New Blog

Welcome first time visitors from Renew America!

Wednesday, December 9, 2015


If the United States is so intrinsically evil, why do so many, from so many disparate lands flee to these shores for succor? People immigrate to the U.S. whether they are under duress, or simply in search of a dream; they come by land, sea and air—often at great risk, enduring unimaginable hardships they come.

If the policies of the United States of America around the world and specifically in Islamic nations are the root cause of the enmity felt towards us by Muslims, why do so many Muslims come to the shores of their oppressor? When they are forced from their homes by warfare most commonly between fellow Muslims, it would seem logical to flee to a more peaceful Islamic land.  Yet in huge numbers, they come to America.

If some Muslim immigrants truly blame the U.S. for the ills plaguing their native lands, is it possible some in their number seek vengeance? Is it possible some may be bent on harming us not just for perceived injustices, but driven by religious beleifs? If so, how do we react? Does our desire to be a nation of inclusion at all costs amount to a sort of suicide pact?

If the number of so-called “Radical Islamists” is so infinitesimal, how are they able to control such huge amounts of land? Most in the media refer to the terrorist organization known as Islamic State as ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, natively Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.

President Obama, his State Department and the United Nations prefer the term ISIL, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant—In Arabic al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham. This appellation connotes a land the Islamists seek to control much larger than Iraq and Syria, including southern Turkey through Syria to Egypt; Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. This may have already occurred ideologically amongst many Muslims in the area if it is not yet so geographically.

Odd the President and the mainstream media are obsessed with assuring us the radical’s numbers are small in the scheme of the larger Islamic world. Yet he assigns them greater power and ambitions via the very term he prefers to use when discussing IS.

If indeed Islam itself is not a threat to the rest of the world and the West in particular, and few Muslims are in fact radicalized and are given to living peaceably, why are there so many no-go zones for non-Muslims cropping up in the United Kingdom and European cities?

The same simplistic leftists fond of blaming America’s international boorishness for Islam’s hatred of the West prefer the term "DAESH," or Da'ish to describe Islamic state.  Just an Arabic acronym for the group’s name, it is not an actual Arabic word, but it sounds like an Arabic word which translates to “Tread On or Trample Underfoot” Islamic State does not like the name at all, they truly abhor it.

If the left insists our bad behavior is responsible for Islamic aggression and they object to antagonizing Islamists with cartoons of the Qur’an’s prophet, why do they insist on taking a stick to the hornet’s nest with a name they know the “Radical” Muslims revile?

If it is not our bad behavior and calling them names the Islamists don’t like, why are we under attack?

If Climate Change, as President Obama infers is the true problem, was it climate change prompting the Islamic conquest of Judea; Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Portugal, a hunk of France; Greece, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, what is today the United Arab Emirates, southern Italy all by the mid 9th century? There was no sizable push back until 1095AD and the first Crusade.

Be ye angry, and sin not, let not the sun go down upon your wrath:”

We read these words in the Biblical book of Ephesians—A person can be angry without sin, anger is not evil when it is aimed at sin and not kindled so much by persons. We can hate the sin of man whilst still loving and praying for the man responsible for the sin against us.

The sin however must be recognized before it can be fought against whether the warfare is spiritual or physical. There is no evil in anger towards those who perpetrate horrific acts. Anger is sinful when it is without cause and prompts actions exceeding due bounds.

“…let not the sun go down upon your wrath:” This means your anger is not to be perpetual. I don’t know of a nation in the history of the world that has been more compassionate to her enemies than the United States. If you harm us, we will give you a thumping, but we have always worked to rebuild for our enemies once the fighting is done. Perhaps that is the reality of America the world sees above the sins so many in our own nation seek to accentuate.

The world sees more of the compassion of America than many of the malcontented creatures enjoying her freedoms. I am reminded of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias’ anecdote recalling one of his erstwhile Indian countrymen. The man said he so passionately wanted to come to America because he desired to live in a land where even the poor are fat.

Such a land is worth protecting. Scrutinizing those who come here is no sin. Circumspection is wisdom, especially in a time when there are those declaratively resolved to do us grievous harm.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the leader of Islamic State, Tashfeen Malik, the female terrorist involved in the dastardly San Bernardino massacre pledged her allegiance to al-Baghdadi after our nation opened wide her doors in hearty welcome, it is reported she was thoroughly vetted, she seemed nice enough—it was the first Caliph Abu Bakr, the son in law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad who started the 1500 years of Islamic aggression, the beginning of which I summarized above. Failing to recognize the true nature of a threat does not hasten its demise, nor protect the innocent be they Muslim or otherwise--rather it emboldens our enemies.

Digital Publius

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Democrats Are From Barsoom

So I just had my first opportunity to peruse the latest issue of Popular Mechanics—It features a cover story on Ridley Scott’s new film “The Martian.” The featured article begins with a sweeping description of Mars as seen through the eyes of a denizen of the red planet. You feel like you’re there yourself.

Then it struck me, this is speculative fiction being used to describe not the actual surface of Mars, but rather the speculative fiction version of Mars created for the film.  No man has set foot on Mars to know just how accurate our fantasies are.

NASA built the lunar lander with feet meant to stabilize it on what they believed would be a very, very deep layer of dust on our satellite’s surface–They believed the layer would be very deep based on the great age of the universe evolutionary science is based on—speculation drove them. They were surprised to find a very thin layer of dust arguing against great age. Nevertheless in spite of practical data to the contrary great age is still accepted.

I personally feel man should have long ago stood on the surface of Mars. Alas, we don’t actually do great things in America any more; our fantasies are far too strong. Why go to Mars when special effects have reached the point they have? Spend hundreds of millions to make a film about going to Mars in hopes of making billions, instead of spending billions to actually go there.

Heck we can use those billions we saved not going to Mars to not actually do anything here on Earth like feeding the hungry, or all the other things we are supposed to think are more important than going to Mars. America has become a nation so bogged down with what it should do; we don’t do much of anything.

The left in America likes it this way. Fantasy is the basis of all liberal thinking—Rather than dealing with real issues, the left will ever be more interested in the conjurations of feel good imaginings. Man-made climate change is real despite all the data contradicting the computer models their video games draw pixel by pixel like the latest from Pixar.

No amount of videos actually showing Planned Parenthood personnel discussing illegal activity will dislodge the notion the right is prosecuting a war on women’s rights. Doesn’t matter “Hands up don’t shoot” never happened, “Black lives matter” even as we, (Black folks) kill ourselves in Old Testament numbers on the streets and in the abortion clinics nation wide.

A boy named Ahmed dismantles a functioning digital clock, stuffing the contents into a briefcase, takes it to school and is shocked when it is perceived as a possible threat in 21st Century America. Liberals offer no end of support to the set upon “Clockmaker,” anointing his Twitter feed, offering him jobs and college tuition and trips to the White House–While pillorying another boy for having the temerity to wear an American flag T-shirt under his hoody.

A Little boy chews a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and his parents have to hire legal help to get him back in school—But a suitcase clock, carried into a school by a boy named Ahmed is an absurd thing to invite scrutiny?

People are flocking to this nation from various other Americas, fleeing most notably socialism and the crushing poverty the system creates—Yet one of the leading candidates for the Democrats is an avowed socialist bent on implementing many of the concepts Latin Americans are coming here to avoid.

Liberals for some reason think because Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama presents an American style of socialism, it will somehow work when socialism has never worked anywhere. This in the face of data demonstrating capitalism, particularly American style capitalism has, educated, fed and lifted more people out of said crushing poverty than any other thing in the history of the world.

Hillary Clinton goes further than even Richard Nixon dared to go during the Watergate scandal, which cost him the Presidency, she actually destroyed data—Data rightfully belonging to the American people, yet she is the victim of a “Vast rightwing conspiracy,” not someone engaged in shenanigans far more egregious than anything General David Petraeus was involved in.

Surah 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, (Christians and Jews) until they pay the Jizya (Humiliation tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

The Qur’an teaches three options for the world—Submit to Islam by converting, be killed, or pay a tax to live amongst Muslims without harassment—If you do not pay the tax or convert, you are back to death. This is the very definition of compulsion.

Contrast that with the teachings of Christ on the same subject of proselytizing, Matthew 10:
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Which of the two philosophies are consistent with a tolerant, freedom and liberty respecting representational republic as established by the Constitution of the United States of America? The answer is obvious to the rational, grounded in reality and truth.

For the Democrat, to compare and contrast faiths is to represent not truth, but rather intolerance—I wrote in an article years back: “…it does not follow that because we have religious freedom in America, all faiths are equally valid, or are equally useful in determining American morality or political thought."

“The wanton barbarity of those who follow the Qur'an strictly and the tragic state of affairs in Islamic nations, who base their laws on the Qur'an's brand of morality, stand as a testament to this truth, particularly as it pertains to human rights.”

Many of the world’s fugitives are fleeing Islamic states whose rule of law is based on the teachings of that very faith. So why is it wrong for Ben Carson to suggest Islam is inconsistent with American “Values and principles?” The answer is simple; the left cares more about the idea of tolerance than the principle in action.

Just like they care more about things we can’t do a thing about, like Climate Change to a point where they advocate for policies driving the price of energy up, effecting the poor they pretend to care about much more than their rich heroes like Al Gore and President Obama who do as they will energy wise.

For the leftist, the pragmatic honesty of Ben Carson is seen as an evil rather than a virtue—principles are abstract concepts with no place in everyday life. If men are from Mars, women from Venus, liberal democrats are from Barsoom—a fictionalized version of a real place much like Scott’s film—Bound by the idols and narratives they create.

Isaiah 44:
15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16 He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20 He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?

Digital Publius

P.S. today's right is not much better sadly, a field full of authentic conservatives and our front runner is a ersatz republican, or progressive glorified pitch man.