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