Muslims don’t assimilate, they infiltrate
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD May 11, 2016
Let us first, dispense with the pretense.
Every notion we in the West have adopted in terms of dealing with Muslims, both individually and collectively, is wrong.
It is a policy based more on political correctness than on rational analysis, more on a misunderstanding of culture than religion.
The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them, similar to the tactics used by the political left, when they hurl the accusations of “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” and “hate-speech.”
It became the role of Islamist lobby organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to depict themselves as civil-rights groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded fear of them and regularly accusing the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. Of course, FBI data on hate crimes show that such allegations are nonsense.
Contrary to the propaganda, Islamophobia is not what Muslims feel, but what radical Muslims hope to instill politically and culturally in non-Muslims cultures, that is, intimidation and fear. Thereby, they can, not only further their goal of a global Caliphate, but gain a type of “respect” to which they would otherwise not be entitled based on an absence of convincing arguments or constructive contributions to society.
Danish psychologist, Nicolai Sennels, who treated 150 criminal Muslim inmates found fundamental and largely irreconcilable psychological differences between Muslim and Western culture, which makes effective assimilation at best serendipity and at worst urban myth.
For example, Muslim culture has a very different view of anger. In Western culture, expressions of anger and threats are probably the quickest way to lose face leading to a feeling of shame and a loss of social status. In Muslim culture, aggressive behaviors, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts. ( * Cmt: Absolutely true.)
In the context of foreign policy, peaceful approaches such as demonstrations of compassion, compromise and common sense are seen by Muslim leaders as cowardice and a weakness to be exploited. In that respect, anger and violence are not reasons to begin negotiations, but are integral components of the negotiation process itself. ( *Cmt: Also true as is duplicity )
According to Sennels, there is another important psychological difference between Muslim and Western cultures called the “locus of control,” whether people experience life influenced by either internal or external factors.
Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivations, and our way of communicating; factors that determine if we feel good and self-confident or not.
In Muslim culture, however, inner factors are replaced by external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community, dictate political views, and provide rules for virtually all aspects of life.
The locus of control is central to the individual’s understanding of freedom and responsibility. When Westerners have problems, we most often look inward and ask “What did I do wrong?” and “What can I do to change the situation?” Muslims look outward for sources to blame asking: “Who did this to me?” Sennels noted that a standard answer from violent Muslims is often: “It is his own fault that I beat him up (or raped her). He (or she) provoked me.” (*Cmt: Not matter what happens they say “Allah wills” — they had no control over what they did.)
As a result, Muslim culture offers a formula for perpetual victimhood. ( *Cmt: the LEFT and Muslims have victimhood in common)
With a decrease in feelings of personal responsibility, there is a greater tendency to demand that the surroundings adapt to Muslim wishes and desires, infiltrating rather than to assimilating into a Western culture. (*Cmt: More than that the Quran demands they do so)
All of this does not bode well for the logic of any proposal to increase Muslim immigration into non-Muslim cultures or the success of any foreign policy involving Muslim nations by applying current Islamophobia-based misconceptions.
Sennels offers a harsh, but realistic prescription:
“We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies, with groups of roaming criminal Muslims overloading of our welfare system and the growing justified fear that non-Muslims have of violence. The consequences should be so strict that it would be preferable for any anti-social Muslim to go back to a Muslim country, where they can understand, and can be understood by their own culture.”
It is not from ” Islamophobia “ that we suffer , but from “Islamonausea”, a natural reaction to something culturally abnormal.
Knights of Columbus Provides Major Report on Genocide of Christians to State DepartmentReport made public at National Press Club event today WASHINGTON, March 10, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The major report that makes the case that the terror campaign being waged against Christians by ISIS and its affiliates against Christians and other religious minorities meets the definition of genocide was released today at a news conference at the National Press Club by the Knights of Columbus (K of C) and In Defense of Christians (IDC). It was presented to the State Department yesterday.The 280-page report includes substantial material not previously available, including the most comprehensive information to date on Christians who have been killed, kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery, driven from their homes, and dispossessed, as well as on churches that have been destroyed. It also details interviews with witnesses to the atrocities that were collected during a Knights of Columbus fact-finding mission to Iraq last month.Senior State Department officials had requested that the K of C produce such a report four weeks ago, as they neared a congressionally mandated March 17 deadline for making a determination as to whether or not ISIS was committing genocide against Christians and other minority groups. The report is available online at http://www.kofc.org and http://www.StopTheChristianGenocide.org. The latter site also hosts a petition on this subject to Secretary of State John Kerry. It has been signed by more than 60,000 people.The report includes an executive summary, a legal brief outlining the case for a genocide declaration, and addenda including summaries of witness interviews, a database of crimes known to have been committed against Christians by ISIS and its affiliated groups, lists of Christians killed, estimates of the number of dead in various regions under ISIS control, statements by other governments and world leaders, and additional evidence of ISIS’ intent and actions against Christians that has been widely overlooked in the Western media.”There is only one word that adequately, and legally, describes what is happening to Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East. That word is genocide,” said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson in presenting the report Thursday morning.He pointed out that the UN Convention on genocide and U.S. statue that mirror it state that genocide occurs even when the destruction of the group is “in part.” He also noted that non-legal terms such as “ethnic” or “religious” cleansing or even legal terms such as “crimes against humanity” lack the adequate elements necessary to address the situation.He continued: “In her 2002 book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, wrote that ‘the United States had never in its history intervened to stop genocide, and in fact rarely even made a point of condemning it as it occurred.’ She documents a long history of American inaction in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia.”Anderson commended “the courageous action of [then] Secretary of State Colin Powell who became the first member of any United States Administration to apply the label genocide to an ongoing conflict when he reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ‘genocide has been committed in Darfur … and that genocide may still be occurring.”He noted that “Secretary of State Kerry has a similar opportunity to exercise moral leadership.” Support for calling what is happening to Christians – and other religious minorities – genocide includes a global consensus, a strong majority of the American people according to a K of C-Marist poll and bi-partisan support from candidates of both parties including former Secretary of State Clinton who applied the label to what is happening to Christians.As the report makes clear, both U.S. and international law are clear on the matter, and this case meets the legal definition of genocide at every level.Anderson also noted that 200-plus members of Congress from both parties are co-sponsoring H. Con. Res. 75. He added that “today we renew our support for this excellent piece of legislation and applaud its progress.””The evidence contained in this report as well as the evidence relied upon by the European Parliament fully support—I would suggest compel—the conclusion that reasonable grounds exist to believe the crime of genocide has been committed,” Anderson said.”While we believe this to be the most comprehensive report on this subject to date, covering incidents in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, we continue to receive new reports and new evidence,” said Anderson. But with new reports pouring in every day, he cautioned: “It may only be the tip of the iceberg.”Anderson noted that Secretary of State John Kerry himself in August 2014 stated: “ISIL’s campaign of terror against the innocent, including Yezidi (sic) and Christian minorities, and its grote
Source: Knights of Columbus Provides Major Report on Genocide of Christians to State Department — WASHINGTON, March 10, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —
Throughout these three years of his Pontificate, Francis has shown that he does not address problems through laws, but by “initiating processes” involving many people.Instead of cutting straight to the chase, he faces the long-term crisis with symbolic gestures. As a result, he has launched an irreversible cultural change.Of the hundreds of gestures and words with which he is changing the world and the Church, we are left with these seven:1- PAYING HIS HOTEL BILLOn his first day as pope, he personally collected his luggage and paid for his own hotel room. That demonstrated that everyone should take responsibility for themselves, and that the age of privileges was over.2- LIVING IN SANTA MARTAHe settled in “Casa Santa Marta.” The Pope does not want to live in an ivory tower. He wants to know the problems first-hand and not with intermediaries; he wants the people to have easy access to him.3- HUGS AND GLOBALIZATION OF INDIFFERENCEIn a world that puts economic benefit first, and classifies people based on how much they earn or how much they are able to produce, the Pope appeals to the infinite value of every human being, and he shows it by hugging and smiling with those displaced in society.4- THE OUTSKIRTSHe says reality is understood from the outskirts. He has not visited the parishes in the center of Rome, but instead has gone to the marginalized churches. Out of all of Europe, he has only traveled to Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina.During his trip to Mexico, he went where a pope has never been before: places like Chiapas, Chihuahua and Michoacan.At Easter, he celebrates Holy Thursday Mass at places experiencing pain, such as a juvenile prisons or hospices.This has opened the eyes of many people to situations they did not even know existed.5- HE RESPONDS TO PEOPLEWhen large meetings include testimonies, the Pope does not read his prepared speech, but changes it based on what he has heard.Just as he did in Sarajevo, when he heard how they had beaten a priest.”I forgive with all of my heart those that do evil.”When he was in Kenya, Emmanuel spoke to him about the plight of young people who join radical militias.POPE FRANCIS”Speak to the youth with tenderness, with sympathy, with love. And with patience invite them to a game or to hang out or to be together. Don’t leave them alone.” Or in the Philippines, when this homeless girl told him they were abandoned and no one seemed to care.”Why does God allow this to happen? Children are not to blame.”6- COURAGE AND TRANSPARENCYOn each trip, he faces press conferences on the plane without fear or censorship. He answers questions freely, without fear of being wrong, and is unafraid to confront sensitive issues, such as the corruption in the Church, sexuality or what he holds in his heart.7- DECISIONHe has made concrete and difficult decisions to simplify the Vatican’s structure.He has created a council of 9 Cardinals that help him govern and ensure that any bishop has direct access to the Pope. He has instituted a commission to prevent sexual abuse cases; and he has refined the Vatican bank.PRAYERAlthough it is not a change, what Pope Francis is doing cannot be understood, without mentioning he is a mystic who has complete trust in God. When faced with an imminent bombing in Syria, he called for a 4 hour prayer vigil in St. Peter’s Square.The word most often repeated during these years is what he uses to define God: “Mercy.” A word that contains the slogan and the strength of his Pontificate.
<p>Source: <a href=”http://www.romereports.com/2016/03/12/the-seven-major-changes-made-by-pope-francis”>The seven major changes made by Pope Francis</a></p>
<blockquote>Last week, TV actress Amy Brenneman told the women’s magazine Cosmopolitan that she has never regretted her abortion.Brenneman said she felt prompted to tell her story after asking Nancy Keenan, the former president of the radical pro-abortion group NARAL, why the pro-abortion movement is losing support while the pro-life movement is gaining it.“She answered with one simple word: ‘stories,’” Brenneman said. “This makes sense to me. I am a storyteller by trade, after all. I believe that we connect and learn by the specifics of stories, our own and others’.”“I have never, not for one moment, regretted my abortion. My husband of 20 years and I became parents when we had built a home to nurture our children. Indeed, being a parent has only strengthened my commitment to reproductive justice as access to legal abortion allows children a fighting chance to be born into families that desire them and can support them,” she said.Now, Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee congresswoman, has written an open letter to Brenneman.Black was a registered nurse for 40 years. Her letter follows:I read with interest your February 29th column in Cosmopolitan magazine about your personal experience with abortion. While we approach this sensitive issue from different viewpoints, I thank you for sharing your story. I agree that women, regardless of their opinion, should talk honestly about this matter. I also know that some who, like me, identify as pro-life and oppose abortion have not always conveyed that opinion with the compassion and empathy that should be afforded to this topic on both sides of the debate, and for that I am sorry.CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE! Like you, I know what it is like to be single, pregnant, and uncertain of what the future holds. I was carrying my youngest child to term when my first husband left me amid the demons of alcoholism. Later, in my career as an emergency room nurse, I met other young women in this same precarious position. I believe that the pro-life community has a responsibility to those women. It is why I have long supported the work of my local crisis local pregnancy center and other nonprofits that offer real, tangible help to women in this very situation – everything from diapers and formula to counseling and prayer.I want you to know that I agree with you on the need to defend every woman’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As you and I know, this has not historically been the case and I am keenly aware of those whose shoulders I now stand on as a woman who cannot only vote but can also serve in Congress.I want every young girl, including my two granddaughters, to be able to – as you say – “choose their destiny.” I believe that protecting those rights, however, starts with protecting the most foundational right of all: the right of a preborn, human being with a beating heart to see the light of day. A young woman cannot choose her destiny if her life is cut short in the womb.When we frame abortion as a means of female empowerment, we don’t tell the full story. Indeed, studies show that abortions worldwide disproportionately impacts baby girls. Consider a 2012 report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph on abortion practices in India, where there are believed to be as many as eight million cases of female sex-selective abortion over the last decade, a phenomenon that is now affecting the country’s overall gender ratio.
I say this not to shame any woman who has made the difficult decision to have an abortion but rather in hopes of raising the consciousness of this nation so we can enact needed protections for these members of the human family.
Specific to your concerns on the Texas abortion law now in question before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, I readily admit my own bias. That said, I believe the standards you call “onerous” and “unnecessary” to be quite modest.
As you know, the disputed Texas law has two key provisions. First, it requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles so that a patient receiving an abortion can be quickly transferred in the event of complications and, secondly, it requires abortion clinics to abide by the same safety standards and licensing requirements as other outpatient surgery centers in the state. To be clear, the law does not attempt to illegalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
I passionately believe in protecting the unborn, but I also believe equal attention must be devoted to protecting their mothers. While I disagree with the choice of abortion, I do not believe any woman should lose her life at the hands of an unregulated, unsafe abortion clinic or a fly-by-night abortion doctor. That is what this law aims to prevent.
It is my hope that women’s advocates – and you are certainly a needed and influential one – will take a deeper look at this law and applaud these commonsense standards rather than attempt to turn back the clock and strip them away.
<p>Source: <a href=”http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/08/congresswoman-writes-amazing-letter-to-amy-brenneman-who-doesnt-regret-aborting-her-baby/”>Congresswoman Writes Amazing Letter to Amy Brenneman, Who Doesn’t Regret Aborting Her Baby | LifeNews.com</a></p></blockquote>
This is the stuff of that should prompt a Congressional Investigation or Naval Court of Inquiry. Call your US Congressman. Do what you can!
DON’T GIVE UP THE SHIP
Bob Lonsberry © 2016
The account of two U. S. Navy vessels being seized by the Iranian navy earlier this week seems completely implausible.
No part of it makes any sense.
The story is that two river patrol boats – bristling modern-day incarnations of the Vietnam swift boats – were navigating south from Kuwait to Bahrain. At some point, via some means, the two boats, with their contingent of five sailors each, surrendered to the Iranians.
Two accounts have been offered as to how that happened. The first was that one of the vessels lost its engine and that they both then drifted into Iranian waters. The other was that the two boats had been operating fine, but inadvertently navigated into Iranian territory.
Simply put, they got lost.
Neither account seems possible.
First off, if one of the boats broke down, and the sailor aboard trained to tend the engine couldn’t fix it, the other boat would merely take it in tow and they would proceed on their way. That is not a novel maritime undertaking.
The second scenario – oops, we got lost – is even less likely. It turns out that navigation and navigation equipment are kind of a high priority for the Navy. Boats don’t get lost. Highly technical navigation equipment on both boats would have told crew members exactly where they were.
And in the unlikely event that both boats lost all electronic navigational equipment, and the compasses lost track of magnetic north, there is the simple fact that sailing from Kuwait to Bahrain pretty much involves nothing more complex than keeping the shore on your starboard side. And should you lose sight of shore, and can remember that the map has safety to the west and danger to the east, you’d think that the position of the sun in the sky or the fact that prevailing winds in the Persian Gulf in the winter are northwesterly, would somehow have allowed our sailors to find the Saudi shoreline instead of Iranian waters.
And all of that presumes that these two boats were operating alone in the open seas, which they presumably were not. There is, in fact, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf.
The USS Harry S Truman owns the Persian Gulf these days, and the significant American military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – lands immediately proximate to the waters where our sailors were operating – makes us the biggest dog on the block.
And we’ve got radar and helicopters and airplanes and stuff like that.
And if an American vessel breaks down at sea, or strays from course, under those operational conditions, there are a lot of American assets that would both notice the problem and be able to offer relief.
Yet no one did.
We’re supposed to believe nobody radioed a couple of inexplicably lost boats to ask where they were going? When one of them supposedly broke down, a carrier battle group had no means to come to their assistance?
That makes no sense.
It’s completely unbelievable.
So is the apparent conduct of the sailors in the face of a supposed challenge by the Iranian military.
If one of the vessels was disabled, as is claimed, and hostile craft are approaching, bringing with them the prospect of capture and captivity, don’t you put all 10 sailors on the able boat, sink the disabled boat, and race the bad guys back to international waters?
From the Iranian video, it looks like two or three bass boats and four guys in mismatched uniforms, with a couple of AK’s, captured two far-larger and better-armed American boats, both of which were bristling with mounted machine guns.
Here’s a fact: When you’re kneeling on the deck of your own boat, with your hands clasped behind your head, and some guy’s shouting at you in terrorist language, things didn’t go right.
And yet, that’s exactly what supposedly happened here. Ten American sailors, successors to Captain James Lawrence, are on their knees next to their unfired guns, in the face of a smaller and less well-armed opponent – with little American flags snapping in the breeze.
This is not the stuff of Commodore Perry and Admiral Farragut.
And you wonder whose call it was.
How far up the chain of command did they have to go to find the cowardly lion who ordered this genuflection before a bunch of savages? Did this get bounced all the way to the Pentagon, or the Situation Room? Which secretary of what made the decision not to put a squadron of naval aviators above those two boats to keep the camel jockeys at bay?
It is shameful, a worldwide embarrassment for the nation and the Navy.
And it is topped off by an obsequious videotaped apology, and pictures of our sailors, captive in hostile hands, the female with a towel over her head.
The President can ignore this.
But we can’t.
We got pantsed. We got humiliated. We showed either weakness or incompetence. And unfortunately either one only invites aggression against us.
It is inconceivable that you could find 10 Americans willing to surrender themselves and their equipment without a fight. It is not plausible that any young man or woman entering into the naval service would willingly kneel on the deck of a combat-capable ship.
Somebody told them to give up.
And that somebody, and the philosophy he represents, will be the death of us.
– by Bob Lonsberry © 2016
Who is the poorest of the Poor?
Is it not the one deprived of womb?
Is it not the one gone unnamed?
Given a frame
But denied rightful claim,
Stripped bear of place,
No space to grow,
Deprived of a proper birth?
Is it not the one evicted,
Before drawing it’s first breath,
Whose beating heart is silenced,
With the sanction of the Court!?
Lest the whole world hear it’s cry?
Though a mother forget her child,
The Father of all fathers
Will not, no never, forget.
He has a place,
And a name,
For all the poor,
For the poorest
Of the poor,
And "Poor No More".
©2012 Joann Nelander
All rights reserved
The recently displaced archbishop of Mosul, Iraq was speaking with particular candor when I met him last fall in the Middle East.
He said, “People in the West say ‘they don’t know.’ How can you not know? You either support ISIS or you must have turned off all the satellites. I am sorry to say this, but my pain is big.”
Like so many Christians in Iraq and Syria who watched ISIS kidnap their leaders, burn their churches, sell their children, and threaten all others with conversion or beheading; the archbishop wonders how it is that these maniacs so easily took his home city this summer?
The people whose lives have been threatened or destroyed by ISIS just don’t understand how this pre-modern evil could run unchecked.It is a good question.
Mosul is Iraq’s second largest city and was once the home of Iraq’s most vulnerable and persistent Christian community, tracing their lineage nearly to the time of Christ.
Now there are no Christians left.
All of this happened under the watchful eye of West, and while you’d hope that the humanitarian threat alone would have motivated the West to act, you would be certain that Mosul’s strategic importance would do so.
Neither proved true.
Mosul was easily taken by ISIS troops, riding in on their decrepit pick up trucks with guns bolted to them. Her ancient streets have since been turned red with innocent blood, and the city has become a base for a jihad that rages wildly throughout the entire region and boils underground in scores of countries throughout the world.
The archbishop’s perspective represented the sentiment of nearly everyone I have met or have communicated with in the region. The people whose lives have been threatened or destroyed by ISIS just don’t understand how this pre-modern evil could run unchecked.
They wonder how it could be that it took the most powerful nations in the world, using airstrikes, over four months with the help of Kurdish forces to defeat a few hundred jihadists waging war in the town of Kobani, and how it is that ISIS has been able to openly run its “state” from a self-determined capital city called “Raqqa” without the daily threat of hundreds of unrelenting airstrikes. They also wonder how it is that Turkey’s border remains so porous allowing jihadist after jihadist to readily join ISIS.
The examples of Western inaction are unending.
At present, as many as 300 Assyrian Christians remain in captivity having been kidnapped two weeks ago as ISIS assaulted ten Assyrian, Christian villages along the Khabour River in Syria. That assault was conducted by a group of ISIS fighters travelling in a convoy of more than 40 clearly marked ISIS vehicles directly toward these vulnerable, Christian villages.
How is it possible that Western satellites didn’t spot a forty-car ISIS convoy in route to unarmed Christian villages in Syria, and if it was spotted how is that it wasn’t destroyed?
The title of this article is also the name of an extremely valuable online booklet by the late Father Henry V. Sattler, CSsR (1917-1999), yet it is also an assignment for today’s parents.
Our children and grandchildren are bombarded daily with messages that contradict common sense and put their very lives in jeopardy. It is the rare school teacher, public or private, who sifts through the sexually provocative material being presented as education and chooses only that which does not offend the sensitivities of the young in her charge.
For example, with your tax dollars, Planned Parenthood is indoctrinating children on all manner of perversion, including oral sex. In one of STOPP’s reports, we read:
The CDC report, Prevalence and Timing of Oral Sex, shows that about two-thirds of 15-24-year-olds have engaged in oral sex, with those ages 15-17 having a considerably higher incidence of oral sex without sexual intercourse than others. According to the report, almost half of boys and girls ages 15 to 19 have engaged in oral sex.
Planned Parenthood vice president of education Leslie Kantor said, in a recent New York Times article, that the important thing about the study is that it shows “that it’s probably equally likely for oral sex to happen before intercourse as after . . . so we need to provide sex education to young people that provides all the information they’ll need, from STDs to pregnancy prevention.”
<a href=’http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/10/babies-born-alive-during-abortions-more-common-than-you-think/?utm_content=buffer8dc47&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer’>Babies Born Alive During Abortions More Common Than You Think | LifeNews.com</a>.
On March 29, Live Action covered the debate in the Florida legislature on a bill that would require doctors to give medical care, including transport to a hospital, to babies who are born alive during abortion procedures. A Planned Parenthood representative attempted to answer questions on why Planned Parenthood opposed this legislation. In a shocking video, she said that the decision about what to do with a living, breathing, born infant should be up to the doctor and the woman having the abortion. In other words, it should be permissible to kill that baby.
The belief that once a baby is marked for abortion, he should be killed regardless of whether he is in the womb or out of it is shocking to many people. But how common is the phenomenon of babies born alive after abortions? The truth is, we don’t know. It is likely that most of the cases never come to light. But enough of them have been documented to show that it does happen. In the upcoming series of articles, I will highlight some cases where babies were born during abortion procedures and were denied the right to life.
Abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell was performing a partial-birth abortion on a young woman. In a partial-birth abortion, just like in the more commonly used D&E abortion, the woman’s cervix is dilated with laminaria, which are small sticks that gradually expand. She is then sent home. The actual killing and removal of the baby is usually done a day or two after the insertion of the laminaria, after they have been given time to work.
In this particular case, after leaving the clinic, the woman began experiencing cramps and went to the emergency room of Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati, where she gave birth to a living baby girl. According to an article in The Southeast Missourian, the baby was put into a dish and set aside to be disposed of. Nurse Shelly Lowe witnessed the baby gasping and moving after she was told to take “it” to the lab. She reportedly said, “I don’t think I can do that[.] … This baby is alive.”
The doctors refused to give any medical care to the baby, who was estimated to be at least 22 weeks old. Lowe named the child Hope and held her until she died, wrapping her in a blanket and singing to her. Lowe said, “I wanted her to feel that she was wanted. … She was a perfectly formed newborn, entering the world too soon through no choice of her own.”
Baby Hope lived for three hours with no medical care, while local Lowe held her and other nurses watched. According to the article “The Story of Baby Hope” by Liz Townsend:
“Hospital workers who cared for Baby Hope report continuing feelings of sadness and grief, but also peace — “peace that she was comforted, held close, and even sang to until she took her last breath,” according to nurse Connie Boyles. Emergency room technician Shelly Lowe held the baby until she died three hours and eight minutes after her birth. “I sat and held her. I felt no one should die alone,” said Lowe at an April 20 news conference held by local pro-life groups. “We had her baptized. I named her Hope because I’d hoped she would make it.”
These remarks were delivered at Brigham Young University, January 23, as part of BYU’s on-going “Faith, Family and Society” lecture series.
"Henry Ford is often quoted as saying, “History is bunk.” That’s not quite accurate. What he actually told the Chicago Tribune in 1916 is this: “I wouldn’t give a nickel for all the history in the world. It means nothing to me. History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that’s worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today.”
It’s hard to imagine a better statement of the American spirit, or at least a certain strain in our national character. The Founders clearly understood the value of the past. Most were Christians. Nearly all were religious believers. They revered the memory of Roman law, architecture, and republican process. But they also very consciously intended to create a novus ordo seclorum—a “new order of the ages.”
And they succeeded. Tocqueville describes the difference between democracy and all the forms of political and social life that came before it as a gulf between “two distinct humanities.” Democratic man is very different from his ancestors—or so we’re led to believe. So it’s no surprise that Americans tend to be poor students of history. We enjoy nostalgia because it’s a kind of entertainment. But the real events of the real past come with annoying baggage. We can’t reinvent ourselves in the present if we’re dragging around a history of inconvenient duties and facts. The good news is that this is part of our genius. We innovate because we’re not crushed by the weight of our memories. The bad news is that it leads to forgetting things we need to remember. And amnesia is dangerous both for individuals and for nations."
Read more: via The Great Charter at 800 | Charles J. Chaput | First Things.
Long , but worth the watch —spot on ! Please set aside biases and listen then form your own opinion.
Jonah Goldberg took time to learn the unbiased, and actual history of the the Crusades and Inquisition periods unlike Obama whose trash talk betrayed his ignorance.
by Jonah Goldberg
"On Tuesday, the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive” at the hands of the Islamic State.
And on Thursday, President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds” . . . committed “in the name of Christ.”
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” Obama said, referring to the ennobling aspects of religion as well as the tendency of people to “hijack” religions for murderous ends.
And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
Obama’s right. Terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. I have yet to meet a Christian who denies this.
But, as odd as it may sound for a guy named Goldberg to point it out, the Inquisition and the Crusades aren’t the indictments Obama thinks they are. For starters, the Crusades — despite their terrible organized cruelties — were a defensive war.
“The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living English-language historian of Islam.
As for the Inquisition, it needs to be clarified that there was no single “Inquisition,” but many. And most were not particularly nefarious. For centuries, whenever the Catholic Church launched an inquiry or investigation, it mounted an “inquisition,” which means pretty much the same thing.
Historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, writes that the “Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions.”
In medieval Europe, heresy was a crime against the state, Madden explains. Local nobles, often greedy, illiterate, and eager to placate the mob, gleefully agreed to execute people accused of witchcraft or some other forms of heresy. By the 1100s, such accusations were causing grave injustices (in much the same way that apparatchiks in Communist countries would level charges of disloyalty in order to have rivals “disappeared”).
“The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition,” Madden explains, “first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184.”
I cannot defend everything done under the various Inquisitions — especially in Spain — because some of it was indefensible. But there’s a very important point to make here that transcends the scoring of easy, albeit deserved, points against Obama’s approach to Islamic extremism (which he will not call Islamic): Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.
Christianity ended greater barbarisms under pagan Rome. The church often fell short of its ideals — which all human things do — but its ideals were indisputably a great advance for humanity. Similarly, while some rationalized slavery and Jim Crow in the U.S. by invoking Christianity, it was ultimately the ideals of Christianity itself that dealt the fatal blow to those institutions. Just read any biography of Martin Luther King Jr. if you don’t believe me.
When Obama alludes to the evils of medieval Christianity, he fails to acknowledge the key word: “medieval.” What made medieval Christianity backward wasn’t Christianity but medievalism.
It is perverse that Obama feels compelled to lecture the West about not getting too judgmental on our “high horse” over radical Islam’s medieval barbarism in 2015 because of Christianity’s medieval barbarism in 1215.
It’s also insipidly hypocritical. President Obama can’t bring himself to call the Islamic State “Islamic,” but he’s happy to offer a sermon about Christianity’s alleged crimes at the beginning of the last millennium.
We are all descended from cavemen who broke the skulls of their enemies with rocks for fun or profit. But that hardly mitigates the crimes of a man who does the same thing today. I see no problem judging the behavior of the Islamic State and its apologists from the vantage point of the West’s high horse, because we’ve earned the right to sit in that saddle."
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate
thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you; that ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven.
Probably no admonition of Jesus has been more difficult to follow than the command to “love your enemies.” Some men have sincerely felt that its actual practice is not possible. It is easy, they say, to love those who love you, but how can one love those who openly and insidiously seek to defeat you? Others, like the philosopher Nietzsche, contend that Jesus’ exhortation to love one’s enemies is testimony to the fact that the Christian ethic is designed for the weak and cowardly, and not for the strong and courageous. Jesus, they say, was an impractical idealist.
In spite of these insistent questions and persistent objections, this command of Jesus challenges us with new urgency. Upheaval after upheaval has reminded us that modern man is traveling along a road called hate, in a journey that will bring us to destruction and damnation. Far from being the pious injunction of a Utopian dreamer, the command to love one’s enemy is an absolute necessity for our survival. Love even for enemies is the key to the solution of the problems of our world. Jesus is not an impractical idealist: he is the practical realist.
I am certain that Jesus understood the difficulty inherent in the act of loving one’s enemy. He never joined the ranks of those who talk glibly about the easiness of the moral life. He realized that every genuine expression of love grows out of a consistent and total surrender to God. So when Jesus said “Love your enemy,” he was not unmindful of its stringent qualities. Yet he meant every word of it. Our responsibility as Christians is to discover the meaning of this command and seek passionately to live it out in our daily lives.
Let us be practical and ask the question, How do we love our enemies?
First, we must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. It is impossible even to begin the act of loving one’s enemies without the prior acceptance of the necessity, over and over again, of forgiving those who inflict evil and injury upon us. It is also necessary to realize that the forgiving act must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged, the victim of some great hurt, the recipient of some tortuous injustice, the absorber of some terrible act of oppression. The wrongdoer may request forgiveness. He may come to himself, and, like the prodigal son, move up some dusty road, his heart palpitating with the desire for forgiveness. But only the injured neighbor, the loving father back home, can really pour out the warm waters of forgiveness.
Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the cancelling of a debt. The words “I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you’ve done” never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally from his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, “I will forgive you, but I won’t have anything further to do with you.” Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.
Second, we must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is. An element of goodness may be found even in our worst enemy. Each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against ourselves. A persistent civil war rages within all of our lives. Something within us causes us to lament with Ovid, the Latin poet, “I see and approve the better things, but follow worse,” or to agree with Plato that human personality is like a charioteer having two headstrong horses, each wanting to go in a different direction, or to repeat with the Apostle Paul, “The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”
This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God’s image is ineffably etched in his being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God’s redemptive love.
Third, we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding. At times we are able to humiliate our worst enemy. Inevitably, his weak moments come and we are able to thrust in his side the spear of defeat. But this we must not do. Every word and deed must contribute to an understanding with the enemy and release those vast reservoirs of goodwill which have been blocked by impenetrable walls of hate.
The meaning of love is not to be confused with some sentimental outpouring. Love is something much deeper than emotional bosh. Perhaps the Greek language can clear our confusion at this point. In the Greek New Testament are three words for love. The word eros is a sort of aesthetic or romantic love. In the Platonic dialogues eros is a yearning of the soul for the realm of the divine. The second word is philia, a reciprocal love and the intimate affection and friendship between friends. We love those whom we like, and we love because we are loved. The third word is agape understanding and creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. An overflowing love which seeks nothing in return, agape is the love of God operating in the human heart. At this level, we love men not because we like them, nor because their ways appeal to us, nor even because they possess some type of divine spark; we love every man because God loves him. At this level, we love the person who does an evil deed, although we hate the deed that he does.
Choudary argued that what we’re witnessing is a “clash of two civilizations,” with al-Baghdadi leading on one side and Barack Obama leading on the other, leading Shapiro to ask about Obama’s portrayal of Islam:
Shapiro: President Obama has repeatedly attempted to what he has characterized as “defend” Islam, saying that ISIS is not Islamic. He has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” […] But the way he characterizes Islam is not the way you characterize Islam […] How many people do you represent versus how many people does President Obama represent when it comes to Islam? Are you in fact representative of a “tiny minority” within Islam or are you representative of something larger?
President Obama, Choudary said, is "lying" about Islam, along with other Western leaders. The Koran itself shows that “Barack Obama is a liar” about the religion’s true nature:
Choudary: Islam for them is whatever they think Islam is in terms of their own interests. Islam is in accordance to the Koran, of the sayings and actions of the Prophet. That’s it. […] I say to you, look at the Koran, look at the sayings of the Prophet, and check for yourself. Is Barack Obama a liar or am I lying? I think that you will find that he’s a liar. He’s only inventing Islam according to what his own foreign policy is.
Shapiro asked Choudary if he took offense to being called a “radical” by the Western media, to which he responded that in Scripture “every prophet of Islam was demonized,” adding that he simply teaches Sharia Law as it truly is."
“As [Duke of] Wellington said, ‘nothing save a battle loss is quite so melancholy as a battle won.’ We won the battle and now we have to watch the movie,” Krauthammer said Tuesday to laughter on "Special Report with Bret Baier’s panel.
"Modern philosophy is full of all sorts of absurd theories about the illusory nature of existence and the unreliability of everything we know to be true. But the boots on the ground, living, breathing, day to day philosophy of even the most angst-ridden German nihilist or the most wild-eyed French existentialist has to be common sense realism. Even German and French philosophers must eat, sleep and conduct themselves in civil society.
There’s great consolation in the reliability of the law of gravity and the fact that it means something specific to me or anyone else when you say dog, cat, house, person, good, true and beautiful. But the last three of those words; good, true and beautiful, and maybe even person, do enjoin some philosophical reflection. They are the basis for making sense of right and wrong, obligation, prohibition and so on. Philosophy isn’t just a waste of time.
Catholicism is deeply philosophical and also deeply mystical and of late the mysticism of the Catholic world view has been confronting me with great force, and confronting the minimalist common sense realism I had more or less taken for granted.
Our parish and a number of Catholic churches I’ve been to recently have begun saying the St. Michael prayer after Mass. It is a breathtaking departure from the modern psychological deconstruction through which I have made sense of my own mental states and those of others. Pride, envy, sloth, greed, lust, gluttony and wrath are not merely maladjustments, but rather they are the snares of a spiritual being who seeks the ruin of souls. They are our weaknesses within our wounded souls, but they are also passions from outside of us, which act upon us, against which we must not be passive, or we will be swept away."
READ MORE via The Return of the Prayer to St. Michael – Crisis Magazine.
Though the news is full of U,S. illegal aliens dilemma, we are not alone. With the rise of refugees around the world immigration problems abound. Here are some of Malta’s concerns. Keep in mind that the Maltese have shared their turf with many peoples in their long history including Arab conquerors, the Brits, the French etc. and their land mass ( roughly 119 sq. miles ) makes hospitality very difficult in the face of the influx and the problems arising from a non-assimilating immigrant population.
Malta: “Patriots” protest against illegal aliens; fear Muslim takeover of Malta
Posted by Ann Corcoran on November 25, 2014
“Some of the people of Malta have had it with the huge influx of illegal aliens from Africa and the Middle East and have now joined France, the UK, Sweden, and Italy (among others) in forming a political movement in an effort to halt immigration into Europe.From Malta Today:
Malta could become a Muslim state within the next 20 years, according to Alex Pisani, the president of the self-declared Organisation of Maltese Patriots (Ghaqda Patrijotti Maltin).
“The people don’t yet know what integration means, it is like giving people full citizenship rights,” Pisani said. “These people will then also be able to bring their family members over. At this rate, we expect Malta to become an African or Muslim state within the next 20 years. Islam is slowly taking over Europe, but we have one religion- Catholicism, and we are proud of it.”
He was speaking right before the organisation’s second anti-immigration protest on Saturday morning, this time with a specific emphasis on their perceived problems brought about by integration with foreign cultures.
Pisani, 61, of Valletta, and the owner of a confectionery, again denied being a racist.
“I’m not fighting for my skin colour but for my Maltese identity,” he explained.”
Although here I must say, watching Ferguson, MO burn while the US has a black President could make one wonder if the white race is under siege around the world. Race relations in America have probably been set back decades by lack of respect for the rule of law and the violent mobs destroying other peoples’ lives and property in Ferguson.
Urging the fearful to come out and express their opinions publicly, Pisani went on to say this this:
“This is your future we’re fighting for,” Pisani told onlookers. “You should be ashamed of yourselves for not uniting with us in this protest.”
The protest ended outside Castille, with Pisani praising the cheering crowd for being “true patriots” and criticising the people who only share their anti-immigration views on Facebook.
Puppets of the EU!
When asked whether his support for such parties means that he is in favour of Malta leaving the European Union, Pisani said that it will work out well for Malta as “we have become puppets of the EU.”
New readers should know that we are bringing hundreds of those illegal aliens to the US every year. See our most recent post on that subject.
Our ‘Invasion of Europe’ series is here. You really need to know what is happening in Europe because the American press is not saying a word about the popular anti-immigration uprising on the Continent.
While he hands Iran approval for its nuclear program on a silver platter, Obama is apparently considering sanctions against Israel. He turns allies into enemies and enemies into allies — the latter in his eyes only, not theirs.
“Congress Demands Obama Explain Rumored Sanctions Against Israel,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 5, 2014 3:06 pm
Members of Congress are demanding that President Obama come clean about controversial reports that he is considering leveling sanctions on Israel, according to a letter sent Friday afternoon by lawmakers to the White House.
The Obama administration has found itself engulfed in controversy since reports emerged Thursday that the White House and State Department had met in secret to strategize about imposing sanctions on Israel for its continued building of houses in contested Jerusalem neighborhoods.
State Department and White House officials have continued to dodge questions from reporters on the matter, maintaining that they will neither confirm nor deny the reports.
The administration’s evasive position has prompted outrage among pro-Israel leaders and prompted Congress to demand that Obama start answering questions about the delicate issue.
“We urge you and your administration to clarify these reports immediately,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) and nearly 50 other House lawmakers wrote Friday afternoon, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
“Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome,” they state. “Such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”
Congress, which traditionally has purview over such measures, has never given the White House permission to sanction Israel.
“At no point in time has Congress given the administration the authority to sanction Israel,” they wrote. “In fact, Congress has continued to show its unwavering support for Israel and has recently taken steps to increase our economic and military cooperation.”
As the White House leaves the door open to sanctions on Israel, it is lobbying Congress against leveling more sanctions on Iran.
“At a time when you have requested an additional seven months to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, any attempts to undermine the U.S.’s support of Israel will only further diminish the administration’s ability to get congressional support for any potential agreement with Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.
When faced with questions about these reports—which state that classified meetings were held between the White House and State Department about possibly sanctioning Israel over the settlement issue—Obama administration officials have refused to provide a clear answer.
“I’m not going to talk about any sort of internal deliberations inside the administration and certainly not inside the White House,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Friday, a refrain also echoed by State Department spokesmen….