Intro to PragerU’s ‘Who Is Karl Marx?’


Intro by John R. Houk

© September 27, 2018

I have read that Millennials have become sympathetic to the concept of Socialism. Here are three definitions from Merriam-Webster:

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

 

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

 

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

Vladimir Lenin – the first dictator of the Soviet Union once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.”

 

Communism is often attributed to the theories promoted by Karl Marx. Those theories are absolutely contradictory to what has made America great. And yet Millennials find favor with the Socialist ideology that would turn America into a totalitarian nation.

 

PragerU gives a short explanation of what Karl Marx got rolling.

 

JRH 9/27/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Who Is Karl Marx?

 

By Paul Kengor

Sep 24, 2018

PragerU

 

When writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx thought he was providing a road to utopia, but everywhere his ideas were tried, they resulted in catastrophe and mass murder. In this video, Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, illuminates the life of the mild-mannered 19th Century German whose ideas led to the rise of some of the most brutal dictators in world history.

 

Click here to take a brief survey about this video.

 

VIDEO: Who Is Karl Marx?

 

_____________________

Intro to PragerU’s ‘Who Is Karl Marx?’

Intro by John R. Houk

© September 27, 2018

____________________

Who Is Karl Marx?

 

PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!

 

PRAGER UNIVERSITY IS NOT AN ACCREDITED ACADEMIC INSTITUTION AND DOES NOT OFFER CERTIFICATIONS OR DIPLOMAS. BUT IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE FREE TO LEARN.

 

© 2018 Prager University

 

PragerU What We Do Page

 

Our Vision

A more rational America 

 

Our Mission

To influence culture through digital content that advances Americanism

 

About Us

 

We take the best ideas from the best minds and distill them down to five focused minutes. We then add graphics and animation to create the most persuasive, entertaining, and educational case possible for the values that have made America and the West the source of so much liberty and wealth. These values are Judeo-Christian at their core and include the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to Leadership


Marines capture Derna 1805

Islam is at War – Respond to IT!

 

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2016

 

The Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians (IDC) collaborated recently on a near 300-page report on Muslims committing genocide against Christians. I first heard of this report on Fox News but I was reminded today of it by an email update from ASSIST News Service (ANS) entitled “NEW REPORT SHOWS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AGAINST CHRISTIANS BY ISLAMIC STATE”.

 

The was compiled expressly for Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department. The Knights of Columbus and IDC used the report as a pretext to call on America to step up to the plate and publicly declare genocide is occurring against Christians in the Middle East with a particular focus on ISIS as the perpetrator.

 

In early February 2016 Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said this about calling the slaughter of Christians genocide:

 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Thursday that the Obama administration’s hesitation to label the Islamic State’s persecution of Christians and other religious minorities as “genocide” is because of the legal ramifications behind such a designation. (White House Details Why Obama Won’t Call ISIS’ Slaughtering of Christians ‘Genocide’; By SAMUEL SMITH; Christian Post; 2/5/16 11:13 am)

 

He said WHAT? “Legal Ramifications”!

 

Christians and other non-Muslims (ISIS classifies Shias as non-Muslims also) are being slaughtered en masse and Obama is looking at the legal ramifications of labeling the slaughter as genocide.

 

The Christian Post further reports Earnest’s representation of Obama:

 

… Earnest assured that “administration lawyers” were looking into the possibility of a genocide designation.

 

“There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario,” Earnest said. “What is clear and what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24 hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria, including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out about it.” (Ibid.)

 

So it is important for Obama to bring Muslims displaced by war in Syria-Iraq for their safety BUT he has to think about it when it comes to Christians being slaughtered by Muslims.

 

Obama wants to look the other way while Christians are killed yet he made sure to assure American voters he was a Christian prior to his 2008 election. Before his 2008 election as President he was concerned enough of what Americans thought about his faith that he went out of his way to let voters know he was a committed Christian:

 

“I’ve been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years,” Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. “I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail … send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate.” (Obama sets record straight on his religion; By AP; NBCNews.com; updated 1/21/2008 10:49:46 AM ET)

 

Obama was the 20-year member of a Church pastored by Jeremiah Wright who preached Black Liberation Theology – Hate Whitey and G-d damn America – and was cozy with Father Pfleger and racist anti-Semite Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.

 

I think this gives a bit more insight into Obama checking into the legal ramifications of naming the extermination of Christians as genocide in the Middle East.

 

So what exactly is wrong with stating the obvious about genocide in the Middle East? The obvious is Islam promotes war with the West and these days against Israel and America the land of the free and the home of the brave (unless Obama screws up America more than any real American can fix). So let’s get over offending Islam and perhaps really begin offending the haters of America with WWII-style rules of engagement and smack these guys around even if civilians foolish enough to support radical Muslim movements or governments get in the way.

 

But John, one might say, that’s not politically correct when we should respect diverse peoples and cultures in this new global age we live in.

 

Man that is some horse-pucky that will end the American way of life before Obama transformationists do.

 

Well John, another might say, can you name anytime in America’s history when war or military action was used because of the doctrines of Islam? Why should Obama be the first American President to understand that Islamic doctrines are not only harmful to American National Security but also to American Interests at home and abroad?

 

Some trace the lineage of the Democratic Party back to an earlier President. So it is a bit insightful to understand the political climate that President lived in to make a decision about Islam.

Thomas Jefferson

That early President was Thomas Jefferson the third person to hold the Office of POTUS. He was elected to two terms of Office serving between 1801 – 1809. As one of the Founding Fathers Jefferson penned the text to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wasn’t directly involved at the Constitutional Convention that eventually formed the Constitution our nation has operated under since 1789. Jefferson’s lack of involvement was largely due to his diplomatic status to France first as a trade commissioner and eventually ambassadorial role replacing Benjamin Franklin.

 

Although Jefferson had no direct tie to the making of the Constitution he was still an influence because the primary framer of the Constitution – James Madison – modeled the framework a lot from Virginia’s State Constitution in which Jefferson was very involved in.

 

This excerpt from Constitution Daily sums up Jefferson’s thoughts from France on the new Constitution while the then 13 States debated its ratification:

 

While in Paris before the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson closely followed developments in the United States. He corresponded with individuals who would eventually contribute to the formation of the Constitution, like Madison and John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers.

 

 

… On June 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson with a list of the individuals attending the Convention, but explained that he couldn’t reveal more about the substance of the ongoing debates because the delegates agreed that the proceedings should be kept secret.

 

Jefferson expressed his frustration with the secrecy of the Convention, but he did share some ideas with Madison while it was ongoing. For example, Jefferson wrote to Madison on June 20th explaining why the federal government should not be given the power to veto laws passed by the states. This federal power was not included in the final draft of the Constitution despite Madison’s support of the idea.

 

On September 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson detailing some key provisions that were going to be included in the Constitution, as he reasoned that by the time the letter would arrive in France the details of the Constitution would be made public. Madison explained how state and federal governments were to be organized, and noted that some of the provisions may “surprise” Jefferson.

 

On December 20th, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention was over and while the ratification of the Constitution was being debated in state legislatures, Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison objecting to key parts of the Constitution. Among other things, Jefferson was concerned that the document lacked a Bill Of Rights and failed to establish term limits for federal officials. In earlier correspondences to other acquaintances, in 1786 Jefferson extolled government protection of civil liberties and wrote, for example, that “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press”. Jefferson also was a proponent of protections for religious liberty and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.

 

By the fall of 1788, Madison was convinced that the inclusion of a Bill Of Rights to the new Constitution would be prudent. While advocating for a bill of rights, Madison relied upon an argument first articulated by Jefferson – that a list of rights would help give the judiciary the power to ensure that other branches of governments would not infringe on citizens’ civil liberties. (A quick look at Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional legacy; By NCC StaffConstitution Daily; 11/24/15)

 

Supporters of the Constitution were called Federalists and those that opposed a central government stronger than the authority of State governments were labeled Anti-Federalists. George Washington and John Adams were the first and only Federalists elected to Office under the eventually ratified Constitution. After Constitutional ratification the Federalists tended to favor the new nations wealthy elites and a stronger central government. The Anti-Federalists became the camp that favored States’ rights over Federal or national government authority and lined up more with land owners that weren’t necessarily wealthy but were self-supporting agrarians in some fashion or another. Federalists gravitated around Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists gravitated around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

 

After the Constitution took effect the label “Anti-Federalist” gave way to the notion of a Republic with democratically elected leaders. Hence without any real political organization the group found the label or Democratic-Republican who under the simplicity of colloquialism were simply called Republicans. Modern historians will often write Democratic-Republican to differentiate from the Republican Party which exists today and whose first POTUS holder was Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860 and served from 1861 – 1865 with his second term cut short by assassination.

 

My point is the new nation was divided into political factions that were not organized politically as they are today. Ironically factions were divided between those that favored Britain or France who were still in hostility in which the American Revolution was only a subset of the decades of hostilities that existed between Britain and France. By the time of Jefferson’s Presidency, the French Revolution dethroned the French King that aided American Revolution victory. The new France devolved into violent retribution against France’s Nobility class in the name of egalitarian fraternity and democracy which ended with the despotism of Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

During these early years of the American Republic the new Federal government concentrated on domestic issues and a reduced military presence which meant no money to create a navy fleet. Foreign trade protection was first done by the British navy and after the American Revolution a short time of French protection. Definitely by the time of Bonaparte’s reign American foreign trade received no protection from either Britain or France.

 

When Americans attempted trade efforts that brought them within the reach of North Africa, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea pirates began boarding American commercial vessels, stealing goods, kidnapping or killing Americans AND placing captured Americans who couldn’t pay ransom into slavery.

 

Guess what kind of culture these pirates came from? If you haven’t guessed yet how about a clue. In the modern age which culture still kidnaps, kills and enslaves (particularly sex-slaves today)?

 

There is only one answer – ISLAM!

 

What was Thomas Jefferson’s experience and/or knowledge of Islam? An excerpt from DownTrend.com shows Jefferson’s first contact with a Muslim as while on a diplomatic mission in Great Britain:

 

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

 

Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Interesting Look Back At First American War Against Islam; By JOSEPH R. CARDUCCI; DownTrend.com; 10/11/14)

 

A Patheos article penned by an atheist explains Jefferson’s outrage also before becoming POTUS at having to pay ransoms and tribute to Islamic Barbary Pirates:

 

Jefferson attempted to create a coalition of tribute-paying European countries who would each contribute one or more war ships and jointly patrol the Mediterranean for Barbary pirates. Sometime before July 4, 1786, Jefferson drafted the Proposed Convention against the Barbary States to arrange the matter. … Jefferson’s proposal to spread the risk was met with a lack of interest from both the American Congress and European nations. As a result, America continued to lose ships to Barbary piracy for several more years.

 

It wasn’t until Jefferson became president that the U.S. ceased paying tribute and quietly launched the newly formed American navy to combat, particularly, the aggression from Tripoli. Thus began the first Barbary War in 1801, which ended in 1805 with a treaty that put a stop to the tributes and cleared the Mediterranean for the safe passage of American merchant ships. (In 1807, Algiers started taking American ships again, and it took until 1815 for America to address it militarily. This second Barbary War lasted two days and finally put an end to piracy from North Africa.)

 

 

Jefferson was the only founding father to take an active interest in Islam. He purchased his own copy of the Koran long before America’s encounters with the Barbary. His copy of George Sale’s English translation of the Koran was shipped from London in 1765 and can be viewed today at the Library of Congress. There is some speculation that this is a second copy because Jefferson possibly lost his first copy in the May 26, 1771, fire at his mother’s home. The Koran in the Library of Congress contains no written notes or comments by Jefferson (possibly because it’s a second copy), and his initials are his only inscription, although they appear curiously close to some verses regarding warfare. (Thomas Jefferson’s Struggle with Islamic Brutality; By Hemant Mehta; Patheos; 10/29/15)

 

Jefferson’s next step was after he became President. He cancelled the tribute blackmail and went after the Islamic Barbary Pirates for attacking, killing and enslaving Americans. Monticello.org gives a decent rundown of the Islamic Barbary Pirates in relation to Thomas Jefferson through at least the First Barbary War. At Monticello.org you will discover the USA bowed to paying extortion tribute to the Barbary semi-autonomous states through the first two Presidents even while Jefferson was Secretary of State.

 

Early in June, barely three months after the inauguration a small squadron — three frigates and a schooner — sailed for the Mediterranean under Commodore Richard Dale. If they found on arrival that war had been declared, the squadron was to protect American shipping from the corsairs and to “chastise their insolence … by sinking, burning, or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them.” It was also to blockade the harbor of any of the regencies that had declared war on America and, to the extent possible, was to convoy merchantmen when asked.  In addition, Commodore Dale was to take to Algiers and Tunis letters, gifts for the rulers, tribute payments in the case of Algiers and assurances to both rulers that overdue tribute was soon to be forthcoming on other vessels. And, he was to go to Tripoli. There he would deliver the President’s letter to the pasha and, if still at peace, could give Cathcart money for a gift to the pasha.18

 

Jefferson’s letter to Pasha Qaramanli emphasized “our sincere desire to cultivate peace & commerce with your subjects.” Also mentioned was our dispatch to the Mediterranean of “a squadron of observation” whose appearance [we hope] will give umbrage to no power.” The squadron’s purpose, the letter explained, was to exercise our seamen and to “superintend the safety of our commerce…[which] we mean to rest…on the resources of our own strength & bravery in every sea.”19 Meanwhile, Secretary Madison wrote American consuls in the Mediterranean that the President, convinced “of the hostile purposes of the Bashaw of Tripoli” was sending a naval squadron to protect our commerce in the Mediterranean and to respond appropriately to any powers who declared war on the United States.20

 

Unfortunately, the pasha had not waited to hear from the new president. Yusuf Qaramanli declared war on the United States on May 14, 1801 by chopping down the flagpole at the American consulate in Tripoli.21

 

On arrival at Gibraltar July 1, Commodore Dale learned we were at war with Tripoli. During the next few months, squadron vessels blocked two Tripolitan corsairs in Gibraltar, delivered goods and messages in Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, escorted American merchant ships, and briefly blockaded Tripoli harbor. In the only real action that year, the schooner Enterprize engaged and soundly defeated the Tripolitan ship Tripoli off the coast of Malta on August 1.22

 

… Two months later Congress passed an act authorizing him to instruct naval commanders to seize Tripolitan goods and vessels, and to commission privateers to aid in the effort.23

 

During the following three years the pasha maintained his demands and the United States, rotating ships and crews, maintained its naval presence in the Mediterranean as well as diplomatic efforts to make peace. In 1802 Jefferson was reportedly of the view “that the time is come when negociations [sic] may advantageously take place.” He was to be disappointed.24 Tripolitan corsairs evaded the blockade and American merchantmen were captured. Most escaped their captors; only one was carried into port, the Franklin, in 1802, and the five Americans on it were quickly ransomed. In Algiers, Richard O’Brien sarcastically remarked without comment: “It is asserted that there are at sea, at present, six sail of Tripoline corsairs & it is asserted that the frigates of the United States & those of Sweden are blockading Tripoli.”25 Nor did the blockade stop Tripoli’s trade with other Barbary powers. It did, however, interfere with it, and the other rulers sided with the pasha. The possibility of Tunis and/or Morocco entering the war became a serious concern off and on throughout 1802.

 

… “They know they cannot meet us with force any more than they could France, Spain or England,” he wrote from Monticello at the end of March. “Their system is a war of little expense to them, which must put the great nations to a greater expense than the presents which would buy it off.”26 He was still as much against buying peace and paying tribute as he had been since first dealing with Barbary in 1784; it was a matter of principle. But one had to be practical as well as principled.27

 

 

The most important naval action in 1803 involved the frigate Philadelphia, which ran aground near Tripoli in October. The pasha imprisoned the 307-man crew and refloated and repaired the stricken vessel. Before they could make any use of her, though, on February 16, 1804 a U.S. navy team under Lt. Stephen Decatur slipped into Tripoli harbor after dark and set fires on board that totally destroyed the Philadelphia. The loss of the frigate weakened the American squadron, while captives from the Philadelphia gave the pasha new leverage and prospects of substantial ransom.31

 

When news of the Philadelphia’s loss reached America, Jefferson and his colleagues began looking for a way to send at least two more frigates to the Mediterranean. Congress rallied behind the President and the navy, approving a new tax and new expenditures for the war.32 After initial political and public criticism of the president due to the devastating loss, widespread public support was stimulated by Stephen Decatur’s successful stealth mission under Tripoli’s guns.33

 

… in 1804, he decided the current squadron was not big enough to do the job. Newly-appointed Commodore Samuel Barron would command eleven vessels, “a force which would be able, beyond the possibility of a doubt, to coerce the enemy to a peace on terms compatible with our honor and our interest.”35  The expanded squadron would be more than twice the size of the original one three years earlier and its mix of frigates, brigs and smaller vessels would be better suited to its mission.

 

 

After arriving on the scene, if Barron judged it expedient he was authorized to support an overland attack on Tripoli by forces supporting the restoration to power of Hamet Qaramanli, an older brother ousted in a 1796 coup by Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. That idea had been proposed in 1801 by James Cathcart and also by William Eaton who knew the exiled Hamet in Tunis when he was American consul there. The proposal had received qualified approval from Secretary of State Madison in 1802.37

 

 

Barron had doubts about involving Hamet, but Eaton and Captain Preble persuaded him. November 16 Eaton sailed on the brig Argus to find Hamet in Egypt. Barron may have expected Eaton to bring Hamet to Syracuse for a consultation40—that is unclear—but having eventually located him, Eaton helped the ex-pasha put together a collection of a few hundred armed Arabs and Greeks, mostly mercenaries under a handful of disparate leaders. Eaton, Hamet and several marines marched their “army’ nearly 500 miles through the desert along the southern shore of the Mediterranean and, on April 27, 1805, they captured the town of Derne, some miles east of Benghazi. The Argus and two sister ships supplied them with provisions along their march and actively supported them in the taking of Derne (where Hamet had been governor three years before under his brother Yusuf). In the meantime, the American blockade of Tripoli had been maintained through the winter and spring.

 

… Then, May 18, he wrote Tobias Lear that, from what he had learned of Hamet Qaramanli, he could no longer support the plan involving the ex-pasha. He noted that the condition of some of his vessels and periods of enlistment of his personnel precluded another winter of blockade, was concerned about the fate of the American prisoners held by the pasha, and thought it time to respond to encouraging hints from Tripoli favoring negotiation. Not mentioned, but no doubt also on his mind, his health would not permit him to lead an attack on Tripoli that summer.42  Indeed, he handed command of the squadron to Captain John Rodgers less than a week later.

 

Lear sailed from Syracuse for Tripoli May 24th. Negotiations began shortly after his arrival, preliminary articles were agreed June 3 and the American captives from the Philadelphia were embarked on US vessels June 4. The final document was signed on the tenth. It involved neither payment for peace nor annual tribute. Based on the difference between the numbers of captives held on the two sides, ransom of $60,000 was agreed, well below the limit given Lear. Far to the east, the Americans, Hamet and his close associates left Derne on board American naval vessels June 12.  The Senate ratified the treaty April 12, 1806.43

 

There is MORE before and after this excerpt (The First Barbary War; Original article by Elizabeth Huff, August 2, 2011; revised and expanded by Priscilla and Richard Roberts, September 26, 2011. Monticello.org)

 

The Battle of Derna circa April 27, 1805 is what sealed the deal of the First Barbary War. The details of which are worth the read but I’ve already exceeded the purpose of writing about America’s first encounter of military action against Muslim principles of humiliating and dishonoring non-Muslims.

Stephen Decatur boarding Tripolitan gunboat reduced size

Apparently Obama has much in common with President Thomas Jefferson in that Jefferson listened to his advisors to use diplomatic efforts – including extortion payments – to negotiate a peace deal with the Islamic Barbary Pirates. However, Jefferson did finally come to the conclusion that the lack of military was costing the American National Interests more than diplomacy and extortion money. Hence the Marines sailed to the shores of Tripoli to kick some Muslim butt free Americans enslaved by Muslims and at least force an agreement not to attack American commerce.

 

The Second Barbary War (aka Algerine or Algerian War) had Congressional approval March 3, 2016. Two Commodores were given fleets to take action. Commodore Stephen Decatur (same guy who as a Lieutenant led the assault on Derna and the Tripoli raid that torched the captured the ship Philadelphia in the First Barbary War) got their first and engaged the Algerian Dey’s fleet, defeated it and forced a surrender by June 29, 1815. The Algerian Dey signed the terms of the Treaty July 3, 1815. (See Wikipedia, U. of Michigan and USWars.net)

 

The thing Obama is missing about Islam is you have to severely spank it to get its leaders – whether from a nation or terrorists. If you want to stop the genocide of Christians and stop importing American-hating Muslim from Syria-Iraq, a severe military response will be REQUIRED.

 

JRH 3/13/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR ON THE WEST

America’s historical entanglement with the “religion of peace”

 

By David L. Hunter

Nov-Dec 2015 Issue

Think-Israel

 

Those that assume that radical Islam is a modern phenomenon that became prominent during Bill Clinton’s tenure as president in the 1990s merely scratch the historical surface of America’s complicated political entanglement with the Middle East’s supposed “religion of peace.” In truth, the tentacles of radical Islam go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

 

Historically, Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to go to war against belligerent Islam. The American Revolution from English imperialism had left the fledgling republic deeply in debt. Trade of America’s vast natural resources of lumber, animal skins and crops with Europe was the economic answer. However, European markets, a traditional mercantile system, were not open to American commodities. Complicating matters was the fact that America had no navy to protect American cargo ships from Barbary pirates who were known to kidnap foreigners for ransom. Further, due to American independence, the U.S. could no longer depend upon the British Royal Navy—the greatest in the world at that time—nor the King of England, who customarily paid “tribute” (protection money) to North African pashas and the Sultan of Morocco.

 

In May of 1784 the Continental Congress dispatched Jefferson to Paris first as trade commissioner and later as ambassador to France. Very early on in the process he became aware of an unexpected reality: Christian-American hostages were being enslaved by violent Muslims. Contrary to rumor and the popular belief of the time, these North African predators were not the stereotypical pirates out for booty: wine, women, adventure and song. These “Barbary Pirates” were in fact just typical Middle Eastern Muslims known then as Mahometans or Mussulmen who did not consume alcohol and prayed to Allah several times a day. They crewed the ships of the Mediterranean Sea’s Islamic city-states and their efforts to capture cargo and passenger vessels were both economic and religious. Like today’s terrorists, these predecessors called themselves Mujahidin or “soldiers in the Jihad” and engaged in holy war against the West. Not much has changed in 200 years.

 

The Mujahidin knew the Union Jack, but they didn’t know the Stars and Stripes. Not that it mattered then or now: All foreigners and non-Muslims were targets. Jefferson foresaw the danger and spent the fall of 1784 studying Islam as well as fellow diplomats’ treatment of the long-standing issue. Specifically, in March of 1785, future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they inquired into the Mujadhins’ propensity “to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:

 

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

 

Jefferson argued correctly that paying “tribute” to Muslim extremism would encourage further malfeasance: “infidel” enslavement, hostage-taking and ship hijacking had already plagued Europe for a thousand years. Although John Adams concurred, as America had no standing navy, the circumstance forced the new, debt-ridden nation to pay a hefty 1 million dollar tithe (approximately 10% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800), a government entitlement program for terrorists that went on for 15 years. Like the monarchies of Europe, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were focused on Western expansion and did not want those efforts stymied by useless armed conflicts in the Old World. The money guaranteed safe passage of American ships and/or the return of American hostages.

 

Like today in the West’s continuing quest for crude oil instead of developing comparable domestic resources, the price remains high to do business with the barbarous Middle East. In Jefferson’s time, British merchants, British and French royalty and virtually every maritime trading country in Christian Europe capitulated to the extortion rather than shift resources from burgeoning global empire-building elsewhere. However, Jefferson realized that any peaceful arrangement with the Mujahidin was a temporary fix, which would ultimately lead to greater and greater demands.

 

Unlike the Obama doctrine of continued appeasement and hollow political “victories” not worth the paper they are written on, Thomas Jefferson wanted to fight. However, certain precincts of the U.S. government reacted haphazardly to continued acts of terrorism. In late 1793, the mass hijacking of U.S. ships by Muslims had a 9/11 effect on the U.S. economy. Four months later, on March 27, 1794, Congress—after debating the subject periodically over a decade—finally decided to build a fleet of warships: six extra-large frigates. In essence, the United States Navy was born in response to unprovoked Muslim aggression.

 

After 17 years of calling for war against Islamic extremism represented by Barbary piracy, it was not until 1801 as America’s third president that Mr. Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean to engage in a four-year war off the shores of Tripoli. Sporadically, a Western power would bombard Muslim port cities in response to the ongoing threat, but nothing ends the seemingly endless Christian-Islamic religious conflict. As history demonstrates, Obama’s political realities mirror Jefferson’s. However, Mr. Obama’s cowardly head-in-the-sand reaction is in direct opposition to Jefferson’s Reaganesque show of strength.

 

Given the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, the historic date of September 11, 1683 also comes clearly into focus. That was a turning point in human history: the defeat of the Islamic armies of the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic caliphate by Christian forces at the gates of Vienna. From that moment until the recent times, Christian or Western powers would dominate the Muslim world. Radical Islam seeks to violently overturn that arrangement through modern savagery and continuous warfare.

___________________

Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to Leadership

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2016

 

Websites Examined for Source Info

 

http://freedomoutpost.com/barbary-wars-how-thomas-jefferson-led-americas-first-war-on-terror/

 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/barbary-wars

 

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h27b-pirx.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

 

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party

 

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/timeline-terms/democratic-republican-party

 

http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/l/7/Democratic-Republican-Party

___________________

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM’S WAR ON THE WEST

 

David L. Hunter is a DC-based freelance writer whose work has been published in The Washington Times, The Washington Post and American Thinker. This article appeared May 19, 2015 in Frontpage Magazine and is archived at 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/257151/thomas-jefferson-radical-islams-war-west-david-l-hunter.

 

The painting by Dennis Malone Carter of American navy men led by Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan gunboat on August 3, 1804 is not part of the original article. The painting depicts Decatur and the Muslim captain (the two men slightly right of center in the painting) in mortal combat; Decatur (in sailor whites) is pulling out a gun; the captain (white turban) holds a sword in his upraised arm. The episode is vividly described in “Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Pirates” on the Extraordinary Lives of Intrepid Gentlemen website and is archived at
http://www.intrepidgentlemen.com/2012/06/11/stephn-decatur-and-the-barbary-pirates/.

 

 

Think-Israel Subscribe Page

Bad News, Good News, and a Common Blind Spot


Let me ask a question: When you think of a person who is a Nazi do you also think that person is a follower of the ideology of Nazism? Both person and ideology are thought of as evil, right?

Hmm… So why is a Muslim divided into moderate-good and radical-evil Islamic ideology when both the moderate and the radical both believe the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah? Or why do present day multiculturalists brainwash students and listeners that Islamic history during Muhammad’s life and the next thousand years or so are taught that this time period is the golden age of Islam? Keep in mind I ask about this golden age fallacy because one can account for about “270 million killed by jihad”.

Elsa Schieder addresses the hypocritical paradox about personhood and ideology.

JRH 2/3/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

Bad News, Good News, and a Common Blind Spot

By Elsa Schieder

January 30, 2016 2:37 PM

Sent by WorldTruthSummit.com

Today, bad news, good news, and a way that most people – even those very aware of the threat of Islam – are asleep.

Bad news. In Israel, the stabbings of Jews by Islamics continue. A mother was murdered in front of her children. In Canada, a man named Mohammed entered a Calgary nightclub with a gun and started firing. There was only one injury – bouncers tackled the man, subdued him. In Paris, a man with 2 guns, ammo and a Quran was caught in Disney Land. A 22-year-old Swedish woman, daughter of Christian refugees from Lebanon, was murdered by an Islamic so-called refugee at a refugee center for unaccompanied minors. (The supposed minor was over 6′ tall.) Another story from Sweden: a 15-year-old Lithuanian student was murdered by an Islamic student after the Lithuanian student protected a non-Islamic female student from sexual harassment. In Berlin, a German-born Iranian Muslim man murdered a 20-year-old German woman by pushing her into the path of an oncoming subway train. I could go on and on.

I hear so many stories, and grieve for the lives lost.

Good news. There’s a new Fortress Europe coalition. It’s planning to hold mass demonstrations across Europe on February 6. And in the United Stated, a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has declared that, if elected, he will stop all Islamic immigration until the jihad threat has been eliminated.

Will enough people wake up in time to save the West? My inner answer: yes. At what cost? We will see. I remember a film that gripped me when I was a child: High Noon. It feels like high noon, right now.

And now I want to pay attention to a way that most people are asleep.

It should be obvious: Christians are to Christianity, what Muslims are to Islam, what Nazis are to Nazism. But just try and see – maybe even on yourself – and you’ll almost certainly experience very different responses to the 3 things. I can certainly feel this in myself. My intrained [sic] kneejerk response re Muslims and Islam: of course one can’t generalize about Muslims, Muslims are people, Islam is an ideology. My kneejerk response re Nazis is utterly different: within myself, I tar them all with the same brush – bad, evil, Jew-killers. As for Christians, it’s also automatic: I don’t feel any need to say, of course not all Christians are like this or that.

I did a mini-experiment with a few people when they spouted the usual line (“We must be careful not to negatively stereotype Muslims”). I agreed vehemently, that it’s important to distinguish between Muslims (people) and Islam (ideology) – just as we need to make a distinction between Nazis (people) and Nazism (ideology). The people were stunned. Spluttering. Silence. What??

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I have heard. Instead I could feel a powerful double standard, which these people – and most Western people, I suspect – hold, without awareness.

The biggest thing: Muslims are radically disconnected from any of the nasty ideology found in the supposedly perfect Quran. On the other hand, Nazis are 100% connected to The Final Solution (the plan to murder all Jews) – though The Final Solution is NOT in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in fact was not developed until 1942, the middle of World War II. Yet in World War II, there were no cell phones, no instant videos instantly uploaded, no selfies of SS guards herding Jews into the gas chambers. There was no Twitter, no Facebook, no internet. There was even no mention in the news – for the most part, outside as well as inside Germany – of the concentration camps. Not a single train track leading to the concentration camps was ever bombed.

Now there is a wealth of information on Islamic ideology, plus there are scores of graphic videos of Islamics quoting the Quran while committing atrocities. No one can say that Muslims have no access to knowledge of Islamic ideology that includes Jew hatred, belief in Islamic superiority, and worldwide Sharia, and an Islamic caliphate. In fact, there is massive evidence that millions of Muslims adhere to this ideology. About three-quarters of a billion Muslims (about 50%), according to some recent statistics, want worldwide Sharia.

So what is going, that now, with all this information readily available, Muslims are “anti-demonized”, disconnected from Islamic ideology?

Just ask yourself:

– Why it isn’t even suggested that we need to distinguish between Nazis (people) and Nazism (Nazi ideology as laid out in Mein Kampf)?

– Much more important, why is it drilled into us (correctly) that we need to distinguish between Muslims (people) and Islam (Islamic ideology as laid out in the Quran)?

 – But why it isn’t drilled into us that we must educate ourselves as well as Muslims – or that Muslims are responsible for educating themselves – on Islamic ideology, so we all know the ideology Muslims are associating themselves with?

To me, it doesn’t make any logical sense to demonize all adherents of one of these ideologies (Nazism), while treating adherents of the other (Islam) with kid gloves – “one must not generalize about Muslims.”

We know the answers to these questions, actually. Islam is powerful. So are the politically correct. Nazis are not. It’s easy to demonize those out of power.

Now for something else, something that shocked me, and made me do a lot more thinking about Nazis and Nazism.

It’s something I came across accidentally online. I had to look twice to believe what I was seeing. I was so shocked I didn’t even mention it to anyone for a week. I was looking for Silent Night, in the original German. I found a lovely sing-along version by Nana Mouskouri. Then, in one of those automatic changes, right after Nana Mouskouri finished, on came a German version of White Christmas. Nothing strange about that – except that it included photos of Hitler. (183,942 views. 522 likes. 87 dislikes. January 30, 2016.)

Sweetly ring the bells Christmas

As I said, I had to look twice to believe what I was seeing. Hitler at Christmas.

Then I clicked off the video.

You can see it here: https://youtu.be/jE2vyGSbUVM

VIDEO: Weiße Weihnacht (White Christmas) German – Sing Along

Posted by Valhalla Videos Network

Uploaded on Dec 20, 2007

This is White Christmas in German Sung by the boy choir Toelzer Knabenchor.
This music video is a continuation to last year’s Christmas video of Stille Nacht (Silent Night) which I did. I’ve included subtitles if you want to sing along also with a few pics and video clips from Germany during Christmas between the late 1930’s till the early 1940’s. Enjoy!

A week later I went looking for the video. It was easy to find. Once again, it came on automatically after Nana and her sweet sing-along. This time I made myself watch closely, quietly.

I could understand the images of German housewives, little German children, German soldiers.

image006

image007

And there is only one wish

May there be peace on earth forever. Wonderful words.

All that existed – people, not some strange monsters, celebrating Christmas.

I could feel the humanity of the young soldiers who went to war – like my 2 oldest uncles, 18, 19, both killed on the Russian front when my father was a boy.

Gone are worry and pain

The celebration of love is now here.

But, as I’ve said, I was stopped cold at the photos of Hitler.

And I was stunned that this video played automatically. What was going on here?

One good thing. Most of us – including myself – are at pains to make the distinction between Muslims and Islam. Muslims are people – lots of different attitudes and viewpoints – while Islam is an ideology.

The video got me to recognize, on a gut level, how differently I have been trained to respond to Nazis and Nazism, than to Muslims and Islam.

So, one thing positive, for me, about the images of German citizens celebrating Christmas during World War II is that the people were not demonized.

Sweetly ring the bells Christmas

One thing horrific is that Hitler was in there.

That crossed my inner line so much that I did what I tend to do when something is too much. I pushed the video out of my mind for a few days. I “numbed out.” But now I’ve done what I generally do next: I’ve thought about it more, and I’m writing to you about it.

I wonder: how many people, like me, react with shock when they see the video? How many don’t think about it at all? And how many are glad of the positive images of Hitler?

By the way, I had another experience of the way that Islam is let off the hook when I recently attended a presentation on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. The presenter had many statistics – including that 91% of Muslims surveyed in (I think) Morocco were anti-Semitic. However, even when repeatedly pressed, he refused to make any link between the rise of anti-Semitism, the growing Islamic presence in Europe, and the anti-Semitism inherent in the Quran. Instead there were dismissive comments: basically, the Quran was deemed irrelevant. It was as if I were faced with someone truly closed to considering that there could be a connection between lung cancer and smoking.

And now, to all of us who care and dare, to life and to love,

Elsa

PS. American volunteers wanted to Stop the Stealth Jihad in America: The Truth in Textbooks Project. TNT (Truth in Textbooks) is joining ACT for America Education to form the most extensive teams to review social studies textbooks in the country. Training classes start in April, July and Oct 2016. The goal is to have a total of 300-500 volunteers fully trained by the end of this year. More information here: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2016/01/seeking-volunteers-to-stop-stealth.html

You can also get more information at: tnt@actforamerica.org

PPS. And this is if you are a British citizen or UK resident – a petition to ban Sharia in the UK. Please sign, support, send on: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/107864

PPS. Strange what shocks us. I don’t watch videos of beheadings. But I’ve heard of them so often that I’m not shocked that they exist and that millions have watched. On the other hand, Nazis not demonized!! That shocks me!!

PPPS. The next update will likely only come in 2 weeks.

PPPPS. More images from the video.

May there be peace on earth forever

 

Merry Christmas

PS. For lots more, come to: http://ElsasEmporium.com

___________________

John R. Houk Editor

© Elsa Schieder

ELSA, TRUTH SLEUTH:
MY JOURNEY INTO ISLAM

It could be about, how I came to find the wonder of Islam.

The words that come into my mind: The Heart of Darkness, the title of a novel by Joseph Conrad.

What I mean is that I found so many things I did not expect, so many things I could not admire. I would have loved to find a religion of peace. I did not. I feel as if I slowly stepped into a cave, slowly found lights, and had to recoil from what I found.

In one corner, the corpses of 600-900 dead Jews, murdered by Mohammed. The story isn’t one I found in early versions of his story that I came across. But it’s right there, hinted at in the Qu’ran, and spelled out in detail in the Sira and Hadiths (very revered Islamic religious texts). The story is right there.

But I didn’t find the story until late in my exploration, when I already had a good idea of what kinds of things I’d be coming across.

The early explorations were much more tentative.

After all, I was told Islam was a religion of peace. But something did not make sense.

It was a bit like being a detective – Nancy Drew, say – young and innocent and very Western. Why was there this feeling of danger when I was tiptoeing into finding out about a religion of peace? The cave felt damp, and at the same time dusty. It felt that much lurked, that did not want me tiptoeing around, just wanting to look and see. But why should this be, if this was truly a religion of peace? After all, all I READ THE REST

Myanmar Buddhist Mob Violence Wrong, But…


Someday the Rule of Law Must Face Purist Islam Threat to Society

By John R. Houk

© June 18, 2015

A couple days ago I posted “Military Action Needed to Save Christians under Muslim Domination”. It is a lengthy post so in a nutshell I penned my displeasure with our American President and the Western powers who are burying their head in the sand while Christians are being slaughtered by ISIS and persecuted across the rest of the Muslim dominated world.

I was so ticked off about BHO inaction that I suggested wealthy benefactors start footing the bill to raise a private army to do what President Barack Hussein Obama either fears to do or is casually allowing due to his disdain for Biblical Christians who view Marxist oriented Black Liberation Theology (See Also HERE) as more racist (See Also HERE) than Christian.

In light of Obama allowing Christians to be butchered by ISIS I ran into an editorial report by Raymond Ibrahim that was originally on Pajamas Media and FrontPage Mag about Buddhists in Myanmar (former Burma) getting fed up with the terrorism of their Muslim minority and striking back in an uncomplimentary fashion. Ibrahim is the only writer that I have seen that is supporter of the Buddhist Monk Ashin Wirathu who is being accused of being an intolerant Buddhist terrorist fomenting Burmese Buddhists into acts of violence against the minority Burmese Muslims who primarily known as Rohingya Muslims with a Bengal heritage (although there seems to be a mixture of Asian Muslims as well).

Let’s be honest. The Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar are receiving horrendous treatment by the Buddhist majority. They are beaten up, property defaced and their population has been displaced to squalid barely habitable refugee camps within and outside Myanmar. Their treatment is hideous and inhumane, BUT these are things that should sound familiar however in a reverse order.

In Egypt Christians are kidnapped, raped, forced to convert to Islam and into marriage, property is burned, Churches are torched and Egyptian Christians are murdered. Pakistan Christians receive the same treatment as Egyptian Christians. Arab Christians once a significant minority among the Arabs who falsely call themselves Palestinians have fled to Western nations to escape Muslim intolerance. Nigerian Christians have been raped, become sex slaves and slaughtered by Muslim Boko Haram terrorists. Kenyan and Somali Christians have been slaughter victims of Muslim El Shabaab terrorists. AND Christians in Syria and Iraq are experiencing everything Egypt and Pakistan face but also experiencing genocide as in ethnic cleansing at the hands of ISIS.

So as I said, does the plight of the Rohingya Muslim sound familiar?

If you Google the Rohingya Muslims you’ll notice a Western World media outrage for them. YET the Muslim dominated Christians that way outnumber the Rohingya Muslims in genocidal numbers might get also-ran coverage by the media.

The thing is Buddhist intolerance for the Rohingya Muslims was a learned experience due to the consistent actions of Islamic Supremacism that resulted in forms of violence against Buddhist young girls and women alike as well as toward Buddhist Monks:

In June 2012, riots erupted in western Rakhine State after the rape and murder of a Buddhist girl by three Muslim men. Rakhine Buddhists retaliated by killing ten Muslims in an attack on a bus and the fighting quickly spread between Buddhists and Rohingya. There were casualties on both sides but most observers agree that the Rohingya suffered a disproportionately greater loss of life and property; many people displaced by the conflict are still in temporary camps today. (Are Extremist Buddhists in Burma attacking Helpless Muslims? Posted by Juan Cole – By Matthew J. Walton; JuanCole.com; 7/24/13)

BareNakedIslam.com Screen Shot – Monk Thawbita: Burned Alive by Muslims in Meikhtilar

Perhaps the biggest instigator of the flare-ups of intercommunal violence is and has been the many rapes and murders of Buddhist women and girls, by Muslims, especially by Bengali Muslims.

The rising number of brutal rapes of Buddhist girls set off increasingly boiling tensions as the abuses, intolerance, violence, and supremacy of the Muslims drives the Buddhists to the point of taking action to stop the violent abuses.

… READ ENTIRETY (RAPES, ATTACKS, AND MURDERS OF BUDDHISTS -MUSLIMS CREATE THE DISLIKE OF MUSLIMS; Published by Rick Heizman; Scribd.com; 10/12/13)

A high-level delegation from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that included foreign ministers from Islamic countries arrived in western Myanmar’s troubled Arakan State on Friday. The Muslim delegation was greeted by more than 3,000 outraged Buddhist protestors…outrage caused in part by the kinds of atrocities described below, which happen often in Myanmar.

• 18-11-2013: An Arakanese young girl aged( 6) was raped and brutally murdered by Bengali muslims at Kra Nyo Pyin village of Kyauk Taw township in Arakan State, Western Burma.

• 17-11-2013: An Arakanese young girl aged (5) was brutally murdered and kept underground. People found her on 18-11-2013 at 10:00 morning at Paut Taw – West Phayoungka island Soe Mea Kyi village.

• Bengali Muslims physically tortured and gang-raped an Arkanese minor girl at Rakhine State, western Myanmar.

• A six-year-old girl, named Mi Mi Nge, daughter of U Shwe Aung and Daw Moe Moe San living in Kyar Nyo Village in Kyawtaw Township, was abducted by Bengali Muslims from Ywar Hnyar Village on Monday evening. When dawn broke, her body was found dumped at paddy field outside the village. She was found to be wounded on the head and injured on both cheeks. (MYANMAR: In honor of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) leader’s visit, Muslims rape and murder more very young Buddhist girls; By BareNakedIslam; 11/20/13)

The Bangladeshi government is accusing Rohingya Muslims from Burma of involvement in a wave of Muslim attacks on Buddhist temples in southeastern Bangladesh on Saturday and Sunday.

Bangladeshi Home Affairs Minister Mohiuddun Khan Alamgir Monday said Rohingyas were among the thousands of anti-Buddhist rioters who vandalized and looted at least 10 Buddhist temples and dozens of homes in the district of Cox’s Bazaar, bordering Burma. He also accused radical Islamists and opposition party activists of instigating the riots as a “premeditated and deliberate” attempt to disrupt communal harmony.

The attacks began late Saturday after local Muslims found a photo of a burned Quran on Facebook. Rioters who deemed the photo offensive to Islam blamed it on a Buddhist man and went on the rampage in minority Buddhist areas, looting property including statues of Buddha.

Tensions between Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists in western Burma’s Rakhine state escalated into violence in June, killing about 90 people. Many Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh to escape the fighting. (Bangladesh Accuses Rohingya Muslims of Attacking Buddhists; VOA News; 10/1/12)

The Buddhists of Myanmar practice the Theravada version of Buddhism (See HERE, HERE and HERE). Their religious beliefs are not encoded with hatred toward Muslims, but Islamic revered writings are large and explicit to attack those who insult Islam who adhere to any non-Muslim religion, creed, ideology or individual.

As distasteful as it seems – especially to Americans – harshness toward those who adhere to the purity of the Quran, Hadith and Sira will someday have to be dished out by Westerners and Americans to survive an intolerant Islam. I cannot agree with the societal violence encouraged by the Buddhist Monk Ashin Wirathu, someday the Rule of Law will have to start treating purist Islam as a threat to Constitutional Liberty and Freedom. Illegalizing theopolitical doctrines that call for violence, executions and rebellion against the Constitutional government will have to occur and be enforced for at least the American way of life to continue.

JRH 6/18/15 (Hat Tip: Expose Islam)

Please Support NCCR

**************************

West Misses Point—and Lesson—of Buddhist Anti-Muslim Sentiment

By Raymond Ibrahim

March 3, 2015

FrontPage Mag

Originally published by PJ Media

Ongoing reports decrying “anti-Muslim” Buddhists seem to miss the point: this antipathy did not appear out of thin air but rather in response to Islamic aggression—the same Islamic aggression the rest of the world is trying to cope with.

A Financial Times editorial titled “Buddhist militancy triggers international concern” opens by describing the “traumatic first-hand view” of a Muslim woman whose home was attacked and possessions plundered by Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Says the woman: “If I could meet those responsible, I would ask: ‘Sir, does your Lord Buddha teach this?’”

Some paragraphs down, readers discover that her home was attacked during the course of “two days of clashes with Muslims,” which were “sparked by a street-corner disagreement between a Buddhist monk and a young Muslim,” and which left three people—religious identity unstated—dead.

So even this centerpiece story meant to demonstrate Buddhist intolerance begins with a quarrelsome “young Muslim” who may have been the one to initiate hostilities (unlike, for example, the habitual and unprovoked persecution millions of Christians and other minorities experience in the Muslim world.) But FT does not allow for that interpretation, arguing instead that the incident “is part of a wider trend: the rise of a new generation of militant anti-Muslim Buddhist organisations.” At no point does the editorial point out that Muslim minorities regularly provoke Buddhist backlashes.

An Al Jazeera report titled “Myanmar’s Buddhist terrorism problem” cites major clashes that erupted in May 2012 and which displaced numerous Muslims. But, as one digs further, one realizes that these clashes were sparked after Muslims raped and slaughtered a Buddhist woman.

And a New York Times article tells of how

Ashin Wirathu, a Buddhist monk with a rock-star following in Myanmar, sat before an overflowing crowd of thousands of devotees and launched into a rant against what he called “the enemy”—the country’s Muslim minority. “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog,” Ashin Wirathu said, referring to Muslims. “I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers.”

While all such reports are meant to highlight Buddhist intolerance, for those who can read between the lines—or who are familiar with Islamic teachings, history, and current events—it is clear that Buddhists are responding to existential threats posed by the Muslims living among and around them

.

Consider the words of Fr. Daniel Byantoro, a Muslim convert to Orthodox Christianity:

For thousands of years my country (Indonesia) was a Hindu Buddhist kingdom. The last Hindu king was kind enough to give a tax exempt property for the first Muslim missionary to live and to preach his religion. Slowly the followers of the new religion were growing, and after they became so strong the kingdom was attacked, those who refused to become Muslims had to flee for their life to the neighboring island of Bali or to a high mountain of Tengger, where they have been able to keep their religion until now. Slowly from the Hindu Buddhist Kingdom, Indonesia became the largest Islamic country in the world. If there is any lesson to be learnt by Americans at all, the history of my country is worth pondering upon. We are not hate mongering, bigoted people; rather, we are freedom loving, democracy loving and human loving people. We just don’t want this freedom and democracy to be taken away from us by our ignorance and misguided “political correctness”, and the pretension of tolerance. (Source: Facing Islam, endorsement section).

The fact is, as in other countries where they are minorities, Muslims in Buddhist nations often initiate violence and mayhem. In Buddhist-majority Thailand, where Muslim minorities are concentrated in the south, thousands of Buddhists—men, women, and children—have been slaughtered, beheaded, and raped, as Muslims try to cleanse the region of all “infidel” presence. (Click here for graphic reports and images that shed light on why Buddhists are becoming increasingly anti-Muslim.)

Accordingly, Wirathu, the “radical” Buddhist monk cited by FT, NYT, and Al Jazeera—the latter simply calls him the “Burmese bin Laden”—is on record saying: “If we are weak, our land will become Muslim.” The theme song of his party speaks of people who “live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us”—a reference to Muslims—and how “We will build a fence with our bones if necessary” to keep them out. His pamphlets say “Myanmar is currently facing a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization.”

To this, the NYT scoffs, pointing out that “Buddhism would seem to have a secure place in Myanmar. Nine in 10 people are Buddhist… Estimates of the Muslim minority range from 4 percent to 8 percent…”

As mentioned, however, in neighboring Thailand, Muslims also make for about 4% but are engaged in a genocide against Buddhists in the south where Muslims are concentrated.

More importantly, history—true history, not the whitewashed versions currently peddled in American schools—demonstrates that for 14 centuries, Islam has, in fact, wiped out entire peoples and identities: what we today nonchalantly refer to as the “Arab World” was neither Arab and almost entirely Christian in the 7th century, when Islam came into being and went on the jihad. Today, Christians remain a persecuted and steadily dwindling minority.

If Buddhists understand that their entire civilization is at stake, the FT, NYT, and of course Al Jazeera editorials carry all the trademarks—moral relativism and pro-Islam bias, and that dangerous mixture of confidence and ignorance—that characterize the Western elites’ inability to acknowledge, let alone respond, to Islamic aggression.

*

Don’t miss Raymond Ibrahim on The Glazov Gang discuss “ISIS’s Islamic Inspirations“:

VIDEO: The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS’s Islamic Inspirations.

Published by The Glazov Gang

Published on Jul 11, 2014

_______________

Myanmar Buddhist Mob Violence Wrong, But …

By John R. Houk

© June 18, 2015

______________________________

West Misses Point—and Lesson—of Buddhist Anti-Muslim Sentiment

 

About Raymond Ibrahim

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

 

COPYRIGHT © 2015 · FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

In the Name of Humanity


VIDEO: Iraqi Yazidi MP Breaks Down in Parliament: ISIL is Exterminating my People

 

Intro to J. O. Smith’s ‘In the Name of Humanity’

Edited by John R. Houk

August 17, 2014

 

As a Biblical believing Christian I place all other religions in a box of shunning. As a First Amendment believing and promoting American I believe each individual has the right to worship whoever or whatever they believe. However, because I believe in Religious Freedom does not mean that I will not point that which is particularly abhorrent to the Christian faith. I definitely am not a promoter of Multicultural Diversity that dilutes my Christian cultural heritage. And so I am often labeled a bigot.

 

Tackling contrary religious beliefs probably would be a multi-post project of which I am already in the middle of two. Allow me to say this as briefly as I can pertaining to Islam. Islam is not only an antichrist religion that focuses on eliminating Christians and Jews their Quran deceptively call the People of the Book, that particular religion especially represents everything that is destructive to the Western Culture that has led to the best rule of law document that has become the guiding light politically leading to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – the United States Constitution. Because of this violent goal to force all humanity to submit to a man-created deity derived from a polytheistic god turning into a monotheistic religion, Mohammed the creator of Islam has set in motion a theo-political death cult that has forced its Liberty destroying upon a large chunk of the world.

 

The genocide going on in what’s left of Iraq under the control of ISIS (or ISIL) is what will occur whenever a purist form of Islam gains the reins of political power. The Christians and Yazidis have faced the brunt of this Islamic intolerance under ISIS. Most Americans know about Christianity. If you are anything like me, you know little to nothing about the Yazidis:

 

A historically misunderstood group, the Yazidis are predominantly ethnically Kurdish, and have kept alive their syncretic religion for centuries, despite many years of oppression and threatened extermination.

 

The ancient religion is rumoured to have been founded by an 11th century Ummayyad sheikh, and is derived from Zoroastrianism (an ancient Persian faith founded by a philosopher), Christianity and Islam. The religion has taken elements from each, ranging from baptism (Christianity) to circumcision (Islam) to reverence of fire as a manifestation from God (derived from Zoroastrianism) and yet remains distinctly non-Abrahamic. This derivative quality has often led the Yazidis to be referred to as a sect. (Who are the Yazidis and why is Isis hunting them? By Raya Jalabi; The Guardian; 8/11/14 08.46 EDT)

 

Knowing about the Yazidis is a bit more complicated than The Guardian synopsis. Here are a few places to get a more complete idea:

 

·         Yazidi – Wikipedia

 

·         Yazidis – GlobalSecurity.org

 

Yazidi Perspective in English:

 

·         The Yezidis – YezidiTruth.org

 

·         Yezidi Genocide – YezidiTruth.org

 

With that long introduction set-up, Justin Smith writes about the threat of ISIS.

 

JRH 8/17/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

In the Name of Humanity

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 8/17/2014 12:53 AM

 

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, under the command of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is evil incarnate, and, more than a threat to Christians and America, it represents a new global threat, which was a foreseeable consequence of arming the “rebels”, Al Qaeda, in Syria. Having burst forth as a product of the Syrian civil war and the U.S. premature withdrawal from Iraq on Obama’s orders, ISIS now seeks to expand the area it already controls, approximately an area the size of Great Britain, through violence and terror, beheading all unlike them – liberal Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis – raping the women and murdering entire families; they are destroying all who do not accept their vision of an Islamic state, their declared Caliphate, as they give them the ultimatum of “convert or die.” And now, this genocide of historic proportions demands that the U.S. and the free world exterminate the dire threat from ISIS through all the military might they can muster.

 

Obama, ever sympathetic to Sunni Muslims, more than likely illegally and surreptitiously armed the so-called “rebels” in Syria by late 2011 from Libya, as strong evidence suggests. Conclusive evidence from U.S. officials and Syrian figures reveals the CIA and U.S. Special Forces delivered weapons to the rebels, mostly Al Qaeda affiliates, around September 1, 2013, according to the Washington Post (9/11/13).

 

Many war weary Americans did not want to intervene in Syria’s civil war last year, including myself, since many of us, along with many government officials, believed Bashar al-Assad could be deterred and eventually removed through better alternatives, than arming the rebels, as Senator John McCain advocated. Now the very circumstances, of which some, such as Lt Col Ralph Peters, warned and America sought to avoid, have developed, and ISIS murder and mayhem cuts a swath across the Middle East, due to Obama’s unilateral actions.

 

Abu Bakr Baghdadi, the self-appointed Caliph of the Islamic State and a one-time prisoner at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, leads somewhere near 35,000 well-armed and trained jihadist warriors, and he has steadfastly worked to redraw the map of the Middle East. He swiftly led ISIS into Iraq around June with an army led by former Baath Party military and military intelligence from Saddam’s old regime. As they closed within 25 miles of Baghdad, they suddenly veered north and took Mosul on June 10th, and its dam on August 7th, routing the Kurdish Peshmerga (regional army) and creating tens of thousands of refugees in the face of their onslaught, mostly from the Yazidi minority.

 

At least 40,000 Yazidis took refuge in nine locations on Mount Sinjar, as ISIS hordes advanced on the town of Sinjar the first week of August, and approximately 130,000 more have fled to Dohuk, in the Kurdish north, and Irbil, once it became obvious ISIS was heading towards them; nearly all 300,000 residents have left, since ISIS Islamofascists stormed Sinjar on August 3rd and delivered their inhuman message of “convert or die.”

 

During an August 7th interview of Mark Arabo, a California businessman and a leader of Chaldean Catholics in America, when CNN’s Jonathan Mann seemed to be in disbelief and startled by his narrative, Arabo repeated his facts slowly (numerous videos support his account): “They are systematically beheading children. The world hasn’t seen evil like this for generations. There’s actually a park in Mosul where the actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick…. They are doing the most horrendous, the most heart-breaking crimes you can think of.”

 

Also on August 7th, Obama answered the cries of many refugees, who had said “no one is coming to help”, with “Well, we (the U.S.) are coming to help”, as he authorized a series of bombing raids on ISIS positions and supply drops of food and water to those encircled and besieged Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar. Subsequently, 114,000 meals and 35,000 gallons of water were soon dropped by the U.S., followed by British cargo planes that dropped essential supplies and 16,000 more liters of water on August 11th.

 

As of August 15th (Friday), the ISIS siege was still in place and their perimeter had only withdrawn a couple of miles due to U.S. bombing, despite claims by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on August 13th that “we broke the siege at Mt. Sinjar,” although Yazidi and Kurdish Peshmerga rescue teams had been able to move some civilians on August 10th to Kurdish controlled territory, near Fishkabour.

 

Iraqi Member of Parliament and a Yazidi, Vian Dakhil, who has been in constant contact with Yazidi leaders trapped on Mt. Sinjar, was recently injured in a helicopter crash, as she attempted to reach her people. She suggested (8/15/14) that the U.S. military assessment team visited the only side of Sinjar accessible by helicopter, the north side, leaving the real plight of nearly 80,000 more Yazidis on the south side unseen.

 

“We are being slaughtered, annihilated,” MP Vian Dakhil declared, as reported by the Middle East Research Institute. “An entire religion is being wiped off the face of the Earth. Brothers, I am calling out to you in the name of humanity ___ In the name of humanity save us!” And she then soon broke down in tears.

 

The world is witnessing a genocide of Christians that promises to surpass the Turkish slaughter of two million Armenian Christians (1915-1918). One and a half million Christians present in Iraq in 2003 have now been reduced to less than 400,000, according to Ablahad Afraim, the head of the Chaldean Democratic Union Party, who based this assessment on international reports and church records; this rising genocide of Christians in the Islamic world, whether in Iraq, West Africa or South Asia ought to cause a global alarm that makes this the most significant human rights challenge of this era.

 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s parting message to his U.S. guards at Guantanamo Bay detention camp was a vow that “we’ll see you in New York,” and one of his spokesmen recently declared that ISIS will “raise the flag of Allah in the White House.”

 

Obama is truly a pathetic commander-in-chief whose curious actions, as well as his inaction, may well allow Abu Baghdadi to rebuild the Islamic Caliphate in the Levant and a terrorist base of operations, unless PM Tony Abbott of Australia, PM Stephen Harper of Canada, PM Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and PM David Cameron of the U.K. unite to stop him, since they seem more inclined to do so than Obama. Obama seems to think a supply drop or two and a few F-18 airstrikes is enough.

 

Seeing what ISIS has done in Iraq, one quickly realizes they would gladly do whatever they could to deeply injure America again, and ISIS represents a direct threat to the U.S. and humanity. This is genocide pure and simple. America sees it and knows it as genocide, and as such, it is imperative that the U.S. and the world take vigorous military action against ISIS and all possible measures to prevent this massacre of minorities in Iraq. And with more than vigilance and 130 advisors, the U.S. and its allies should send 130 bombers and 130,000 soldiers to run ISIS into the ground, utterly destroy them and kill them mercilessly with extreme prejudice, just as they did entire Christian communities.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith

Responding to the very Valid Point of Steve Thomas


Girl recites poem: Jews are “Allah’s enemies, the sons of pigs”

 

 

Editor: This is the last response (I suspect Mr. Thomas will have something more to add) to a conversation to Steve Thomas on the Facebook Group Christian Zionism – Deconstructing the Myths – Biblically – One at a Time. The conversation was in relation to a SlantRight 2.0 cross post of Caroline Glick’s thoughts entitled, “Time for consequences.

 

Responding to the very Valid Point of Steve Thomas

I Maintain Israel has a Right of Reprisal

 

John R. Houk

© May 8, 2014

 

Mr. Thomas if I come across as irritated I am not trying to be disrespectful.

 

The Jewish Tanakh is roughly the Christian Old Testament, right? God told the 12 tribes of Israel to cleanse the land promised to Abraham’s descendants because their sins had reached the point of no-return. Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of the point of no-return except the Sodomite and Gomorrahite region was so pitifully sinful that God could not find even 10 righteous people. God honored Abraham for making an escape for Lot and any family that believed the angels. God Himself destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

God told the Israelite tribes to possess the land promised to cleanse the region of sinful people and their sinful edifices and evidently even the livestock and gold was corrupted by being around the people because God told them not to keep the booty. Much to God’s displeasure the Canaanite people were not completely destroyed and the Israelites took booty.

 

Contrast that with the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah.

 

Under Mohammed’s direction which he claimed was under Allah’s direction, the neophyte Muslims raided, stole, booty, raped women and acquired slaves. THEN if there was no conversion to Islam or at least an absolute submission to Mohammed and Allah the order was mass execution. So the only survivors were slaves (mostly women), people who converted to Islam or people who were allowed to remain Jewish or Christian as long they did nothing to insult Mohammed, Allah and Islam in general. AND this practice is encoded theologically and politically in the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah as the example of the perfect man Mohammed.

 

Israelites were to ONLY conquer and claim the Promised Land.

 

Muslims are commanded to Jihad until the entire world is Muslim. AND specifically the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah are primarily disparaging against the Jews first and then Christians second as People of the Book of which Muslims are told is corrupted. So spare them only as long as they are submissive. In the end Muslims are taught that Jesus and the Mahdi will return to conclude what the Muslims were unable to – err – persuade Jews and Christians to do in the first place; i.e. convert or kill.

 

The Tanakh version of killing debauched ungodly people in one region at a certain to time is absolutely different than the Muslim mandate to offer conversion, submission or die universally and perpetually. AND this is why Arabs that call themselves Palestinians will never make the kind of peace with Israel that the foolish West and the foolish liberal Jews will never comprehend. All agreements in the Muslim mind is only temporary until a position of superiority is achieved to complete the mission.

 

I know that sounds rough and incomprehensible, but this is the primary reason I support Israeli reprisals for acts of terrorism committed by the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

 

By the way – in case you didn’t realize it there was no such thing as a Palestinian-Arab until after refugees were created by invading Arab armies trying to exterminate the newly independent Israel. After the miracle of Israeli victory in 1948, the invading nations refused to absorb the displaced Arabs into their nations. A displacement I might add that occurred because the invading Arab armies had warned the Arabs residing in the new Israel to stay out of the way so they would not get hurt. I don’t know about you but the odd were like 6 to 1 the invading Arabs would succeed in exterminating Jews; I would have collected what belongings I had to stay out the way too.

 

YET the miracle did happen! Israel overcame 6 to 1 odds and fought the Arab armies to a standstill. Israel’s only real defeat in that war of independence began in 1948 was the Arab Legion beating back Israeli forces in Judea-Samaria up to the eastern half of Jerusalem (which is where the ancient Jewish Quarter was located) ONLY by the direction of British army officers who had trained the (then) Transjordan Arab Legion. AND then a couple of years later, Transjordan formally and arbitrarily annexed Judea-Samaria after Jewish holy sites were totally desecrated and changed the name to the West Bank. Transjordan proper was on the East Bank of the Jordan River so old King Abdullah changed the name of his Kingdom from Transjordan to Jordan because he now possessed both banks of the Jordan River.

 

This displaced Arabs that congregated in Jordan’s West Bank were given a limited Jordanian citizenship. BUT those displaced Arabs were never given full citizenship rights. Why? Because they outnumbered the Bedouin population that was the core of King Abdullah’s (and late King Hussein’s) Arab Legion to retain his monarchy and rule. Now talk about an apartheid state, right?

 

Prior to 1948, Jews were more often referenced as Palestinians than Arabs in the region. After some agitation from Mufti of Jerusalem al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni (or other Arabic variations of the Mufti’s name), Arabs began to look for an identity to compete with Jews colonizing their homeland under the auspices of Zionism. Al-Husayni was a Jew-hater that even helped organize Muslims during WWII to ally with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Final Solution for Jews. However the real impetus for an entity of Arabs that would call themselves Palestinians emerged because the Arab nations grew weary of losing to the little sliver of land known as Israel. So they had an Arab League meeting in Cairo and endorsed the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat to lead an umbrella terrorist organization known as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This is when the descendants of 1948 Arab refugees created by invading Arab nations began to create the myth of a Palestinian people. That Cairo meeting took place in 1964 three years before the Arab nations tried again to exterminate Israel and lost. Israel regained Judea-Samaria stolen by Jordan. Jordan would not let their West Bank citizens move to the East Bank because the Hashemite royal family of Jordan did not desire to lose their monarchy. Actually the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians that were in the East Bank Jordan proper were expelled militarily for fear Yasser Arafat would execute a coup.

 

The PLO roughly transformed into the Palestinian Authority (PA) with terrorist weary Western nations and terrorist weary liberal Jews that deluded themselves that giving land to a Jew-hating people would bring peace between little Israel and the Muslim-Arab nations. As I explained earlier that will never occur as long as Muslims are faithful to the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah with Israel being exterminated and the Jews driven into the sea in another modern day Holocaust.

 

There is nothing that will convince me that nothing short of Israel exercising their military prowess will preserve the Jewish Nation of Israel.

 

See Also:

 

Palestinian history fabricated

 

 

The fabricated Palestinian history

 

 

Op-Ed: The Counterfeit Arabs

 

 

Who are the Palestinians?

 

 

Arab vs. Arab over Palestine

 

 

JRH 5/8/14

Please Support NCCR

America is Complicit in the Murder of Religious Minorities


Christians are being murdered in the Middle East and other Muslim majority nations at such a rate it can be labeled ethnic cleansing or genocide. How are Americans, Christian Americans and the U.S. government handling this outrage? There is the appearance that they – WE – are doing nothing rather than something.

 

JRH 2/12/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

America is Complicit in the Murder of Religious Minorities

 

By Bill Warner

February 10, 2014

Political Islam

 

Christians and other religions are persecuted around the world and America plays a role. Our government, churches, media, universities and others stand by silently as innocents die. We are complicit in our silence in the face of evil.

See the video America is Complicit in the Murder of Religious Minorities.

 

VIDEO: http://youtu.be/l-ULTgX673g

 

___________________________

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

 

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com 
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

 

Mission

 

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.

 

Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

 

Biography of Bill Warner

USA, EU and UN join to MAKE a Judenrein Palestinian State


No Jews Palestine - Dry Bones

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2014

 

There has been a conflict between Israel and Arabs – primarily Muslim – since the Jews managed to turn the hope of the Balfour Declaration hope into a Jewish State reality in their ancestral land in 1948. The essence of the conflict is simpler than world leaders are willing to admit. The conflict boils down to the thousands of years desire to return to their Biblically Promised Land and multiple centuries of persecution that spanned the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Christian Europe through the ages including the NAZI Holocaust of late 1930s to 1945 and actually a modern reemergence today. The Balfour Declaration perceived as a promise of return for Jews rubbed Muslims who had been indoctrinated in Islamic Supremacism of once land was conquered it became a part of the Land of Islam (Dar al Islam) never to be restored to the conquered non-Muslims. The 20th century Alia of Jews to the Holy Land was and still is a miniscule portion of the actual Holy Land/Levant area AND YET Muslim theopolitical ideology refuses such a small portion to exist under non-Muslim control. As long as Muslims view the Quran as the pure very word of their Allah sent through Mohammed and as long as the almost as holy Islamic Hadith and Sira-Sunnah commentaries amplify Quranic hatred of Jews there will be no end to a conflict between Israel and Muslims motivated by Islamic Supremacist Dar al Harb thinking. UNLESS of course the Islamic terrorist led coalition of Arabs that call themselves Palestinians succeed in another Jewish genocide destroying Israel. Creating a sovereign Palestinian State that has one purpose in destroying Israel. A Palestinian State will result in a Judenrein area in the new Arab State followed by the design of destroying Israel.

 

In this present time when you think of the phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ what is the first thing that comes to mind? As a part of the aging Baby Boom generation the first thing that comes to mind for me is Adolf Hitler’s agenda to rid Europe of traditionally vilified ethnicities, mentally challenged, physically challenged via birth defects, other groups NAZI ideology considered to inferior to mix with the so-called Aryan Germanic peoples and especially Jews. The Hitler-NAZI Solution for a society of ethnically pure Aryan Germanic peoples resulted in around 12 MILLION genocidal deaths. Approximately 6 MILLION of that were Jews.

 

Other significant moments in recent history’s ethnic cleansing can span from the end of WWI right through to the present day.

 

Toward the end of WWI Turkey began to ethnically cleanse Armenian Christians killing about 1.5 MILLION Armenians:

 

In April 1915 the Ottoman government embarked upon the systematic decimation of its civilian Armenian population. The persecutions continued with varying intensity until 1923 when the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist and was replaced by the Republic of Turkey. The Armenian population of the Ottoman state was reported at about two million in 1915. An estimated one million had perished by 1918, while hundreds of thousands had become homeless and stateless refugees. By 1923 virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolian Turkey had disappeared. (READ MOREArmenian Genocide; By Rouben Paul Adalian; Armenian National Institute; Copyright © 1998-2014)

 

After WWI Turkey and Greece had a population exchange of Turks and Greeks with the Greek expulsion becoming brutal:

 

Pontian and Anatolian Greeks were victims of a broader Turkish genocidal project aimed at all Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire. A total of more than 3.5 million Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians were killed under the successive regimes of the Young Turks and of Mustafa Kemal from roughly 1914 to 1923. Of this, as many as 1.5 million Greeks may have died. The end of the genocide marked a profound rupture in the long Greek historical presence on the Asia Minor. (READ MOREBold Emphasis Mine; The Genocide of Ottoman Greeks, 1914-1923; Copyright © 2013, Rutgers)

 

Here is brief gleaning of 20th and 21st Century genocides from “The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries” provided by Piero Scaruffi in 2009:

 

 

o   Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50: 49-78,000,000

 

o   Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39): 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine’s famine)

 

o   Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44): 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)

 

o   Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79): 1,700,000

 

o   Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94): 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

 

o   Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88): 600,000

 

 

The above list is only a sampling provided by Piero Scaruffi.

 

There is the Rwanda Genocide of 1994:

 

Beginning on April 6, 1994, Hutus began slaughtering the Tutsis in the African country of Rwanda. As the brutal killings continued, the world stood idly by and just watched the slaughter. Lasting 100 days, the Rwanda genocide left approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers dead. (READ THE RESTBold Emphasis Mine; Rwanda Genocide; By Jennifer Rosenberg; About.com; ©2014)

 

There is the Bosnia-Herzegovina Genocide roughly 1992-95 – 200,000:

 

In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia. (READ THE RESTBosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995 – 200,000; Copyright © 1999 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved)

 

The genocides I have mentioned here are only the ones that my history interests have taken me. This is hardly an exhaustive list of ethnic cleansing.

 

Are you aware the collusion of USA, EU and the UN to promote sovereign Palestinian State includes PA-PLO Islamic terrorists to make the area Jew-free EVEN THOUGH 20% of the Israel population are Arab Muslims? This amounts to joining the Palestinian elites desire to ethnically cleanse Jews while demanding that not only can Arab Muslims continue to live in Israel but that the descendants of the Arabs made into refugees after the failed invasion of several Arab nations tried to destroy the new Israeli State in 1948. WND’s Joseph Farah has some legitimate and interesting thoughts on this issue.

 

 

JRH 1/19/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

‘Ethnic cleansing’ in ‘Palestine’

Exclusive: Joseph Farah asks, why is U.S. supporting creation of anti-Semitic hate state?


By Joseph Farah

January 17, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is citing a cold, hard, inconvenient fact I have been pointing out for a number of years – one that has the potential to reframe the entire Israeli-Palestinian debate.

 

In an hour-long interview with Canada’s CTV this week, he explained that the official position of the Arabs on a Palestinian state is that the land must first be “Jew free” through ethnic cleansing that is rejected everywhere else in the world today an argument first made by me 10 years ago, and I alone have continued to make it repeatedly ever since.


When interviewer Lisa LaFlamme pointed out that one in five Israelis are Arabs, Netanyahu responded: “Sure, we’re not asking them to change their religion. They have full civic rights. Now in the Palestinian state, the way it’s being contemplated, no Jew can live there. It has to be Jew free, ethnic cleansing. Well, what is that? There are Arabs who live here, but they can’t contemplate Jews living there.”

 

That’s exactly what the Palestinian Authority is demanding – ethnic cleansing of it land so that a future Palestinian state can be Jew-free.

 

It’s amazing to me that the rest of the civilized world doesn’t categorically reject such a premise. But it doesn’t. In fact, no one even speaks of it. An idea that would be condemned anywhere else in the world is considered appropriate – even commendable – in the Middle East.

 

There’s one thing almost all civilized people can agree on – “ethnic cleansing” is bad. “Ethnic cleansing” is defined as a policy of eliminating unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture and history.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

Nevertheless, even with this broad consensus opposing ethnic cleansing, there’s one place in the world nearly everyone supports ethnic cleansing.

 

It’s in the lands known as Judea and Samaria on the West Bank of the Jordan River under the administration of the Palestinian Authority. There – and only there – does the entire international community favor the complete elimination of all Jewish residents by deportation and forcible displacement if not by mass murder or threats of such acts.

 

That’s because the Palestinian Authority insists the “Palestinian state” it seeks to create be 100 percent “Judenrein,” as Hitler would say – free of Jews. And that’s OK with all those supporting the concept of creating a new state based on ethnic cleansing and bigotry that would make Himmler blush.

 

Did you know this is a prerequisite for a Palestinian state?

 

Very few do.

 

It is simply never discussed in the media.

 

It is the only place in the world where it is perfectly acceptable to insist on the eradication of residents of a particular religious or ethnic background.

 

This is one of the great untold stories of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

In any other part of the world, this kind of racist, anti-Semitic effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, those leaders retains a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

 

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why do American taxpayers send hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the leaders of this movement? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?

 

Can you think of any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?

 

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?

 

Why do we accept as a fait accompli that Jews should be forced off their land in the coming state of Palestine?

 

Can you imagine the U.S. backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim or any other religion?

 

Of course not.

 

But the monsters who control the Palestinian Authority, even the so-called “moderates,” demand that all Jews leave. Jews will simply be unwelcome in this future Palestinian state. End of story. It’s a non-negotiable demand.

 

Isn’t that the definition of ethnic cleansing?

 

Why is that acceptable?

 

I’ve been asking this question for a decade. Thankfully, Netanyahu has made the point. It must be repeated over and over and over again until the whole world recognizes the diabolical Nazi-like plan afoot within the Palestinian Authority.

___________________________

USA, EU and UN join to MAKE a Judenrein Palestinian State

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2014

___________________________

‘Ethnic cleansing’ in ‘Palestine’

 

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

What if Japan became a Military Power Again?


Imperial Japan Re-Armed

John R. Houk

© December 27, 2013

 

Japan embarked on military campaigns in the 1930s to become an Asian political hegemon and to obtain the natural resources to maintain hegemony. The beginning of the end for Japan’s hegemonic agenda occurred when the Japanese Imperial Military attacked the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor Hawaii with the design to cripple the U.S. Navy in the Pacific. Military aggression was bad enough; however even worse things than aggression took place against innocent civilians and Prisoner of War (POW) personnel. Civilians of China, Korea, Philippines and other Asian peoples were rampaged, put into slave labor, raped, murdered, tortured and a lot of Korean gals were drafted to be pleasure girl prostitutes for the Japanese Imperial Military personnel. The American, British and the Asian nations lucky enough to have any kind of military were also tortured and brutalized as POWs.

 

Because of European Theatre of WWII and the NAZI implemented Holocaust, most Americans are cognizant of the atrocities particularly against the Jews and other groups of people that were considered genetically inferior to the NAZI super race. The Nuremberg War Crimes trials of NAZIS is prominent on documentary channels such as the History Channel and in American entertainment motion pictures. BUT did you know the Japanese treatment of conquered people may have been more brutal in its nature of execution than the Holocaust. Perhaps not as many people died as in the Holocaust (Approximately 6 million Jews and 6 million other people by race and physical limitations).

 

Apparently the Japanese Imperial Military was better at covering their tracks than the NAZIS. Genocide expert R.J. Rummel produces the number genocide victims at the hands of the Japanese to be between 3 MILLION and 10 MILLION. You can find Rummel’s research on Japan’s acts of genocide at “STATISTICS OF DEMOCIDE: Chapter 3; Statistics Of Japanese Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources”. Rummel uses the word “Democide” rather genocide. He defines Democide thus:

 

Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats. According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty on genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate or greatly hinder the group. Looking back on history, one can see the different variations of democides that have occurred, but it still consists of acts of killing or mass murder. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[7]

 

The objectives of such a plan of democide include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity; and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[8]

 

Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.[9]

 

You can read the entire article from Wikipedia (Democide; Wikipedia)

 

With this information in hand I have to ask you. Did you know that Japan has a National Shrine dedicated to their war dead that reaches back to 1867? The place honoring Japan’s war dead is called the Yasukuni Shrine.

 

Yasukuni Shrine … is a Shinto shrine located in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan. It was founded by Emperor Meiji to commemorate individuals who had died in service of the Empire of Japan during the Meiji Restoration.[1] The shrine’s purpose has been expanded over the years; the deities enshrined at the Honden shrine within Yasukuni currently include more than 2,466,000 individuals who died in conflicts spanning from the Boshin War of 1867 to the end of World War II,[2] and the adjacent Chinreisha “spirit-pacifying” shrine commemorates all of the dead from all wars fought worldwide throughout history.[3]The shrine also includes a war museum, Yushukan, which honors Japan’s war dead and presents a pro-Japanese narrative of World War II.[4] (Yasukuni Shrine; Wikipedia)

 

As Americans we can understand honoring our war dead for we do that as well (we just don’t deify our war dead as the Japanese do). That is what Arlington National Cemetery is for in Virginia near Washington DC. The thing that bothers the billion or so Chinese and the Koreans (North and South) and to a certain extent the U.S. government is that Japan buried notorious war criminals at Yasukuni Shrine. The big dog himself, the Japanese Premier during WWII – Hideki Tojo.

 

Here comes the most recent controversy over the Yasukuni Shrine. Yesterday Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe went to the shrine to honor Japan’s war dead in a Shinto religious ritual. On the diplomatic front the official governments of Communist China and South Korea formerly protested vehemently that the highest representative of the Japanese government essentially honored all the Japanese war dead INCLUDING WWII war criminals. The Obama Administration joined his displeasure with the Chinese and South Koreans expressing disappointment with Prime Minister Abe’s display of honor.

 

The AEI organization posted an essay on this situation entitled, “Japan officially enters Cold War with China and Korea”. That article explains that antagonism between these nations (which included nuclear armed North Korea) has been brewing for some time.

 

Here is a snapshot to look at about a brewing new military paradigm emerging among the Asian nations of the Pacific Ocean.

 

Abe’s finance minister Taro Aso, a former prime minister, declared in 2006 that there was nothing wrong with discussing whether Japan should possess nuclear arms. A Japan Times article last month, entitled “Nuclear arms card for Japan,” noted that politicians who had advocated nuclear weapons, officially and unofficially, included former prime ministers—Nobusuke Kishi (Abe’s grandfather), Hayato Ikeda, Eisato Sato, Yasuo Fukuda and Aso.

 

During the election campaign last year, Shintaro Ishihara, who was an LDP member until last year and now leads the extreme nationalist Japan Restoration Party, declared: “It’s high time Japan made simulations of possessing nuclear arms,” saying that it would be a form of deterrent against China. He has previously insisted that Japan had to have nuclear weapons.

 

The same Japan Times article reported that the Japanese government in September 2006 compiled an internal report examining “the possibility of domestically producing nuclear weapons.” A Defence Ministry source told the newspaper that the secret document had been produced by the Foreign Ministry and had aroused serious concerns in the US State Department.

 

According to the article, the report found that it would take three to five years and 200 to 300 billion yen ($US2.2 to 3.3 billion) for Japan to manufacture nuclear weapons. A significant obstacle was the impurity of the plutonium produced in Japan’s commercial power reactors. The Rokkasho reprocessing facility, which has taken more than $US21 billion and two decades to build, would be able to provide weapons-grade plutonium. No date has been set for its start up but the Japan Atomic Energy Commission and the plant’s operator, Japan Nuclear Fuel, say it could be as early as October. However, the Nuclear Regulation Authority has indicated that safety guidelines will not be ready until December.

 

 

In March and April, Washington deliberately inflamed tensions on the Korean Peninsula, provocatively sending nuclear-capable strategic bombers to South Korea, supposedly to counter North Korean threats. The US sought to use the crisis to put pressure on China for economic and strategic concessions, including to rein in Pyongyang.

 

However, the Abe government also exploited the North Korean “threat” to deploy anti-missile systems in Japan, and establish a political climate of fear to justify military rearmament—including potentially with nuclear weapons. The US is directly responsible for creating the conditions for a nuclear arms race in Asia that would enormously heighten the danger of conflict and war. (READ ENTIRETY Is Japan Developing a Nuclear Weapons Program? By Peter Symonds; Global Research; 5/7/13)

 

And Here

 

It became clear at the 28th Annual Conference of the Council on U.S.-Korean Security Studies in Seoul this past week that the DPRK’s recent escalatory rhetoric and other provocations has reinforced the concerns of some South Korean strategists about the credibility of U.S. extended deterrence guarantees in Asia.

 

As the United States becomes vulnerable to a North Korean nuclear strike, the credibility of its extended deterrence guarantees to its Asian allies is called into question. Some South Koreans, including some of the former ROK general officers at the conference, already doubt that the U.S. officials would defend them against a DPRK attack if North Korea could destroy Los Angeles in retaliation. They want to acquire their own national nuclear deterrent, whose use in response to an attack against them would be much more credible than that of a third party.

 

If more South Koreans lose faith in the U.S. willingness or capacity to defend them, or they come to fear that potential foreign aggressors doubt the credibility of U.S. assurances, then South Korea might pursue alternative security policies, including possibly seeking their own nuclear weapons. Such a move could easily prove counterproductive by harming the ROK’s relations with the United States and other countries, resulting in a net decrement to the country’s security.

 

READ THE REST (North Korean Threats Deepen Southern Nuclear Insecurities; By Richard Weitz; The Diplomat; 7/4/13)

 

And Here

 

As China rattles sabers over its newly claimed airspace in the East China Sea directly over Japanese sovereign soil, as reported by the Israeli news portal Arutz Sheva on Dec. 2, 2013, one thing that many international watchers agree would rattle China’s cage would be a militarily-allied and nuclear-armed Japan and Republic of Korea (ROK).

 

Especially a nuclear Japan and ROK independent of U.S. military control.

 

Tensions are still running high since China claimed international airspace over Japan’s Senkaku Islands, the southernmost of the 3,000 islands comprising the Japanese archipelago.

 

READ THE REST (Getting China’s attention: A nuclear-armed Japan and South Korea; Examiner.com; 12/2/13)

 

The picture here is that of a lot of Asian mistrust including the mistrust of U.S. Military capabilities to protect Japan and South Korea from an aggressive China and North Korea. AND YET due to history neither is South Korea entirely trusting with a Japan independent of the USA arming itself with nuclear weapons.

 

I see two things that could happen affecting American National Security Interests.

 

The positive: A nuclear armed Japan and South Korea means a decrease in military defense deterrence as a buffer between South Korea versus China and North Korea as well as a buffer between Japan versus China and North Korea. Lessening the commitment means lessening the U.S. budget as it pertains to the Military policing the Pacific due to our National Interests.

 

The negative: A nuclear armed Japan would flex muscles over land disputes with China and Russia and undoubted retaliate against North Korean adventurism that was not well thought out; such as the sinking of a Japanese commercial or naval vessel. Or perhaps North Korea shooting an airline pertaining to Japanese commercial or military interests. Amazingly a global war could start that has very little to do with Muslim psycho-Caliphate supporters.

 

In essence, any path the USA chooses would be a gamble, hopefully an informed and educated gamble.

 

JRH 12/27/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

******************************

Japan officially enters Cold War with China and Korea

 

By Michael Auslin 

December 26, 2013

Originally National Review Online

American Enterprise Institute

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (C) is led by a Shinto priest as he visits Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo December 26, 2013.Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (C) is led by a Shinto priest as he visits Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo December 26, 2013. 

 

 

 

Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe (pronounced “Ah-bay”) has just visited Yasukuni Shrine, Ground Zero for political controversy with China and Seoul. In doing so, he has all but acknowledged that a cold war exists between Japan and its northeast-Asian neighbors China and South Korea. It’s a shot across the bow of both countries, boldly, perhaps recklessly, announcing that Japan will no longer seek better relations on their terms. Nor does he have the support of the United States. Abe is putting Japan on a path of increasing diplomatic self-reliance, but doing so with the belief that it is the right response to continued tensions with Beijing and Seoul. That it will inflame those tensions, he is well aware.

Yasukuni Shrine is somewhat analogous to Arlington National Cemetery, being the religious site where the spirits of Japan’s war dead since 1867 are commemorated. Founded in 1869 across from the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, there are nearly 2.5 million individuals enshrined there. Among them are 14 Class A war criminals from World War II, including wartime premier Hideki Tojo. These individuals were enshrined in 1978, nearly two decades after the first Class B and C war criminals were included in the shrine. Emperor Hirohito, who reigned during the war, refused to visit the shrine after 1978 and the inclusion of Tojo and others.

There was little international controversy about the shrine until 1985, when then–prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone paid an official visit to offer prayers for the dead. The outcry forced him to abandon plans for future visits, but annual visits by popular prime minister Junichiro Koizumi between 2001 and 2006 again fanned the flames of diplomatic protest. Both Beijing and South Korea have heatedly and vehemently condemned visits to the shrine by any serving Japanese cabinet official, and especially the prime minister. While no doubt feeling true outrage over what they see as attempts to whitewash the memory of the atrocities committed by the Class A war criminals, Chinese and Korean officials have also used the shrine visits as a means of pressuring Japan and keeping it diplomatically isolated in Asia. Contemporary politics have as much to do with the furor over Yasukuni as does the historical record.

Since 2006 no serving Japanese prime minister visited Yasukuni, in part to try and stabilize relations with China and South Korea. Yesterday, a year after taking office and refraining from going to the shrine, Prime Minister Abe made an official visit. The reaction from Beijing and Seoul was swift and expected. According to the BBC, “China called the visit ‘absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese people’, and Seoul expressed ‘regret and anger’.” More surprisingly, and worryingly, the BBC reports that “the US embassy in Tokyo said in a statement it was ‘disappointed’ and that Mr. Abe’s actions would ‘exacerbate tensions’ with Japan’s neighbors.” It was a clear message that Washington doesn’t trust Abe’s judgment and may not see him as a responsible ally.

Both Beijing and Seoul will undoubtedly take comfort in the U.S. pronouncement, seeing it as a signal to pressure Tokyo and continue with their relentless attempts to isolate Japan. South Korean president Park Geun Hye has been particularly vociferous in her anti-Japanese statements, taking the opportunity during the visits of Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Hagel to publicly chastise, if not embarrass, Japan. For those concerned over Washington’s repeated attempts to restrain Tokyo’s response to China’s provocations in the waters around the disputed Senkaku Islands, the embassy statement will seem yet another instance of the U.S. government undercutting its ally.

The real question is not what China and South Korea will do in response to Abe’s visit. The question is, rather: Why now? Abe is regularly labeled a nationalist and right-winger, by political opponents at home and anti-Japanese voices abroad, in both Asia and America. His plans to increase Japan’s defense budget and lift some of the remaining post-war restrictions on Tokyo’s ability to engage in collective self-defense, as well as undertake some controversial constitutional reforms related to civil liberties, has alarmed critics at home and abroad.

From Abe’s perspective, the trend line in northeast Asia is getting worse. He has been rebuffed for nearly a year by the South Korean president, who has met with the Chinese. Last month, China established a controversial air defense identification zone in the East China Sea that partly overlaps Japan’s own zone over the Senkaku Islands. Instead of a firm American response, Tokyo saw Vice President Biden fail to demand a repeal of the zone during his visit to Beijing. China’s military modernization and growth plan shows no sign of abating, and it is starting to develop sophisticated offensive weapons such as aircraft carriers and stealth fighters.

Thus, rather than start 2014 on the defensive, Abe seems to have decided to take the bit between his teeth. It shows he’s willing to buck his only ally, the United States, and pursue a more independent path. His visit was a message that his administration will not continue to apologize for its history, having done so numerous times in the past. It is also a signal that he will not supplicate for better relations with China and Korea at the expense of what he thinks is in Japan’s best interests. At the outer edge of interpretation, that may well mean a more muscular response to China’s interloping around the Senkaku Islands or moving ahead on strike capabilities that could target North Korea. Combining this with a push for high-level diplomatic talks with Beijing and Seoul could possibly blunt the impact of his visit, but for the foreseeable future, Japan’s relations with China and South Korea will be in a deep freeze.

___________________________

What if Japan became a Military Power Again?

John R. Houk

© December 27, 2013

___________________________

Japan officially enters Cold War with China and Korea

 

©2013 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Putin the Friend of Christians?


Czar Vladimir Putin 2

John R. Houk
© August 9, 2017
 
I read an essay posted as a guest columnist at the RaymondIbrahim.com – Islam Translated website by Ralph H. Sidway. The theme of the essay is that there are persecuted Christians in the Muslim Middle East and that President Vladimir Putin is aligning the Russian government with the Russian Orthodox Church to act as a Russo-Christian advocate for the persecuted.
 
I have long been a proponent of exposing the tyranny heaped upon the persecuted Church in Muslim lands. I have formed a semi-journalistic relationship with Pakistani-Christian Shamim Masih living in Pakistan in order to give readers a snapshot of the persecution going on in Pakistan. I wish I had a Shamim in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria as well as among the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians also of the Christian faith that would also provide snapshots of local Christian treatment perspectives. Unfortunately I do not.
 
My first reaction ran something like, ‘Good for Putin in focusing global attention on the plight of Christians in Muslim lands.’ Sidway writes an effective essay upholding Putin as a friend of the Middle Eastern persecuted Church while Obama has done his best globally to proclaim that America is a friend of Islam and that Biblical Christianity is a primitive practice of backward Americans that love their guns and religion.
 
Okay, I can’t help it. Here’s an Obama jab:
 
 
 
 
So anyway I thought a bit on Putin’s Christian advocacy and Obama’s war on Christianity. Initially I was embarrassed for America. Until the infusion of Leftists transforming America away from faith, Christianity was the moral foundation of American Culture. I mean after all Obama’s 2008 election slogan was ‘Change’.
 
And then I begin to think of Putin’s past. I mean this guy was the KGB apparatchik of the dying Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s goal from its 1917 revolution was to transform Russia into the Leninist and then Stalinist vision of Marxism which can better be described with the image of anti-Americanism that the word ‘Communism’ instilled into Americans from the Post-WWII days of the Cold War. Karl Marx’s idea of a utopia was a State-less society free of property ownership and the abolishment of all religion. Lenin initiated the plan Russian-style to force a rapid transformation. Then Stalin took the transformation concept to an even more severe path that resulted in a genocide that made Hitler’s Holocaust look like a picnic. Hitler’s genocide most notably was the extermination of 6 MILLION Jews; however there is another 6 MILLION Non-Jews killed by Hitler.
 
The Holocaust was more than a Jewish event. Records kept by the Germans prove they exterminated millions of Communists, Czechs, Greeks, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, mentally and physically handicapped, Poles, resistance fighters, Russians, Serbs, Socialists, Spanish Republicans, trade unionists, Ukrainians, Yugoslavians, prisoners of war of many nations, and still others whose identity may never be recognized.(1) Their victims, according to one survivor of four different concentration camps, “were of some thirty nationalities, from Nepalese to Andorrans, and of a variety of racial and linguistic stocks ranging from Basques to Buriats and from Ladinos to Lapps”.(2) When people were not immediately exterminated, they were sent to work and/or concentration camps. There the prisoners were divided into six penal categories and given patches on their clothing for identification purposes. Ordinary criminals were assigned green; political prisoners wore red; black was worn by asocials (slackers, prostitutes, procurers, etc.); homosexuals wore pink; conscientious objectors wore purple, and the Jewish people wore yellow.(3)  (Overlooked Millions: Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust; by Karen Silverstrim)   
 
Now conservatively Stalin is accused of killing 7 MILLION of his own citizens in the USSR. R. J. Rummel published by the University of Hawaii utilized a definition of mass murder from the word Democide to indicate so much more than the Holocaust:
 
The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.
 
According Rummel and Democide, Joseph Stalin was responsible for 43 MILLION murdered people:
 
Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. (HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER? By R. J. Rummel; Hawaii.edu)
 
This Communist extermination is the legacy that Vladimir Putin inherited. Putin had a KGB spy career in the old Soviet Union and was involved with some brutal stuff to spread the Soviet National Interests abroad and to keep USSR citizens towing the line of Soviet Communism. This would include enforcing atheism the social hallmark of the Marxist transformation for Soviet Communist society. Russia’s President Yeltsin eventually promoted Putin to the head of the FSB which has become the new Russia’s version of the KGB in the old USSR.
 
So what is Putin doing in promoting the Russian Orthodox Church and advocating for Christians in the Muslim Middle East?
 
Since the end of the post-Soviet days Christianity has been exploding in Russia. Indeed American missionary work converted so many Russian citizens to Christianity that they began to challenge the numbers of the traditional Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church has always considered itself as the State Church of Russia. In Czarist Russian days this was the case. Of course Communist Russia’s anti-religion stance disenfranchised the Russian Orthodox Church; however the Soviet government basically ran the Russian Patriarchate as a government fiefdom as a Marxist propaganda tool. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought a new opportunity for Orthodox Church to once again to be the enfranchised Church of Russia. That has not happened as of 2013; however the Putin-Medvedev team has mysteriously been promoting the connection between Mother Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. This seems to me that Orthodox enfranchisement is around the corner.
 
I expect a Russian government and Russian Orthodox persecution of Russian Evangelical Christians to occur once a State Church is enfranchised. Persecution would be inevitable of the Protestant Evangelicals (which are largely Charismatic) under Russian Orthodox enfranchisement. So again, why would an old Soviet Communist Putin snuggle up to the Russian Orthodox Church?
 
Here is the reason. Vladimir Putin wants to make Russia a Super Power like in the days of the old USSR. Soviet-Communist ideology is no longer the paradigm used to unite a people to be loyal to the State. Putin intends to use the Russian Orthodox Church to not only give Russians a patriotic nationalism to unite behind, but also to reach out beyond the current Russian borders to Christians that consider themselves Eastern Rite Christians. This is the case even though most of the Eastern Rite Christians that are in Muslim lands are not necessarily Eastern Orthodox like the Russian Church. Many of the Eastern Rite Churches under Muslim domination that have an ancient history were under the Eastern Orthodox domination of the Greek Church that was the State Church of the Byzantine Empire conquered by the Ottoman Turks ultimately in 1453. In 1453 Ottoman Empire conquered the last remnant of the Byzantines at the slaughter of the sack of Constantinople. The Ottoman’s Islamized Constantinople killing priests and nuns and desecrating Churches especially the oldest Christian edifice of its day the Hagia Sofia (Turkish government Islamization) the seat of the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church considered second in primacy to the Pope of Rome (although Eastern Rite Churches had long broke off their Patriarchate relationship with the Latin Church headed by the Pope).
 
Muslim Apologists use the differences that existed between the Greek Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches as an excuse of liberation rather than forced conquest. There may have been some pockets of truth to the Muslim Apologist assertions; nevertheless after the so-called liberation of Eastern Rite Churches from the Greek Orthodox of the Byzantine Empire, brutal Islamization began [See Also HERE] so that the majority Christian population slowly converted to Islam and Arabic speaking rather than live under dhimmi repression.
 
Vladimir Putin’s interest in Eastern Rite Christianity of the Middle East is certainly more political than appearing as the Defender of the Faith. The greatest example is the Syrian civil war thatVladimir Putin - Defender of the Faith essentially pits the Sunni majority against the al-Assad Shia Alawite minority regime. Al-Assad has been a protector of Syria’s Christian minority against Radical Islam which apparently dominates the Sunni Muslim rebels. Putin is invested in Iran militarily and economically and undoubted because of oil. Iran is the parent to its client state the al-Assad government of Syria.
 
If Putin successfully places himself as the Defender of the Faith to his Russian people then the Russian Orthodox Church will be the instrument that unites Russia [See Also HERE] under the rule of Putin.
 
And so Putin’s image on the face of it appears to outshine Obama’s in being vocal against Christian persecution perpetrated by Muslims in Islamic nations. Putin has a political agenda that includes the age old practice of expanding Russia’s borders and influence while uniting Russians via the Russian Orthodox Church projecting a patriotic nationalism of Mother Russia with Christ on his side.
 
At the same time Obama is increasingly demonizing Biblical Morality and producing the illusion of a Living Constitution to install a Socialistic transformation based on Leftist Moral Relativism, Egalitarian Social Justice and Secular Humanism. Deleting the Christian influence from American Society will only succeed in making America into a corrupt culture in which all right and wrong will be measured by what the State proclaims to be good. The reality of such a Leftist proclamation will result in America ceasing to be good. After America ceases to be good we will no longer be a homogenous unified nation. Rather America will collapse into political fiefdoms of Multicultural Diversity opening the USA to become the Fractured States of America.
 
JRH 8/9/13

Please Support NCCR