

Put your thinly disguised racial prejudices aside and please try to see that maybe, just maybe, it’s about ideology.

And get to know me.

Read More
Wokeism is killing our culture
NEWS CURRENT EVENTS, Thoughts

Wokeism Will Kill Our Culture If We Don’t Kill It

Wokeism Is Killing Our Culture

Victor Davis Hanson, in his op-ed piece in the Toronto Sun says,

America realizing wokeness will kill civilization.

As he says, in the piece, "Wokeness was envisioned as a new reboot of the coalition of the oppressed."

He's right. As with many movements in history, so many of these movements are started in the name of righting a wrong. But they're so often movements rooted in hate and perceived injustices as a result of unfairness.

I've written about this elsewhere - about how our culture has been going down the toilet. I've seen the wheels coming off for a long time now. One of the symptoms is that this wokeism is killing our culture.

In fact, there is another recent article I've written about a biology professor who purportedly got fired merely for suggesting that gender is a matter of chromosomes rather than a matter of personal choice.

It's much about perceived "victimhood."

Those purportedly victimized by traditional America would find “intersectional” solidarity in their victimhood owing to the supposed sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other alleged American sins, past and present.
The so-called white male heterosexual victimizing class was collectively to be held responsible for their sinful triad of white “rage,” “supremacy” and “privilege.”

Class doesn't matter anymore. Sometimes. Ironic how LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey can take up the cause of the woke and yet they get to keep their millions, I suppose because "they care."

The new transgender canon mandated three sexes. Sex is socially rather than biologically determined. And there is a large, oppressed and transgender population, which presents the next great civil rights struggle for America.
Historical wokeism lodged a list of grievances against the supposedly flawed American past. Indicting the dead required statues to be toppled. Names had to be changed. Histories were to be rewritten. Even the foundational date of America was to be reconsidered and altered.

Yet, the rainbow fabric of woke is now fraying — for a variety of reasons.

There seems to be hope on the horizon - that people are coming to their breaking point over it all.

Part of it seems to be from shock after people see what has come up after the lockdowns:

For one thing, woke took off after the perfect storm of the COVID-19 pandemic, the devastating lockdowns, the 120 days of violent rioting and looting following the death of George Floyd, and years of endemic Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Most of those catalysts are waning. Temporarily unhinged Americans are slowly reviving.
Millions of the comatose are waking up to normality – and don’t recognize their own country.

Hey. Cogny here. If you drop in your best email, I will send you my "almost weekly" updates. Stay informed. I promise not to spam you.

Part of it is because woke is retrogressive, reactionary, and anti-civilizational.

Decriminalizing the legal code, defunding the police, failing to apply norms to the homeless population and destroying meritocracy have all hollowed out our major cities.
San Francisco was a far cleaner, safer and kinder city 20, 40 or 80 years ago than it is today.
A woke FBI, Pentagon or airline industry becomes a matter of life and death.
Three, in modern America, class is now a far more accurate metric of oppression than race or gender.

This is classic. Obama was "teflon man," in part, because no one on the left or major parts of the right wanted to be seen as dumping on the "first historical black president," (although he's almost not really the first one. But technically he is, but I shouldn't digress too much). 

But whether Obama is the first or not, it's pretty obvious no one wanted to critique him, much because they didn't seem to want to tarnish the first "black presidency." And now, out of that history, come some telling ironies.

The multi-millionaire, and prep-school and Ivy-League educated former president Barack Obama may castigate the unwoke Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C., for his absence of victimhood. But from which of his three enclaves does Obama do so – the Kalorama mansion, the Martha’s Vineyard estate, or the restricted-access beachfront retreat in Hawaii?

In fact, it seems guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have long ago turned black grievance into an industry.

(I can get away with saying that. I even have black friends who tell me so.)

I'm funny because I got permission to be


Enter your text here...

Hanson continues:

Religions also trump race. Hispanic-American Catholics and Middle-Eastern-American Muslims have more in common with so-called white Christians than they do with an atheist, or agnostic woke elite who pushes the lie that the anti-religion Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are a mere charity group.
Muslim-American communities in Michigan do not want children seeing drag queen shows or the Pride flag flying with equal status to the American flag. The Catholic Hispanic community of Los Angeles has little tolerance for lurid anti-Christian motifs that preview a Los Angeles Dodgers game.

Ironically, part of our hope comes from the fact that "the woke" eat their own.

Wokeism is cannibalistic. 

Even the children of woke architects with perfect SAT scores and 4.0 grade point averages are being rejected on the basis of their race at their coveted Ivy League schools.
Neither the mansions of Beverly Hills nor the estates of Presidio Heights qualify as sanctuaries from violent criminals, who are now exempted by the anointed from legal consequences.
The wokest of Hollywood celebs will soon lose movie roles and be disqualified for film awards on the basis of their race.
Even the most left-wing of movie directors do not want to be ordered by Soviet-style commissars to hire their crews, actors and writers on the basis of race.

Are we in trouble because of wokeism?

Maybe. As Hanson says,

The United States may have sponsored gender studies programs, flown Pride flags, and bragged of George Floyd murals in Kabul. But meanwhile, its military suffered the most humiliating defeat in a half-century, as it skedaddled from Afghanistan, leaving behind billions of dollars in deadly arms for terrorists.
Our elite work to ban plentiful natural gas, subsidize transgender activism abroad, and lecture on sexual identities in the military. China’s elite builds dozens of coal and nuclear plants, and doubles the size of its navy, while preparing to absorb Taiwan.

Is there hope in the fact that America is waking up to the idea that wokeism is killing our culture? Is it too late?

Hanson thinks America is waking up.

Americans are rejecting wokeism because they finally are realizing that if they do not, they will not have a civilization left.

Is it too late?

Cogny Mann response here.

Is it too late? I don't know. With me, in many cases, "hope springs eternal."

But history is replete with samples of kingdoms that come crashing down after a hundred or two hundred years or so. Canada became a conferation about 150 years ago. The USA has been around a lot longer than that.

But it doesn't take long. I saw this come up in a Facebook feed a little while ago.

It only takes one generation for a society to disappear or collapse

I don't know that a society survives just because some people in the society scream and yell enough about what other people in the society are screaming and yelling about.

I think a society can only survive and prosper because of things like Asbury.

I think the Asbury revival in Wilmore Kentucky and the many others like it that are springing up all over the place (stadiums in Canada and the US are filling up with kids who are hungry for more) are the reason we can be hopeful.

I believe there is yet hope for our culture to survive this and to see the tables turn. But it won't happen because we legislate it away by slim majorities. It will only happen as we see a groundswell of revival that has our society AS A WHOLE want to embrace these changes back to conservative values.

If that happens (and only if that happens) we may well see our society survive for our children and grandchildren.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chr. 7:14).

But don't minimize it. We are in the death-throws of our culture with the fight of our lives. And we will ONLY survive this if survival becomes secondary to the desire to see God show up for HIS sake and not merely our own.

Cogny Mann

Read More
OpenLetters

An Open Letter To Donald Trump From A Reluctant Fan

NOTE: THIS post is from a while ago. (In fact, it is from before the 2016 elections.) But I think it speaks volumes to the fact that my initial hunches were correct about him. I took this down a while back but have decided to put it back up again, unedited. I will also be writing an update soon. (Soon, as in before the election.)

This has truly been the first U. S. election cycle in my adult life where I’ve really been fascinated, amused and bewildered more than I’ve had a clear sense of what to make of the process, let alone how to feel about the prospects for the future.

Like him or hate him, you can’t deny that “The Donald” has truly swept through this election cycle with a lot of “influence.” He is a master at baffling and aggravating the media, and it doesn’t even appear to be calculated so much as second-nature to him to flourish in the controversy.

Why I’m Writing This Letter, Knowing He Will Never See It

I’m writing this “open letter” to Donald Trump more for the church because I’m more baffled by how the evangelical Christian community seems so divided on this issue of whether or not we should be supporting this guy. I recognize that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ don’t agree with me about whether a vote for Donald instead of Hillary or Gary is the wisest move to make. I can’t condemn them as ungodly or unspiritual. But I do consider them unwise. Quite frankly, though, it’s hard for everyone to see it sometimes, for all the bad “signal-to-noise ratio” right now.

Hoping to unite the church and unify our vision about where we should be wanting God to take this country, I’m writing to verbalize what I believe are some collective thoughts from those of a similar mindset to mine. I don’t presume to speak for everyone. But I do think I speak for many.

So here is what I would say to The Donald if I ever had the chance to do so. And for my readers, I would ask you to please hear that this is my heart about the situation as much as I can articulate it. I hope it helps us all to focus on where God needs our hearts to be in this matter.

Dear Donald;

I truly doubt whether you’ll ever see this letter, let alone give it much time or consideration. You’re a busy man and I don’t presume to have the right to take up much of your time.

It’s not that you don’t care.

Actually, I truly believe you do care. And when I say that, I actually do so with a wee little bit of inside knowledge.

You see, I happen to have a casual connection to a gentleman who I consider a friend – a man of character and with a common heart for Jesus, who is in the entertainment industry and who says he knows you personally. As a result, I’ve heard a couple little tidbits of your personal side that others might not know. People sometimes talk about the concept of “six degrees of separation.” As it turns out, between you and me, there are a mere two degrees of separation. I was partly won over to you by how this gentleman speaks of you from a more personal basis.

I Understand Why Many People Like You

Having heard some things, I will say that you remind me of a man who fits a description that I’ve heard used once before about my father: you’re mister crunchy on the outside and mister marshmallow on the inside.

Sir, please know that everything I’m saying here, I’m saying with the firm conviction that YOU are the man for the job. There is no doubt in my mind that, given a choice of the options available for anyone voting, you are straight away the only guy who seems to come anywhere near acknowledging the real issues that are threatening the very culture and fabric of our society and threatening the freedoms we hold so dear.

You’ve got a charisma about you and a presence when you walk into a room that cuts to the chase and gets down to business. And with the low attention voter these days, that is important.

My concern, when I saw things coming down to the wire between you and Ted Cruz, was that he seemed to have more appeal to those in the evangelical church; my fear was that he didn’t have the charisma to be able to get the attention of the guy on the street compared to you, when it came to defeating Hillary. My thought was that if Cruz won the primary, Hillary would win the election. But you connect in a way that Ted just cannot seem to do.

The media machine is stacked against the conservatives. The media is awash in political correctness and infiltrated by connections to and corruption from the current political establishment. As such, they’re hell-bent against you.

Yet, you’ve confronted that issue head-on. You know how to play the media like a bad fiddle. Your fans love it. Remember that day you announced you were going to discuss the birther issue, and then you had twenty minutes worth of the best of the best of the military brass singing your praises about national security? That day was priceless. You had them in knots. You played their game against them and won that round. Your fans were in stiches with laughter and glee.

You played it well. Good game, sir.

But I’ve also never seen the leadership of the evangelical church so divided over a candidate in my life. And quite frankly, some of the arguments I’ve heard about why people shouldn’t vote for you stagger my imagination. I think James Patrick Riley nailed it when he discussed this issue as a religious spirit.  As James says, Max Lucado is a great example of what sure feels like hypocrisy. James writes,

Max leads what he calls a “red state” church, but Max has a maxim:  ”I don’t want anybody to know how I vote.”  Max does this to make sure the Democratic voters in his church, the ones who support abortion on demand, Islamo-pandering, and class warfare are not made to feel uncomfortable.   However, Max recently broke his neutrality pledge when Donald Trump called a bimbo a bimbo. According to Max:

I would not have said anything about Mr. Trump, never — I would never have said anything if he didn’t call himself a Christian. It’d be none of my business whatsoever to make any comments about his language, his vulgarities, his slander of people, but I was deeply troubled … that here’s a man who holds up a Bible one day, and calls a lady “bimbo” the next.

Think on that for a moment. Max closes his eyes to another “Christian,” Barack Obama, who stands foursquare for the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, at your expense, but Donald Trump called a lady a “bimbo?”  Intolerable!  Unthinkable!  Impolite! Time to engage the Pharisee warp engines.

I’ve quite frankly always been baffled by church people who are offended by other people’s language. First Corinthians says “love is not easily offended.” I could stand up in the middle of a lot of these congregations and say “the whole damn country is going to hell in a hand basket” and many of the people in that group would be more offended by my use of the word “damn” in that sentence than they would be grieved about the state of the country that prompted me to say it.

I, for one, am not like that. Your language doesn’t offend me. Quite frankly, it doesn’t offend a lot of us; probably because (and I don’t want to offend you, sir, but…) I see you as kind of “rough around the edges” as far as having learned Christianese. I do believe you’re a Christian, though perhaps new to the experience. But I give benefit of the doubt. Even if you’re not, you, like people such as Michael Savage, certainly seem to appreciate the value of religious freedom and the need to fight for that for the country.

I WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS TO YOU, SIR.

And I hope you can hear my heart as I do so. I want to tell you why you have my vote; and I want to offer you some advice, if I can, from my view as a voter, with you knowing I say it as someone who would already vote for you.

THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE MY VOTE

You have my vote because you seem to be surrounding yourself with people who hold values similar to the ones I think need to be embraced to save the country.

No one knows the future, and since I don’t know all of your heart, I can’t know for certain that the pro-life position you seem to have adopted of late isn’t just a sham to get yourself in good with the evangelical voter. You speak spontaneously enough about these issues that you don’t sound like you are anything but genuine in your desire to support the kind of things I think need to be supported.

You Seem To Really Want To Do What You Say

You are surrounding yourself with people with proven track records in the right direction; your list of supreme court picks you would likely suggest seems to be pretty solid and constitutionally sound. Given the alternative that has been consistently demonstrated by Hillary, I would say you are a slam dunk for a guy like me.

You aren’t afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes.

I like that in a politician. You don’t seem to be worried about political correctness AT ALL. While everyone else seems to tiptoe around the reality that letting multiple thousands of Syrian refugees into the country with a demonstrably failed vetting process is a bad idea, you go full force into that problem and when you are confronted about it, you are not afraid to double down on your position. People admire the fact that you’re a straight shooter.

Your Concerns Resonate With Many In The Evangelical Community

Sir, there are many, many of us who recognize the problems with the porosity of the southern border, the failed education system, the bowing to special interest groups to buy votes so the democrats can enshrine themselves in the permanent establishment class and all the hypocrisy and cronyism that plagues politics these days. We recognize that free trade isn’t a bad thing but that unfair trade deals are very bad indeed. When you speak of these issues, this is what we hear.

I’m not afraid that you’re an outsider. I believe that you recognize you can’t do it alone and so you seem to be surrounding yourself with people who will do well to guide and direct you as the president.

I’m sure there will be many like Max Lucado who disagree with me. But it’s what I see. Given the choices today, you are really the only choice if this country is not to descend into a godless, totalitarian dictatorship.

AND NOW (FOR THE STICKY PART) CAN I OFFER SOME ADVICE?

Sir, you ALREADY have my vote. Please take note of the fact that you have already won the hearts and minds of a vast portion of the population. And please hear this advice though that perspective.

The fact of the matter, sir, is that I would feel a lot better about you as the future president and would be able to defend you more enthusiastically if you did the rest of your campaigning from the perspective that you already have it in the bag.

Quite frankly, I’m a little embarrassed when I have to defend your positions against a backdrop of the constant media spotlight on things you say that you don’t have to say. Sometimes, less is more. And beyond a point, you do more harm than good when you go after your opponents with efforts to make sure everyone understands just how bad the people are who throw mud at you and try to throw you under the bus.

PLEASE, JUST DON’T DO THAT ANYMORE.

Please (for the good of the country) continue in this debate cycle, this campaign cycle and the rest of this race with the attitude that you already have this in the bag. Please change your tone from having to prove you are right about your enemies to be one of speaking as the leader of both those who like you and those who do not. And speak to what must be done more than you speak to how they’re trying to stop you.

Once you get to office, that will be behind you. You will need to just get the job done. The enemies will still be there. And you’ll have to work around them.

I’m not saying you should not proceed as if there is no fight; I’m saying to proceed as if you have the assurance that there are many like me who will turn out in droves this election (though many of them may never have voted before) because your message resonates with our understanding of what hangs in the balance.

But please don’t cloud the resonance of your message with the noise of your need to constantly defend all the reasons you dislike your opponents and the prattle of assassinations on their character. You must be above this. It’s beneath the dignity of the president I truly hope you will soon become.

If you can develop the mindset that you are already governing; if you can speak to the American people with a mindset that you’ve already won the election – and based on the poles, it seems to be the case – then you will win over the hearts and minds of all the Max Lucados of the world, and you will win this election. This mindset will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Be Presidential – NOW – Even Before You’re President

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” You will always have your friends and your enemies. Your friends will try to look past your flaws and lovingly point them out to you if you will hear them; your enemies will continue to rearrange their prejudices to justify all the reasons they hate you.

But as far as it depends on you, you need to see yourself as the president. You can no longer continue to act merely as the watchman on the wall for the problems with the bias in the media. You need to govern from the campaign trail (and if you can see this, you will have more influence). You have a higher role now – even now, while you are still campaigning – of pointing out not merely what is wrong, but what your vision is about what you are going to do to make it right.

Your role as president will not be to punish those who besmirch your name; we’ve seen enough of this in the last eight years, and it’s ugly.

Your role will be to rule over all the people wisely, even as they cannot see how critical the decisions are that you are making and how much you are making those decisions for the benefit of all – even for the benefit of those who will always hate you.

Unlike Hillary, who seems to pander to whoever she needs to pander so she can get the power to turn the country into her own seat of power, the people who believe in you see that you truly love the United States. We see that you truly want to make it great again. We believe what you believe about what it will take. And we have your back. We pray for you to succeed.

But we want a presidential candidate who looks and walks and talks like a PRESIDENT. Please rise above the rhetoric and give us the best of yourself. Strive to focus on the greatness that can be brought out of the average guy on the street if he’s given a chance.

Strive to become a man who displays the kind of character we want to brag and boast about.

Sir, God does not deal with us merely by our history but from His view of us from our destiny. We want to see you this way too. Based on the climate, we believe you are the best – perhaps the only – chance we have to turn the country around. We want to believe in you. Please honor us with your best as we head into this future together, upholding you in prayer, and cheering for your growth into becoming a true man of God to lead the nation in truth and justice.

We pray for you and humbly ask you to continue to strive to become the kind of man that inspires us want to become a better country.

And THAT is truly presidential.

Regards,

The Cognitive Man

Read More
FAITH INSPIRATION, OpenLetters

Why THIS Trump Supporter Is NOT a Racist, Homophobic Bigot

Why THIS Trump supporter is NOT a racist homophobic bigot.

(An open letter to John Pavlovitz.)

John Pavlovitz on Trump supporters and bigotry
John Pavlovitz doesn’t seem to be a big Trump fan. Nope. Not at all.

I’m willing to bet there may well be a lot more people who know of John Pavlovitz than know of me. And that’s alright. He has spent a lot of time cultivating an audience. I’ve not had the luxury of the time in the last year to do that. My wife was waiting patiently for some home improvements after a fairly recent purchase of a new home and so my blogging was a little neglected. Alas. The things we do for love.

But I recently became aware of an article this guy published on his web site and it irked me. It seriously irked me – enough that I took a break from playing home improvement to respond (or perhaps, react) a little here.

You might want to read the article to catch the wind that blows through this guy’s sails. But essentially, his rant is about all the Christians who are very un-Christlike and hypocritical for how they support Donald Trump vs. how they didn’t support Obama, for a litany of reasons.

He writes with the typical feel of the “liberal-left” Christian camp: if you are anti-immigrant, it’s because you’re racist. If you’re anti “gay-marriage” (talk about an oxymoron from a biblical perspective) it’s because you hate gays. That kind of liberal-left “Christianity.” (I just don’t get how some people read the same bible as I do and come to such different conclusions about what it means to be a Christian and what it looks like to live like one.)

But it just feels like it’s time to “rant back” a little. And I decided that the best way to express how I feel here as an open letter to John Pavlovitz. You can track along. I think you’ll catch the feel pretty quick.

 

Dear John:

(I love that line.) Anyway, dear John, you don’t know me. I’m a guy who supported Trump vigorously for president when he ran. And I still do, now that he is in office.

And I can imagine, based on what you penned in that article, that you would peg me as the typical racist, homophobic far-right bigot who cloaks my prejudices in “Christianese” to try to justify my hatred and venom for brown people under the guise of a blessing from God that my opinions are biblical.

It seems you think that I’ve found religion. Just now. With Trump. That I cloak my support for Trump in bible-speak. Like, “He is God’s appointed man for the time. We have to look past his character flaws and not judge. We can’t hold his past against him.” Stuff like that. And you think I never did the same for Obama.

You say,

…through it all, White Evangelicals—you never once suggested that God placed [Obama] where he was, you never publicly offered prayers for him and his family, you never welcomed him to your Christian Universities, you never gave him the benefit of the doubt in any instance, you never spoke of offering him forgiveness or mercy, your evangelists never publicly thanked God for his leadership, your pastors never took to the pulpit to offer solidarity with him, you never made any effort to affirm his humanity or show the love of Jesus to him in any quantifiable measure.

You violently opposed him at every single turn—without offering a single ounce of the grace you claim as the heart of your faith tradition. You jettisoned Jesus as you dispensed damnation on him.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and… wrong.

Where do I begin, dear John?

If, as it seems, this is what you think, you don’t know me. Not at all.

What you might not know is that I also supported Ben Carson and Herman Cain. I would have supported Adam West if he were ever to run. And I even supported a guy named Alan Keyes years ago when he ran.

Do you know of these guys, John? Notice what all these guys have in common, John? Carson, Keyes, Cain, West? They’re all black men.

I would have voted for ANY of these guys in a dog’s heartbeat before the opposition they would have been running against if I had half a chance to do so. See how unfair it is to assume I opposed Obama because he was black?

Just sayin’…

Are you surprised? It seems from the tone of your article you might be.

According to your little hit piece, it seems you’ve likened me to a racist, homophobic bigot who hates brown people and will do whatever it takes to keep them out of the country, or at least, if I can’t keep them out, then keep them working picking tomatoes.

But you’re wrong John. You’re wrong about why I opposed Obama and why I support Trump. You seem to have a short attention span or a very liberal set of values (in spite of your Christian faith) that predisposes you to seeing me merely as a racist who will rearrange my prejudices at the drop of a hat to justify my support for a man you seem to loathe.

I never demonized “the black president” because he was black. I’m not saying no one did. But I never did. I demonized him (if that is what you insist on calling it) because of the policies he presented and forced on the country. I opposed him because he ran on the idea that marriage was an institution between a man and a woman and then promptly changed his mind when he saw the popular opinion had changed over time to where it was suddenly expedient to “change his mind.”

I supported him for his views on marriage until I saw that he merely put his finger to the wind; and when the critical mass of the population changed its opinion on “gay marriage,” suddenly he (and Hillary, and a host of others) did too. How about that? What a coincidence.

How about Obama on Immigration?

I’m not sure if you remember that Obama spoke of the same policies about illegal immigration as Trump does now. How about a reminder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFv_v16Orqw

………………………

Did you catch that? Obama actually said….

“We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who employ illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States. But those who enter the United States illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they show disregard for those who are following the law. We simply can’t allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

Perhaps you’re confusing style and substance.

I will give you your point that Trump is probably far too egotistical and narcissistic. But he is saying the same things about immigration that Obama said when he ran for office. Did you forget that part?

If Trump articulated those ideas the way Obama and Clinton did, would you even hear him? Or would you be so offended at the tone he uses to make his points that you miss the points? Because, well, because… they’re the same opinions.

I don’t deny Obama’s “personal faith convictions” because I didn’t like the man; but because his actions consistently spoke louder than his words.

Obama was the most pro-abortion man to sit in the office of the president. The record is clear on that one.

Obama was probably the most racially divisive president in at least the last 40 years.

For his eight years in office, it seemed every case of white-on-black crime was a reason to involve the justice department. But I do not recall any cases of black-on-white crime that ever got the same attention from the white house. Do you? Correct me if I am wrong. Please.

You want to talk about all the oddball stuff like his place of birth and the charges from the right about whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya? Go ahead. But I questioned his birthplace because he seemed to do so much to not clear the air about the issue for as long as he possibly could.

Did you ever ask yourself why he took so many years to produce a birth certificate? Why he had all his Occidental college records sealed? Did you ever consider that maybe the right has some good questions that have never been answered? Or do you just assume we are all a bunch of rednecks that would use any reason we could discredit the black man who was president?

Many like me were trying to get that black man named Carson INTO the race. (And Keyes. And Cain. And Adam West if he would ever run.) I sure hope you can hear that.

You call me on a “double-standard” saying now that God appoints leaders; but when Obama was in office, I somehow missed that point.

No, John. I didn’t.

Some leaders get placed because people benefit from God placing leaders over them to bless them. I acknowledge that God, in his sovereignty, allowed Obama to be the man for the job. I just think the job at this point in history was that America needed a good spanking because they weren’t listening to Him.

And if you’re going to call us on that as a hypocrital double-standard, then are you suggesting Stalin and Mousilini were God’s divine appointments too? Something to think about.

I just deal with the situation as it comes. And I judge how they do as president primarily by the types of policies they are trying to put in place when they get there.

Do I wish Trump were more refined? Of course I do. But if I have to choose between a rough-around-the edges kind of guy who is doing all the right things to protect the unborn from the abortion mills and is doing what he can to protect the religious freedoms of all people in this country (and not just the special-interest groups’ freedoms) vs a smooth-talking politician who seems to want to enshrine the opposite into law, I’ll settle for substance over smooth talk, thank you.

I pray for Trump frequently. But I prayed for Obama frequently, too. Sometimes I did it to stay mindful that God was in control and I didn’t have to be, when I saw what a mess he was making of things. Like I do for Trump now.

You don’t know that I didn’t pray for Obama, or that I didn’t give him a break, or ever come to his defense.

And as far as giving benefit of the doubt? You insist that I never gave Obama the benefit of the doubt?

Do you remember Obama’s “God of Jacob” reference at his 10th anniversary speech about 9/11?

Do you remember how many evangelical Christians jumped on that like a dog on a bone to embrace the possibility he really WAS a Christian like he professed to be? I sure do. I remember many an evangelical thinking maybe he really was a Christian. (Read, for example, the comments in this post. They’re NOT all as negative as you want to make us all out to be.)

We didn’t ever give benefit of the doubt. Seriously?

Many were looking for every opportunity to see him support the right things. We prayed that he would. Hear how this evangelical spoke about God not having given up on Barack Obama. (And if you want to listen to the whole episode of this show, you can hear the enthusiastic response of the crowd to this report.) They WANTED to see Obama come around. They  were wild with excitement at the possibility of him coming to a different stance on all the issues we hold dear. We were bitterly disappointed when he seemed to constantly stiffen his neck. And yet, we recognized that, at the end of the day, he was still president and we still needed to pray for him.

HOW DARE YOU ASSUME ALL THAT ABOUT ME and so many of the people I know who feel exactly the same way as I do. Do you even know of any of this feeling in the evangelical church for Obama? What part of the church do you never interact with?

I supported Trump because of his campaign promises. Would I have preferred that he not have a past? Of course. Wouldn’t it be nice if no one had a past?

Do YOU have a past, John?

I don’t hold Trump’s past against him anymore than I hold yours against you.

Your words are pithy. Catchy. But SO unfair. Pigmentation and party are my sole deities? Really?

Jesus is my savior. The bible is my roadmap.

And Trump is the president. Obama was that too. And I pray for Trump for an entirely different set of reasons than I prayed for Obama. But I’ve prayed for both.

And I pray for you, too. You seem quite judgmental in your thin veneer of spiritual superiority. You paint all Trump supporters with a wide brush. You don’t know our hearts – at least not all of us.

Are there racists who voted for Trump? No doubt. But there are many who voted for Obama simply because he was black. It didn’t seem to matter that he was not pro-life, or that he was for so many things that seem to be the types of things that Jesus would oppose. Somehow, that all gets a pass. It felt good, I suppose. But where did it get us?

I supported Trump in the election because he was the far better choice compared to Hillary Clinton. I support Trump now because he is president. The fact that I appreciate his pro-life stance, or his anti-extremist Muslim stance, or his stance against illegal immigration does not mean that I hate brown people. It doesn’t mean I don’t condemn sin when I see it. Even in the president.

There a a lot of things it does NOT mean. I hope you’ll give your liberal head a shake and see it.

You really don’t know me. NOT AT ALL.

To quote your article:I know it’s likely you’ll dismiss these words… But I had to at least try to reach you. It’s what Jesus would do.”

 

 

 

 

Read More
What Kind Of Refugees Are We Bringing In
Analysis

What Kind Of Muslims Are We Importing Into The West, Anyway?

There has been a massive migration, of late, of Muslims into countries in the west; particularly now, in large part, because of the crisis of war-torn Syria. In 2010, Europe had a Muslim population of about 13 million people. Now, according to Pew Research, it’s over 20 million. There is a similar phenomenon of an increased number of Muslims living in Australia, the United States and Canada, and in Canada particularly, because of immigration.

Muslim Immigration Is Rapidly Changing The Cultural Complexion Of The West

There are currently about 3 million or so Muslims living in the United States, which is almost 1% of the U. S. population. So far, President Obama has not been able to increase the number of Syrian refugees substantially, in spite of his promises to do “America’s part” in assisting with relocation of these refugees. But he is trying. Canada has immigrated almost 30,000 Syrian refugees since November of 2015. This is a staggering number in terms of the overall population of Canada, running currently around 35 million people.

It is interesting to see that people seem to be rather divided on whether or not this is a good idea. Some people are terrified that we are importing radical Islamic wolves in refugee’s clothing. Others think this is pure Islamophobia – the thought is that the fear of Muslims is totally baseless and irrational.

Radical Islam in the US

Not every Muslim is “radical.” But then, not every Muslim is exactly peaceful by Western standards, either.

Getting a grasp on how they think as a people-group (as compared to the average thinking of the population here in the West) is something worth thinking about. Because if the trends of migration to the West continue, they will have more and more of an influence in our culture – for better or for worse. And looking at Europe as the canary in the coal mine, this change could be swift and deadly, if the paranoid among us are correct and we do nothing to stop it.

SO WHO, EXACTLY, IS THE RADICAL MUSLIM?

In a video from The Clarion Project entitled, “By The Numbers – The Untold Story Of Muslim Opinions And Demographics,” the narrator, Raheel Raza (a Sunni Muslim) makes the point that the actual percentage of the Muslim population involved in fighting for ISIS is very small. But when you start to poll the world population of Muslims by percentages, it becomes a glaring issue that about 1/3 of them feel that women should be killed for adultery and that the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Islamic faith) should be death. That is scary.

In the video, she says that a vast number of them hold to beliefs and practices that will seem radical to us in the west. As Raheel Raza says, they hold views about women, homosexuals and apostates that are very troubling:

In 2013, Pew Research released a comprehensive study based on interviews with thousands of Muslims in 29 countries. It reported that in countries like Afghanistan, Egypt and Jordan, the vast majority of Muslims surveyed (between 79 to 86 percent) believe that those who leave the Muslim faith should be executed.

Now, let me ask you. Do you know anyone who has left their faith? Do you think that is a crime, let alone think it is a crime worthy of the death sentence? If you look at an overall slice of the Muslim population, you’ll see that about 27% of them think death is the appropriate punishment for apsotasy. As Raheel says,

Did you know that thirty-nine percent of all muslims in the country surveyed believe that honor killings can be a justifiable punishment for a woman who has had pre- or extra-marital sex? Do you think that’s a radical belief? That radical belief is held by over 345 million Muslims.

These studies paint a picture of an Islamic world that is increasingly out of step with the modern world when it comes to support for terrorism and jihad. So, if you are willing to accept even the possibility that these numbers are anywhere near accurate, you need to ask yourself a question:

WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT THE MUSLIMS WE ARE IMPORTING INTO OUR COUNTRIES IN THE WEST ARE ALL THE “PEACEFUL” KIND?

You see, many people haven’t really given this serious and responsible consideration. And the reason is because they don’t really understand Islam; nor do they understand the mandate that Muslims have. A good and faithful Muslim has an obligation to proselytize for Islam. And the most faithful among them are going to have the strongest interest in proselytizing for Islam – making a concerted effort to bring everyone into submission to Allah.

This mandate they have is to spread Islam into all the world: they are to take territory and bring everyone into submission to Allah. So, if this is the case, why would anyone have this silly notion that the most faithful among them are going to stay in Syria and the middle east and only the most liberal among them are going to come to the west?

I’ve written before about how this distinction between “true” and “radical” Islam is, in many ways, a sideshow. It distracts from a central issue: both the peaceful and the radical Muslim get their beliefs from the same book; both believe they are doing what God has told them to do because it is in the Quran. In fact, the radical Muslim has far more theological fire-power on his side in terms of strict Islamic scholarship and examples from Mohammed’s contemporaries than does the peaceful Muslim.

Raheel says further, regarding the statistics:

For young Muslims aged 18 to 29 in Western countries, forty-two percent of French Muslims, thirty-five percent of British muslims and twenty-six percent of American muslims believe suicide bombings against non-muslims can be justified. This is the next generation of Muslims speaking. A majority of Muslim surveyed – fifty-three percent – said they want Sharia or Islamic law to be the law of the land. In Muslim-majority countries, of those who said they want Sharia to be the law of the land, over fifty two percent said they support cutting off of hands.

Do you think that’s a radical belief that 51-percent say they’re in favor of stoning spouses if they’re unfaithful, which equals 289 million people?

Worldwide, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe sharia should be the law of the land; over half of the young Muslims already in the West believe that suicide bombings are not such a bad thing. And tens of millions (at least) of young Muslims who are in the same age group as these young refugees from Syria are looking for opportunities to emigrate to the West to spread their sharia and their radical faith throughout the free world. And then, think about this:

For many radicals bent on conquest for Islam, being a “refugee” is a convenient ticket to a land ripe for proselytizing.

This is not simply an idea in the heads of a few paranoid folk hiding in the basements of their churches, waiting for Jesus to come. Newsweek had an article describing this very phenomenon. As the article says,

In the Paris attacks, only four of the 198 refugees who arrived on Leros on a certain day were terrorists. That is just 2 percent, but that 2 percent killed 130 people.

How many have to die before we wake up and understand the nature of the problem?

As a Christian, I understand the love of Jesus and that this love that Jesus has shown me compels me to reach out to the lost. But if I’m witnessing to a criminal, I’m able to do so while he is in the confines of a prison and his situation known, his containment sure so that he does not have a good chance of killing my wife and kids. Letting these people into the country without proper screening to see if they have criminal intent is stupid.

Love is patient and kind. But love is not a doormat for letting criminals run rampant among us, unchecked and unleashed to wreck havoc on innocent people.

Let us use our heads to inform people of the real dangers here. It’s all well and good to show love to people; but you can’t love people if they kill you.

(Last updated by The Cognitive Man, 2016-07-31)
Read More