Obama's Samba Line Dance

One of Sarah Palin’s most memorable statements during her vice presidential campaign in 2008 was this:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities."

While at the time her critics denounced that statement as unfair to community organizers, Palin was spot on correct.  Her point has been proved prescient.  Barack Obama is an abject incompetent at everything except speechifying and golf.  His ineptitude is nothing short of horrifying, considering the office he occupies (by which I do not mean that he runs it— he merely occupies it).

The man literally could not run a lemonade stand, much less a nation.  His attempts to outsource presidential decision making have produced a virtual samba line of buffoons who could not begin to control the agencies and projects to which they were appointed. 

Kathleen Sebelius led the samba line with failures so thorough and comprehensive that it became clear that she knew absolutely nothing about the healthcare website that she had many months to oversee, a website which not only collapsed the moment she pressed the “start” key, but continues to this day to have critical defects. 

Eric Shinseki was widely praised for his service as an army general, but from the moment he stepped into the office of Secretary of Veterans Affairs he was as out of his element as a brain surgeon assigned to build a space ship.  Veterans avoidably died as a result of Shinseki’s lack of curiosity about events in his department, and his response was that he felt really bad about that.  Oh yeah, he was angry, too.

“Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu left under a cloud of controversy involving crony capitalists getting millions of dollars in green loans that produced nothing but failed companies,” according to Victor Davis Hanson at the San Jose Mercury News

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25815169/victor-davis-hanson-obamas-cabinet-is-incompetent

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton produced a litany of failures during her tenure, but one must grudgingly admit that she spent little time on the golf course (or whatever her pastime might happen to be), and is enough of a control freak that she would have scrutinized every element of Hillary Care, had she been president.  The finished product would have been disastrous to the nation, but an efficient disaster, which might actually be the worst kind.

Valerie Jarrett, not Obama, seems to be the actual brains (or lack thereof) behind the operation (or lack thereof).  Her qualifications for the job are purely ideological, explaining why no hint of the real world ever factors into presidential decrees.

The worst of Obama’s failures are yet to be exposed to the light of day.  His mismanagement of national security makes the Keystone Cops look like James Bond by comparison.

Let’s start with his own personal security, supposedly guaranteed by the Secret Service.  However competent and dedicated many of the agents are, they are clearly infiltrated with drunkards, whoremongers and bunglers.  This tragic and dangerous corruption has been going on for years, and nothing proactive was done to foresee and prevent future occurrences.  Forget locking the back door, the Secret Service could not even lock the front door of the White House as an intruder sprinted across the lawn and penetrated deep inside the building.  Yet another agency head has been forced to resign in disgrace in light of failures so astounding that no fiction writer would dare include such improbable idiocies in their novels.

Let’s continue with Obama’s military incompetence.  Here is a man who in a speech at the Army Academy at West Point mispronounced the word “corps” three times.  Many people would laugh this off as a mere gaffe, but it reflects an utter unfamiliarity with the most basic vocabulary of the military.  Worse, it shows that not one of the people closest to him caught the error before he made it, and no one was able to speak into his earphone (if he even had one) to correct this before he repeated it twice more.  Think of what the dismayed cadets were imagining, as they realized this community organizer was their commander.

One might laugh it off were not this gaffe magnified in his blunders that have squandered the gains of thousands of military men who lost their lives in battle to secure Iraq.

One might continue laughing if Obama had not claimed credit for ending the war, but now seeks to blame others when it turns out that ending the war really meant losing it.

The laughter dies down when the national security agencies have finally become fed up with this incompetent who continually blames them, not himself, for permitting an entire nation of terrorists to be formed under his nose, now threatening to infiltrate our cities with large numbers of fanatical, suicidal terrorists.  All this occurred while Obama refused to attend security briefings by those whom now he blames.

What will it take before those in positions of high power step out of the shadows and perform their actual duty of protecting the nation, protecting it from the onslaught of illegal immigrants, disease, and violence?  How can they protect the president when they refuse to protect the nation from the president himself?

Just how long can a samba line get before the laughter finally stops?

Forget Global Warming – What About Global Madness?

Forget Global Warming – What About Global Madness?

Throughout history, human life has been dominated by misery.  Wars, famines, plagues and natural catastrophes were rampant, not to mention tyrannies that were cruel and oppressive.  Life was brutal and short.

A few candles lit the darkness.  For those of us fortunate enough to have been born in the Americas and Europe during the twentieth century, it may be difficult to understand what life is (and was) like for those born far from the candles.

My maternal grandmother was born in East Europe in the 1880s, was orphaned in her infancy, and raised by relatives.  She bore seven children, the first four of whom all died at very early ages.  She then immigrated to the US, where disease broke out on her ship and killed most of the passengers.  The ship was quarantined in New York Harbor until no one had died for a couple of weeks, and then the survivors were allowed ashore.  A year or so later, the 1918 influenza epidemic overwhelmed the same city, so severely that there were corpses lying in the streets.  Twenty million died worldwide, more than in the war which ravaged the same generation.

My other grandmother had a less tragic life, but by today’s standards, one of hardship.  To the day she died, she cooked on a wood burning stove, pumped water from the back porch, and used an outhouse.  Living on a farm, the Depression years did not cause them hunger, but she rarely had cash.  I remember the jar of Indian Head pennies she had hoarded.

We have it easy.  After a recent storm I was without electricity for two days.  Trust me, you never know how central electric power is to your life until you have to do without it for more than a day.  We dared not open the refrigerator door.  Nightfall brought virtual blindness.  The summer heat and humidity were stifling.  The inability to watch TV and to make telephone calls were frustrating, even maddening.

Yet this was in the USA, and however uncomfortable those two days were, we had confidence.  The lights would come on again, and life would return to what we so casually call, normal.

Much of the world is not like that.  Not only is the summer heat stifling in most impoverished regions, but that is the least of the worries of many people.  Death is a constant specter, looming darkly just outside the front door at every moment.  It may come in the form of disease, crime, or war.  Tyrannies deprive people of their freedom and dignity, and smother them in constant fear, anxiety and frustration.  For those people, there is no promise that tomorrow the lights will come on.  The candles are very far away indeed.

In watching the news about ISIS, one is reminded of the rampaging hordes of barbarians that throughout history periodically swept across Europe, orphaning large portions of the population, leaving ruin and desolation in their wake.  Vikings, Huns and Mongols, to mention only a few, devastated what are today gleaming cities and centers of culture, but which in those times were wooden villages where farmers struggled daily to eke out a living from the dirt.

Today, we witness the same thing happening in the Middle East.  Unlike in days of yore, the tragedies are painfully visible to anyone who cares to watch the news on television or the internet.

Shockingly, many do not.  They live in their tiny little world of physical pleasures, absorbed in sports, entertainment and the night life.

One wonders.  What will those people think when terror comes into their own neighborhoods?  Yes, we do have high crime areas, but those are due more to ignorance than to foreign invaders.  The uneducated in America suffer not from a lack of schools and libraries, but from a cultural disease that values physical pleasure more than the dignity of work.

Nine-eleven (2001) woke us up for a day.  The Boston bombing disturbed our slumber for another day.  Now and then we are shaken, roused from our sleep.  Then we get back to what we call normal.

Fear normal, because normal is mass slaughter.  To paraphrase British Foriegn Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, 3 August 1914 on the eve of World War One:  when the candles are snuffed out again, they might not be relit in our lifetime.  It’s not paranoia when they really and truly do plan to kill you. 

I visualize an entire American city incinerated, while the adjacent city carries on, oblivious that it is next on the list.

Forget global warming, it is global madness that will do us in.

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/9/27/forget-global-warming-what-about-global-madness.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forged in Faith

We can, and should, separate church from state, but we can no more separate faith in God from public policy than we can separate rights from the Constitution.

The inception of the United States of America is rooted in two opposing philosophies. One of them is the Greek tradition of democracy and reason; the other is the Hebrew tradition of faith and discipline. Or, one might ask, are they really opposed?

These two philosophies somehow fused during the years that saw Christianity rise from an obscure cult of Jews into a major world religion. During that time and later, the Greek idea of democracy gradually took ever firmer hold in Europe, which alongside Christianity, began its thousand year journey toward parliamentary democracy.

This unnoticed revolution took hundreds of years to work its way into the psyche of western thinkers. The pinnacle of that revolution was the founding of the United States.

While many secularists deny that America was founded as a Christian nation, the evidence is just too overwhelming to draw any other rational conclusion. Yes, many of the Founders were Deists, not Christians, but all of them were so well versed in the Bible that their writings are saturated with references to the God of Abraham. The Judeo-Christian influence on their thinking was a dominant factor in the formation of our country. Not one of their statements of principle comes from any other major religious tradition.

Despite the fusion of the Greek and Hebrew worldviews, despite their being joined in the formation of the idea that, “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” despite all that, the two worldviews never quite completed their merger. They remained quietly at odds with each other for centuries during a period of truce.

That truce is over. America is once again separating, philosophically speaking, into two warring factions.

One of them is the familiar Christian faith, along with its Jewish root, the belief in a creator God who intervenes in the lives of individuals and nations, and who reveals to us what is morally right, and what is morally depraved.

The other is the secular worldview, which combines atheism and naturalist-materialism.  This worldview holds that there is no credible evidence of God, and therefore no reason to believe in what it calls the myths of Christianity. That view avers that nature is all that there is, and that nature is composed only of material governed by mathematical rules.

Such worldviews have consequences.  One of the consequences of the Christian worldview is that all humans are regarded as specially created by God for a divine purpose, and are therefore to be treasured in their own right, not at the whim of an earthly ruler.

 The consequences of secularism are much darker. While one of the tenets of secularism is that, “Man is the measure of all things,” natural-materialism considers humans to be nothing more than a happenstance by-product of natural processes. If we are considered to be nothing more than chemical processes, doomed to oblivion in an uncaring universe, then that cannot help but shape social policy, one that instead of being humanist, is inhumane.

That dark effect has not yet reached its nadir, but only because the old moral traditions are still deeply embedded in our culture. They will not disappear overnight.  But with time, the Biblical underpinnings of our culture will continue to erode. Legalized abortion is only one visible effect. It has already redefined what it is to be human, defining it downward.  We have seen only the beginning of its tragic descent.

As American society turns further away from God, so it will also turn further away from human rights, from liberty and freedom, and toward tyranny.

The monstrous tyrannies of the mid twentieth century serve as dire warnings. Communism and fascism massacred untolled numbers in Europe, and the imperialism of a false god (emperor) murdered millions in Asia . All were based in a world view that considered individual humans to have no sovereignty, no inherent rights of their own. People were deemed to be simply tools of the state, to be sent to their deaths by the millions, in the pursuit of evil purposes.

Faith is not, of course, a political tool. We do not embrace it for political purposes. That, indeed, would be contrary to what faith in God really is.

Instead, faith is embedded in our human nature. Birds fly, fish swim, and humans worship God. We freely choose to accept faith or to reject it. In doing so, we also choose the consequences, which are either humanity or inhumanity.

Faith is not contrary to reason. True, we can no more reason our way to faith than we can count by ones to infinity. In both cases, we get there all at once. Faith gives context to reason. It affirms that our lives have a plan, a purpose and a meaning far beyond merely the biological. Our deeds have eternal consequence.

Apart from faith, nothing makes sense.  Apart from faith, there is no plan, no purpose, no meaning.

Natural materialism strays so far from reason as to even deny that free will exists. Free will makes us into independent, sovereign entities, capable of choosing other than as nature would dictate. Therefore, natural materialism falls apart as soon as it accepts that free will is our nature. Free will cannot be the product of a cold, uncaring universe; it can only be the gift of God creating us in His own image and likeness.

Faith will not destroy reason but uphold it. Faith will not conquer democracy, but give it meaning.

There should be no war between reason and faith, but those who have rejected faith are drawing the battle lines. History is about to repeat itself, but the future is ours.

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/9/23/forged-in-faith.html

Socialism – The World’s Most Intractable Addiction

An alcoholic employee was called into the boss’s office and was given an ultimatum.  It went something like this. 

You are a valued employee, and because of that, you have been given numerous chances to correct your deficiencies.  Yet you continue to come in late for work, or some days, not at all.  You continue to miss important deadlines.  When you meet the deadlines, your work is either incomplete, or contains numerous errors. Other employees have tried to cover for you, but it only detracts from their own work performance.  Therefore, no further concessions will be made to you, and no more excuses will be accepted.  This is it.  Either take control of your life and perform according to standards, or else, turn in your keys in return for your final paycheck.  Which will it be?

The above story is probably true, many times over, but I have fictionalized several elements of it.  First, the reality is that instead of an employee, the real story involves a country. Second, instead of alcoholism, the reality is socialist economics.

The country is Argentina, but many other countries fit the description.
Argentina Bets on Price Controls

Argentina is on the brink of collapse. 
I wrote about this recently in The Bold Pursuit, "Yet Another Socialist Paradise is Collapsing."

Instead of the technical details, this time I wish to focus, as I did in the fictional account of the alcoholic, on the psychology of addiction, not addiction to a drug, but to ideological beliefs that have been consistently and repeatedly shown to be false, and worse than false, catastrophic.

Socialism as an economic and political system is inexplicably addictive.  One can understand its initial appeal, because that appeal is simplistic, easily reduced to mindless slogans. Socialism addresses the scourge of poverty by saying simply, give money to the poor people. It addresses the problem of high prices by commanding sellers to lower their prices.  And when all the socialist remedies only dig the hole deeper, the last ditch resorts include raising taxes, confiscating wealth from those who produce it, and entrenching a class of voters who will never make the short-term sacrifices that are necessary for their long-term benefit.

Socialism has even more appeal when it is contrasted to our present economic system, the one we mistakenly call capitalism, but which is more properly referred to as “crony capitalism.”  A better term for that system might be, feudalism.  In any case, the present system as practiced is a twisted perversion of the free market system.  Compared to it, socialism starts to look good to those who are stuck on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

While socialism’s initial appeal might be understandable, what is not excusable is the persistent failure to recognize that socialism is not the easy way out of economic injustice, but is rather a fatal dependency on remedies that do not work.  Compared to truly free markets, socialism is a disaster.  Would that there were a truly free market to prove this.  Free markets have, alas, all but become extinct, and what now passes for capitalism is in reality a close cousin of socialism, even in the United States.

Is there a remedy?

It is no longer possible to simply do away with the century (and more) of clutter that has destroyed free markets, and to replace that clutter with the few basic principles that allow anyone—literally anyone—to have free and unfettered access to the marketplace.  Those principles include truly representative government, anti-trust laws, anti-fraud laws, and property rights.

The entrenched social powers are so firmly in control of our economic system that—and this is quite literal—a child can no longer start and operate a sidewalk lemonade stand in the US. In order to do so, the child would have to hire a consultant to navigate the government regulations, the legal hurdles, and competition from lemonade producers who can crush any hint of competition.  In other words, to sell ten cents worth of lemonade, a ten-year-old child would have to have about ten thousand dollars in startup financing.  Think of it as the 10-10-10 rule. 

The problem extends upward from there, to many thousands of good business ideas that are never given a chance to succeed.

This inability to create new businesses without large investments up front would have, according to the founder of hardware giant Home Depot, prevented his corporation from ever having gained a foothold in the marketplace.

Make no mistake, large corporations, although many of them benefited from free markets when they were first begun, now oppose the very idea.  Partnering with big government, big corporations lobby for ever more oppressive regulation of business, knowing that that will stifle competition.

In doing so, they have persuaded millions of welfare recipients to settle for a life of indolence and hopelessness that is poisoning our society from within.

The real tragedy of this is that there are places in the world where there is a remedy. Argentina is a prime example.  When a social and economic system is in the early stage of collapse, the prospect for reform rises dramatically, as people become desperate to find a solution to their problems.  This brief window of opportunity has opened in Argentina.

Unfortunately, the window is all too often closed by those who instead of free markets, impose the harsh hand of raw power.  This seems to be happening in Argentina and elsewhere.  Instead of more freedom, people tend to seek less of it, in the form of dictatorships.

The outlook is bleak.  Nation after nation, addicted to spending, taxation and overregulation is killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden egg.  Revolutions are inevitable.  Social collapse will follow, as will wars and rumors of war.

Still, even this outlook is not entirely bleak. There was a revolution in 1776 that, centuries later, still points the way to justice and prosperity.

We need a reset button.

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/9/8/socialism-the-worlds-most-intractable-addiction.html

Tha Bankers War

The more I read history, the more I realize that we see only the tip of the ice berg, and not even that much.

I recall reading about a man who travels the US, asking permission to explore old barns.  In them, he finds farming tools, finds the same kinds in almost every old barn, so they must have been very common, but nobody today knows what they were used for. 

The lesson is that in only a very few years, historical facts that were widely known to one generation, are completely forgotten by the next.

History is not so much recorded as it is reconstructed, often from personal letters stashed in an attic for lifetimes.

The ancient Roman city of Herculaneum was all but unknown until the mid-1800s when a well digger fell into it by accident.  This was a large city buried by the same volcano that destroyed the more famous city of Pompeii, yet Herculaneum disappeared from history.

One of the most disturbing facts of hidden history I learned concerns how World War One got started, and how America got into it despite President Woodrow Wilson's vow to stay out of it.

A more accurate name for that war might be The Bankers War.  US bankers loaned so much money to Britain and France that when it appeared that Germany was about to win, the bankers ran in panic to Wilson and got a bailout, not just in money, but in American blood, simply to recover their ill advised investment.

All sides in that war were grievously at fault, and the war need never have begun, and could easily have been ended early on.

This was why in 1941, only a very small proportion of Americans wanted anything to do with fighting Hitler.  Few people believed he was any threat to the US, and Americans were distrustful after having been lied to in 1917 and sent to war needlessly.  Hitler was, of course, vastly more evil than was the relatively harmless Kaiser of WW1.

Fast forward to today.  We do not see more than a tiny portion of what is going on in current events.  We have the broad outlines of a corrupt federal government, reeking of scandal, blatantly violating the Constitution, accumulating vast amounts of power, including technologies we can only imagine.

What we do not see is the dark forces at work behind the scenes, the dirty deals, the false propaganda, the assassinations and murders, and more than enough to make a James Bond spy novel seem like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

We are the pawns in a vast game beyond our understanding.  The kings and queens of this chess game casually send thousands of people needlessly to their deaths without so much as a pang of conscience.

This is why I rarely listen to politicians.  I trust very few of them.

--Robert
.

Seven Days in September – Will They Finally Do It ?

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/9/2/seven-days-in-september-will-they-finally-do-it.html

Over the past few years, I have posted several commentaries referring to the fictional political thriller titled, Seven Days in May. That novel (and movie) is about an attempted coup d'état in the White House – by high ranking national security officials – who believe that the policies of the (fictional) president are gravely imperiling the nation.

The coup fails and the moral of the story is that law, by the Constitution, rules America and that there is never any justification for substituting force for the ballot box.

Obama's presidency has not only been marked by violations of the law, but perhaps worse in the eyes of highly-placed policy officials, marked by ineptitude and failure. Generals and intelligence chiefs might very well (I am sorry to say) tolerate trashing the Constitution to achieve results they view as pragmatic. What they likely will not tolerate is failure. When failure becomes fiasco, they will become concerned. When it shows signs of becoming catastrophe, they might risk their own careers and take desperate action, if not to save the republic, then at least to save themselves.

Judging from recent interviews and public statements by such officials, they have not yet become concerned, but they certainly seem to have sat bolt upright and taken notice, as grim reality sets in. Their public statements might be viewed as simple lack of coordination between speech writers, but they also might indicate shots across the bow, so to speak, subtle warnings to the president to shape up.

While presidential dereliction of duty is plain to see in the news reports, there are likely much more serious derelictions going on behind the scenes. Surely, security and military officials must have more than once commented to each other—albeit in carefully phrased, deniable words—that they are disappointed that the president has consistently dismissed their advice, only to see the world stage become more dangerous as a result. They must resent being repeatedly blamed by Obama for his own failures. They must know far more than we know, exactly what the failures of the administration have been. I suspect it goes far beyond the “I don’t have a strategy,” category, and far into the “I don’t have a clue,” classification.

Beyond a doubt – Barack Obama has, for some time, now posed a clear and present danger to the Republic. It is the duty of government to respond decisively to such threats. His golf outings and fund raisers are more than mere matters of appearance and embarrassment. They demonstrate conclusively that the pilot does not have his hand on the controls, but instead is outsourcing his policy decisions to radical ideologues who share Obama’s left wing world view. They are almost literally trying to “community-organize” the world, but the world is not cooperating. On the contrary, international disorder is beginning to run riot as the looters (dictators and terrorists) discover that no one is on duty to stop them.

Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini is said to have been tolerated by his public despite his oppressive policies, because as the legend goes, he kept the trains running on time. Obama could not even manage to keep Obamacare running on time, and it remains a fiasco today, with worse yet to come.

Obama’s foreign policy failures have cost American blood, strengthened our enemies, weakened our alliances, and made the nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Throughout it all, he has never admitted error except in the most self-serving terms.

My personal perception (and I have no inside knowledge, of course) is that there is a segment of the national security apparatus that may soon become concerned, even alarmed. My fear is that when they finally take action, it will not end well.

The final chapter is yet to be written.

The ISIS Game

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/25/the-isis-game.html

For those of you who play checkers, chess, or other games of strategy, you have probably noticed that the losing player does not usually lose only on the last move. In most cases, even if he is allowed to take back a move or two, that does not prevent his inevitable loss. The fatal mistake, the losing move, usually has already happened much earlier than that. Once the fatal mistake is made, the rest is inevitable. The losing move loses because it weakens the player’s position so much that no matter how well he moves thereafter, the result is already a foregone conclusion.

 

In the ISIS game, Barack Obama made the losing move at least as far back as his “red line” bluff in Syria, when he made empty threats that he had not the fortitude to carry through, and had to back down.  That mistake drove Syria ever more firmly into the arms of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, while at the same time, opening the door for ISIS to consolidate northern Syria as a base from which to conquer northern Iraq, and eventually,to effectively target Europe and the United States. The game was all but over as soon as  Obama’s bluff was called. What happened later was not only predictable, it was predicted.

 

Thus came into being the reality we now face, the nightmare scenario which was prevented in Afghanistan by President Bush’s decisive invasion. It could have been prevented again, had Barack Obama acted decisively in Syria, and even later, in northern Iraq when ISIS first invaded. That nightmare is a powerful terrorist state that will stop at nothing, literally at nothing, to carry out its ambition of total conquest of the old Babylonian empire. This will be followed by a caliphate over the entire Middle East, andthen, using that power-base as a launching point, major attacks on Western Europe and the United States.

 

Russia already knows what the next few moves are. They have already been there. The massacre of one hundred eighty-six Russian school children at Beslan by Chechen Islamists in 2004 was an atrocity that defines the savage intentions of Jihadi fanatics—or at least it did define it until ISIS forces burned through city after city in Iraq, leaving thousands murdered, decapitated and enslaved.

Over the years, Russia has sustained many more terrorist attacks, one of the most recent being a gunfight between police and some militants involved in last year’s car bombings at the Volgograd train station in which some fifty people were killed. Three policemen and 4 terrorists were killed in the gunfight this year.

 

Russia is no stranger to this game. It remains to be seen whether ISIS will target Russia with the same massive destruction that it has threatened in the US and Europe. Russia’s stance, however, makes it clear to the terrorists that Russia’s response will not be an empty Obamaesque threat. The terrorists will surely remember that in 2000, the Russians flattened the entire Chechen capital city with artillery and air strikes, prompting the UN to call it the most destroyed city on earth. ISIS can expect nothing better if they attack Russia.

 

Sadly, ISIS assuredly has no fear of the United States. Worse yet, the allies who can most help us in the war against the terrorists no longer trust us. Obama has in one form or another betrayed them all, including the Kurds, the Anbar Sunnis, and even our European friends.

 

In doing so, Obama has already made the fatal move that condemns the United States to the full fury of an ISIS terrorist attack on our soil. While he is playing for a draw, ISIS is in this to win it all.  You do not need to be a chess master, or a golf player, to understand why a rank amateur has no chance of winning this game.

.

The Barbarians are at the Gates -- Again

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/18/by-robert-arvay-contributing-writer-a-story-which-i.html

A story which I often recount involves taking my wife to a movie. She had recently immigrated from South Korea. The movie was A Bridge Too Far. A scene in that movie shows a German soldier approaching British lines under a white flag. A British officer stands up and responds to the German demand for surrender by refusing. The German soldier then returns to the shelter of his lines, as does the British officer, and the bloody fighting soon resumes.
​
When my wife saw the German soldier standing in full view of the British riflemen, she whispered to me, “Why don’t they shoot him?”

​I was both horrified and amused, and answered, “They can’t shoot him. He’s under a white flag!”

​My wife was amazed. “Oh,” she said. “Gentleman war.” Warfare in Asia had never become ritualized as it had in Europe. We take for granted that we do not shoot an enemy under a flag of truce, but most of the world knows nothing of this practice.​

​It was during the so-called Dark Ages that certain civilized behaviors first began to be widely introduced into the conduct of warfare. This came about because, in Europe, most of the combatants were Christian, and most were governed more or less by the Roman Catholic Pope, who gave orders that warfare was to be restrained by certain rules. At first, little improvement was made, but by the time of the Renaissance, war in Europe (and later in the Americas) was no longer what it had been in ancient times. Granted, war remained ugly, but even in the meat grinder of World War I, medics of both sides could usually operate on the battlefield with immunity from enemy fire. White flags were honored, and the flag of the Red Cross was respected by all.

​In pre-medieval times, before the Popes had moderated the practice of war, losing armies were slaughtered, any survivors were enslaved, and conquered nations were looted and crushed under the heel of unrelenting tyranny. We in America can scarcely imagine what it was like to have lived under the constant threat that hordes of merciless barbarians would suddenly appear, killing and burning their way through villages and cities, carrying off one’s family, who were never to be heard from again. Yet this was what life was like in ancient times throughout the entire world.

​While today humanitarians complain about water-boarding, in ancient times, captured enemies were often tortured hideously, merely for the amusement of the captors. A long list of barbaric practices could be made, shocking and horrifying the average American.

​We feel comforted knowing that those days are over—but are they really?

The American and European failures in Syria and Iraq are demonstrating that the age of barbarism is upon us still. It never did go away. We just closed our eyes to it. The modern-day terrorists who often are referred to as ISIS or ISIL, are nothing new to history. They are the Huns of yore, the Mongol Hordes in modern Islamic form. They are unimaginably ruthless, cruel and fanatical.

​Not to worry. According to the White House, we are “monitoring the situation.” Indeed? One reporter all but openly mocked that claim during a press briefing. Monitoring the situation, he rebuked, monitoring? Tens of thousands of people are in imminent danger of being brutally massacred, and we are monitoring? The White House press secretary was reassuring. We are not merely monitoring the situation, he said. We are monitoring it “closely.” Oh. That makes it all better (yes, sarcasm).

​One thing which utopian visionaries consistently fail to acknowledge is something called reality. Reality always trumps idealism. Community organizing is no match for suicidal armies. The Nazis and Japanese Imperialists of the 1940s were not negotiated into surrender, not until first we had killed every last enemy soldier who continued to resist. Even after the formal surrenders, more killing was needed to eliminate the mortal dangers posed by die-hards in both Germany and Japan.

One cannot reason with genocidal murderers. One can only kill them. ​But no! the proponents of peace at any price will counter. Why, killing them would make us just as evil. My reply is that is a disgusting argument, one which equates murder with self-defense, and equates atrocity with protection of the helpless. Anyone who contemplates the reality of the situation and still holds to that bankrupt position is despicable.

​Another argument says that, for every terrorist we kill, we create many more. Oh, really? Then ask this question. When terrorists killed three thousand of us on nine-eleven, how many more of us did they create? As they killed more thousands of us in the military campaigns, they should have created enough of us to eliminate them forever.​

Only the mathematics of the intentionally ignorant can fail to recognize that killing terrorists decreases their number. Any new terrorists coming into the battle are not there because their predecessors were killed, they are coming because their minds are poisoned by the same radical theology that motivated their dead forebears.

​Yes, it all sounds horrible. It is horrible. However, the horror is not one of our making, rather, it is the making of those who issue edicts requiring everyone to think as they think or die, to obey their commands or be murdered.

​Every American should be required to witness the videos made and distributed by the terrorists, videos joyfully displaying the beheaded corpses of those who made the fatal mistake of surrendering to a psychopathic enemy. Horrible, yes, but better to see these beheadings on video than to see them in person on the streets of our neighborhoods.

'​Oh, that’s fear-mongering,' some will say. 'ISIS is not coming here.' But the Japanese did come to Pearl Harbor, Osama’s minions came to the World Trade Towers, and the Russians did invade Crimea just a few weeks ago, and then shot down a civilian airliner. The mainland Chinese are building a blue water navy, one for which they have no defensive need. Barack Obama warned the Syrian dictator to disarm or face the consequences, and the consequence turned out to be the exposing of Obama as a toothless tiger. He installed a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist to lead Egypt, a danger so extreme that the Egyptians expelled the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt (and expelled many of them from the planet). Obama then offered Israel a so-called truce with Hamas – a truce which would in reality have been a complete capitulation to terrorism. All the while, Obama is dismantling our armed forces. There is no space here for a complete list of the treacheries being perpetrated by our apologist-in-chief.

​In short, the US has become a shadow of its former presence as a force for good in the world, a presence which Obama clearly believes was a force for evil.

​Into the vacuum are stepping the real forces of evil, forces not only capable of barbarism, but eager to practice it in its most malevolent form.

​They are at the gates.
.

Why Communism Works and Socialism Does Not

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/why_communism_works_and_socialism_does_not.html

One of the most amazing phenomena of current political thought is the fact that only a very small percentage of people on the political left have a clue as to what socialism and communism are.

If one were to ask 100 college students -- students who identify themselves as sympathetic to communism and hostile to capitalism -- ask them if they would favor a system in which "government withers on the vine," a system in which there is no government, no taxes -- probably very few of them would say they favor such a system.

Yet, that is Marxist communism, the communism that they say is superior to capitalism.

Communism works. I know this first hand. When I was head of a household, I ran my family under the communist system. From each of us came goods and services according to our abilities. To each of us, those goods and services were provided according to need. Thus, I went to work and provided most of the money. The kids did no outside work and ate well every day. The wife held an outside job, and both she and I shared the domestic chores (me mostly outside, she mostly inside).

I never complained when I had to do the heavy lifting. She never asked me to sew on my own buttons. It never even occurred to us to complain.

There was no equality in this. We didn't care about equality. We cared about taking care of each other, and the system worked.

So why don't we apply these rules to society at large?

Alas, large societies do not have the same personal dynamics as do families. Perhaps they should, but reality does not obey "should."

Recognizing this, the early communists in Russia instituted what they called a "transitional" system. Socialism was established as a temporary bridge, to get the society from its prior feudal system to a future communist ideal.

But socialism actually has the opposite effect. Instead of reducing government, it establishes an all-powerful (and ever increasingly powerful) central government, a totalitarian system in which anyone suspected of dissent is imprisoned in a labor camp, usually never to be heard from again.

Such a government will never -- never -- hand over "power to the people." Once you've tasted raw, total power, you can't let go. It consumes you.

In Western Europe, a more docile brand of socialism was adopted, for the express purpose of avoiding the brutalities of Stalinist and Hitlerian socialism.

For almost 70 years now, this benign form of socialism has entrenched itself in Europe, so much so that for most Europeans, the thought of self-reliance has become something to ridicule and fear.

In Greece, for example, which has spent every drachma it has ever collected in taxes -- and spent every drachma it has ever borrowed but can never repay -- the people demand even more government-paid benefits. The question of "where will we get the money" has no meaning to them. Let the government borrow more, let it print more, let it do something, but never cut my benefits -- indeed, riot to force it to increase my benefits.

Other European countries are gradually following suit. Its citizens continually demand more from government, but continually demand that less be required of themselves in terms of personal responsibility.

Is there a problem in my family? Call in the government. Do I need surgery? Call in the government (which is why more people die of survivable medical conditions in Europe than do in the USA).

Socialism is not a bridge to communism. It will never get us there. On the contrary, it is a dead end, or worse, a road that leads off the edge of a cliff.

If the people of the USA do not wake up before election day, there will be no one to bail Europe out of the mess it has created -- because the USA will meet the same fate. 
------------------------------
Addendum two years later:
America has not awakened, and the mess is worse than ever.
.
.

Council of Cowards

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/the-patriots-notepad/2014/8/11/council-of-cowards.html

The 1962 book and 1964 movie, Seven Days in May, brought to public attention the remote possibility of a coup d’etat occurring in the United States. High level overthrows of third world governments are indeed potential occurrences, but in strong, well established Western republics, they are all but impossible. The closest we have ever come, so far as I know, was the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon, which was really not at all close to being a real coup, as the aftermath was a smooth transition of power that made little difference to the ordinary citizen.

​Soon after Barack Obama took office, soon after his disastrous policies became clearly disastrous, I thought to myself that highly placed officials would meet with him in the oval office and counsel him accordingly. After all, these officials are well aware how a weakening of the United States can bring about national calamity, world chaos, and certainly a threat to their own power and perquisites. I was all but certain that those with such knowledge and power would rein in this loose cannon.

​They didn’t.

​Those in power, those in charge of intelligence, the military, banking and commerce—in short, those who have access to the oval office, could have, and should have, arranged an emergency meeting in the White House, and informed Barack Obama that if he did not moderate his radical policies, they would go public with their grievance, and if necessary, might go so far as to initiate impeachment proceedings.

​They did not.

​Six years later, we find ourselves mired in numerous growing and predictable disasters that threaten the republic. The staccato series of scandals alone should be enough to sound the alarm, but there is so much more than that.

The failures of Obama’s economic policies are legion. The inept implementation of a defective health care law is an alarm. As the world ignores presidential “red lines,” we find ourselves sneered at by both friend and foe alike. Our enemies are progressing day by day in their nuclear weapons programs, weapons which they will surely use. Even the lowliest terrorist now possesses shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons which can easily find their way across our porous borders and onto the highways over which airlines descend for landings.

​This only scratches the surface of the disasters awaiting us as an increasingly lawless president runs roughshod over the Constitution.

​At this point, the possibility of a top-down coup has become not only unlikely, but indeed, would probably make matters worse, although in the long run, matters are headed for an ending that will be about as bad as things can get.

The council of cowards who surround the president will never act in a positive way to restore the nation to the rule of law. At the point in history when their courage could have equaled those of the Founding Fathers, and have been recorded as such, they have instead become Benedict Arnolds, fawning at the feet of their master, and groveling for his favor.

​Instead, the duty of protecting freedom has now fallen where, perhaps it should be. The duty has fallen on those who stood off the armed forces of oppression at the Bundy Ranch, and those who turned back the busses in Murrieta. In other words, the burden must now be borne by none other than you.

​There comes a time, there must come a time, when the ordinary American, having endured sufferings while sufferings were endurable, must recognize that not only are his own freedoms at stake, but that his children and grandchildren are being condemned to a life of debt, a life of obeisance to unjust authority, and the dangers posed by hostile foreign powers.

​I don’t know when the tipping point will be reached. I don’t even know if a popular uprising would have any chance against the power of technology that is surely in the hands of the government.

​I do know that, what dark thing now creeps toward Washington DC is a clear and present danger to the Republic, and that its strongest ally is the cowardice of its enemies.
.

How Does One Person Take Power Over a Nation?

As a young boy, I watched in wonderment on a military base, a single officer giving the command to stand at attention, and dozens of soldiers stood at attention. He gave the order to “left face,” and those dozens of soldiers faced left. He told them, “forward march,” and forward they marched.

I wondered why the soldiers did as they were told. I wondered how it was that this one officer could command them. Why was he the one in charge, and not one of the other men? Of course, my thoughts were not so precisely worded, but the questions have never left me. Indeed, over the years, the questions have only grown larger.

Years later, as I studied history, I wondered how it was possible that millions of Germans were commanded by one man named Hitler. He ordered countless numbers of his followers to their deaths, and they obeyed.

Likewise, a man named Stalin sent millions of Russians to their deaths, and they obeyed.

On smaller scales, the question is raised again and again and again, as dictators rise in various places around the world, snapping orders that are instantly obeyed. Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and Vladimir Putin of Russia are only a few examples.

How do they do it?

At first, I thought that the case of Adolph Hitler would be instructive, so I looked more deeply into it. Here was a person who, early in life, was as close to being the personification of a nobody as one can get. He tried and failed to get into an art school. In World War I, he was an undistinguished army corporal. In later years, he would snap orders to generals, even ordering their deaths if they disobeyed. 

It turns out that Hitler did not really propel himself to power. The infrastructure of future tyranny was already in place for him, as it were, awaiting him. Devious men surrounded Hitler, accomplices in treachery. Chance seems to have played a major role. In short, a complex weave of events occurred. At any moment, those events might have taken a different turn, and had they, history would not even have recorded Hitler’s name.

My theory is that human society, and human psychology, is predisposed toward accepting tyranny. We see this as far back as the days of the Old Testament, when the Jews decided to do away with their divinely ordained system of governance, and chose instead to be more like the ungodly nations that surrounded them. They clamored for a king, and they got one. Their first king, Saul, the bad king, was replaced by David the good king, and then by Solomon, another good king, but after Solomon’s death, rule by evil took over, and Israel was brought to ruin.

Had the Jews foreseen the inevitable result of their choice, they would likely have put up with their divinely appointed judges, as corrupt as those judges were.

It is because we are predisposed toward tyranny that tyrants rule.

The great exception in history has been the United States. Having suffered under a tyranny that was by no means as horrible as rule by men such as Ivan the Terrible, the Founders cobbled together an independent government that not only threw off the tyrant, but also, they hoped, would prevent any future tyrants from seizing power.

The Founders understood power. They understood how it is gained, and they understood how it is abused. They understood that the would-be tyrant must first be surrounded by lackeys, by men in the shadows, by opportunists hoping for favors. They understood the complex weave of events that must occur, and they devised a method whereby those events could never conspire to bring to absolute power any one individual.

For many decades, that system prevailed. Then it eroded. Gradually, year by year, the strengths which had under-girded our imperfect society began to weaken. Slowly, the safeguards against tyranny unraveled.

Today, we have in power that single individual that the Founders abhorred in principle. We have a man who came from seemingly nowhere, a man with no previous accomplishments, a man who refuses to divulge his college records – a man who has never so much as run a lemonade stand. He has never signed a paycheck, and indeed, never earned one from private enterprise.

Yet this man orders generals about, firing them at his whim. He presides over failure after failure, and he survives scandal after scandal. He flouts the law, violating the separation of powers, arbitrarily dismissing laws he does not like, and using illegal means to punish his political opponents. Yet, despite all this, or maybe because of all this, Barack Obama snaps orders, and millions of people comply.

How could such a thing happen?

Some Actor Guy Died Today.

Some actor guy died today.
It's ALL OVER THE NEWS nonstop.

With all due respect ---
a hundred people died today who were vastly more important than
what's his name.

Americans who put their lives on the line for this country,
who lost limbs and eyes and brain function.

Some were old, some were young,
but each and every one of them was of enormous importance and significance
in terms of what they did.

I'm not disrespecting the actor.
Why are the news media disrespecting these other people?

They say he will be sorely missed.
I say a week from now, not more than a few people will remember him.

I still miss Ronald Reagan.
Now THERE was an actor, and a great man to boot.

Let's get our priorities straight.
.

Global Warming and AIDS

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/11/global-warming-aids-and-unicorns.html

They call it climate change. Think about that. They used to call it global cooling, until there was no cooling. Then they called it global warming, but then there was no warming. So now they call it, climate change. The climate has been changing since the first day on earth, so that’s the name they settled on.

​It does no good to ask about this. When those who complain about climate change are asked, why don’t you call it global warming anymore, they simply call you a “denier.” You may ask them, which way is the climate changing? Is it getting warmer or cooler? Their response is to plug their ears, and recite the mantra which says that we must stop burning fossil fuels.​

We may think that those who preach about climate change are irrational. Well okay, most of them are, but not all—not the rich ones. You see, there is a lot of money to be made from all this. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called “green” technologies that are saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from global warming. It’s so easy to mix up one’s mythology. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. There is also enormous power involved, which is why you never hear about climate remedies that require less government and lower taxes. It’s always more of both, never less of either.
​
AIDS, however, is a very serious matter. As we all know, AIDS is caused by the HIV virus—or maybe not. Many scientists, as it turns out, are asserting that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but rather, that AIDS is a set of symptoms that is caused by many different causes, not a single disease.
​
The website, “Rethinking AIDS” is at
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/.
It is run by a small group of redneck yahoos—oh wait, wrong site. It is governed by a board of directors consisting of Ph D experts in the study of viruses and assorted other scientific disciplines, and has hundreds of members with relevant expertise.
​
Peter H. Duesberg, PhD is one prominent member of the board. Here is his biographical sketch from the site.

Professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. . . . He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health from 1985-1992. He is also a member of South Africa's Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel.

This is the resume of a world class expert, yet his expertise is being ignored by the AIDS industry. Why?

​The answer is included in the question. AIDS is much more than a disease. It is an industry. It is a political movement. It is a civil rights movement. Billions of dollars are spent every year on so-called AIDS research which is saving the planet from unicorns—no wait, from AIDS. People kill for that kind of money. Literally. Money, power and politics, not science, drive the AIDS industry, an industry which literally kills its patients.

​Joan Shenton is a British film producer who avers that AIDS treatments, not AIDS, killed off an entire generation of AIDS patients. It seems that the only people who survived were those who stopped taking the medications, medicines which in fact are chemicals that profit the pharmaceutical industries in the millions of dollars. So they make them.

​The earliest recorded victims of the AIDS epidemic were homosexual men and intravenous drug abusers. Initially, the lack of research into this disease was blamed on the fact that the victims were considered outcasts of society. That changed, however, when the gay rights movement became a powerful force in politics.

This produced a number of Orwellian definitions of the disease. For, while the disease was connected to homosexuality, it was politically incorrect to say that the disease was spread by homosexual practices. That would be blaming the victim. We can’t have that. Why should anyone take responsibility for their own behavior?

​But, you might ask, didn’t AIDS break out into the general population? The definition of AIDS was continually updated to include wider demographics, and when it did, funding followed. When feminist activists complained that they were not getting enough money, the definition of AIDS was widened until it included women. The feminists got their money and stopped complaining. AIDS stopped breaking out into the general population.

​The early definition of AIDS also depended on national boundaries. Blood tests for AIDS had to be interpreted according to a World Health Organization chart, and the chart had wildly differing criteria depending on what nation conducted the test. According to the British criteria, everyone in Africa has AIDS, but according to criteria used in Africa, nobody in Britain has AIDS. Someone pointed out sarcastically that a Briton with AIDS could be immediately cured by traveling to Africa, and being tested there, because antibodies that are rare in Britain are almost universal in Africa. These antibodies are used in diagnosis of AIDS, but used differently in different countries.

​Not coincidentally, as AIDS funding was sent to Africa, AIDS skyrocketed there, not because of the disease, but because of the funding. If a patient had cancer, there was no increase in AIDS funding. If instead the same patient were diagnosed with AIDS, his nation got increased funding. Therefore, AIDS diagnoses increased, and were rewarded.

​While AIDS and Global Climate change may seem unrelated to each other, they have both been hijacked by human greed. Here is an excerpt from

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/

[Begin excerpt] MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is a leading international expert on climate change.
“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” he told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

Lindzen endorses sensible preparedness and environmental protection, but sees what he terms “catastrophism” in the climate change horror stories.

“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” he says. [End excerpt]

Indeed.​ Billions of dollars in funding can have that effect.

​Many people have noticed that the Global Climate Change movement has become similar to a religious cult, in which even the mildest and most fact-based dissension is considered heresy. The same holds true for AIDS. Other social movements have noticed this, and taken advantage. Radical feminism, gay rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, and a host of other political movements based in falsehood have trumped both science and common sense.

​Think about that.
.
​

​

The Hate that Dares Not Speak Its Name

http://www.theboldpursuit.com/tbp-journal/2014/8/7/the-hate-that-dares-not-speak-its-name.html

 

Some mysteries seem to perplex historians across the ages.  Here is one of them. Why are Jews so universally hated?

Anti-Jewish hatred goes back at least to the bronze age. It has repeatedly surfaced in grotesque form through the centuries since. Why? What other ethnic group has endured such constant and unrelenting persecution? What other ethnic group is so consistently blamed for every difficulty faced by society? What other group is the object of so many conspiracy theories?

No sooner does one bring up the topic than a horde of Jew haters loudly accuses Jews of every imaginable form of bad conduct. The mildest of these accusations is that they are money hungry, and it goes all the way up to, and the accusers are serious about this, cannibalism. Jews are accused of drinking the blood of Arab children.

Today we see Jew hatred in all its absurdity. Consider this surreal set of facts. Hamas terrorists have launched hundreds and hundreds of missiles against Israel in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible. Israel patiently endured this barrage, fending off the attacks as best it could, with something called an Iron Dome defense system that shoots down ninety percent of incoming missiles, but not all of them. If not for Iron Dome, hundreds if not thousands of Israelis would be dead today. When finally the Israelis ran short on defenses, and when it became clear that Hamas will not run short of missiles—when it became patently clear that death will soon rain down on Israeli cities, Israelfinally fought back, targeting as best it can the missiles and tunnels that Hamas is using to wage war, and avoiding as best it can the unavoidable civilian casualties which Hamas welcomes as a propaganda tool. Yet it is Israel that is blamed. Speak of absurdity!

While Israeli spokesmen are interrogated by reporters about the many Palestinian children tragically killed and injured in this war, I have heard not one reporter, not even one, ask any Hamas spokesman this question: what would happen if Hamas stopped launching the missiles?

The answer of course is obvious. Israel would not shoot back. The Palestinian children would not be used by Hamas as human shields. News organizations would not indirectly cause even more of these deaths by publishing them as propaganda. People now dead would still be alive.

Jew haters do not like to label themselves as such. Instead, they sift through the dictionary to find more acceptable names. They call themselves anti-Zionists, freedom fighters, and peace activists. They say that it is not Jews that they hate, but only the nation of Israel. They claim that if the Israelis would only surrender the land which they occupy, then the violence would cease.

History says otherwise. The Israeli government knows that. They refuse to go docilely to their deaths, as so many Jews did during the 1940s under the heel of the Nazis.

One would think that after so many years of Middle East warfare, the world would have stopped supporting the terrorists. Billions of dollars have been sent to the Palestinians, enough money to have enriched every Palestinian family with schools, hospitals, factories and wealth of every sort. Yet instead of using the money for peace, the Palestinian leaders have used it for murder. Despite all that, the west continues to send even more money to the terrorists.

One bizarre spectacle is that, in the United States, some of the opponents of Israel are American Jews, some of them wearing the traditional Hasidic garb. They carry signs condemning Israel, and supporting Hamas. They seek to stand side-by-side with Palestinian demonstrators, oblivious to the fact that the Palestinians hate every Jew, even the anti-Israeli Jews. The Koran makes no distinction.

There is a twisted form of reason beneath all this absurdity. Jew haters hate Jews, not because they care about Palestinians, but because they hate God. While that may sound outrageous, it is true.

No Bible-believing Christian can doubt that the Jews are the chosen people of God. The Bible makes this abundantly clear. The mission of the Jew is to bring God’s blessings into the world. Genesis 12:3 tells us this about the Jewish people: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

We as Christians are no less hated, and as the Jews are persecuted, so also shall be the followers of the rabbi known as Jesus. “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.” Matthew 24:9

Already in many parts of the world, we see horrific acts of genocide against Christians. It will only get worse. Don’t take it personally. It’s not you they hate, but God. Okay, do take it personally, if you love God.

If you think that my statements are irrational, consider these facts which you surely know. American liberals side with Hamas against Israel, even though Hamas opposes every tenet of American liberalism, such as the following. American liberals proclaim their support for same-sex marriage. In Islam, this carries the death penalty. Progressives vaunt women’s rights, yet under Islamic rule, millions of women and girls are treated as the personal property of men. Liberals demand sexual freedoms, whereas under Sharia law, even the mildest sexual expression outside of marriage is punishable by stoning unto death.

Rarely if ever do western liberals condemn these barbaric practices except at most in whispers, if even that. Somehow they have been deceived into thinking that if they side with those who hate God, then those who persecute Jews and Christians will not also persecute them when the time comes.

The American left, fellow travelers of terrorists, should read The Book of the Revelation, Chapter 17. It speaks of the harlot riding the beast, drinking the blood of saints, and who says, I sit a queen and shall know no sorrow. Yet, when the time comes, the beast destroys her also.

If they refuse to look into the Bible, then they should consult with the Moslem rulers of Egypt, who threw off the rule of terror by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was supported by Barack Obama. Egypt has amazingly sided with Israel against Hamas.

Jew hatred is not rational. It never has been. Evil has no logic, but only deception.

If you are having difficulty making sense of this, so am I. There is no sense to be made of it. As we said at the outset, some mysteries seem to perplex historians across the ages. Jew hatred is one of them.

* * * * *