Islam Rising in the West: A Prophetic Perspective

Early nineteenth-century Liberalism,[1] "… stresses the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire and others … The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, which grants a more interventionist role for the state."[2]

Liberal and Liberalism as they are used today, retain very little of their original meanings. Today’s Liberalism equates to Statism[3] and today’s Liberal is, for all intents and purposes, a Statist. Before they can plunder a society, statists know they must first “bind the strong man” of truth because truth is the statist's greatest enemy. Statists achieve this objective by infecting a society’s time-honored traditional values with pathogenic philosophies such as Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, Abortion, and other vile ‘isms.’ Statists act as parasites that carry the societal plague called Statism. The first stage of Statism involves co-opting the host culture’s language, particularly as it relates to traditional values—a free society's first line of defense against tyranny. To illustrate, American Statists have hijacked Classical Liberalism’s ‘individual liberty' by shackling to it an “anything goes” meaning that amounts to moral turpitude.[4] Thus, Statists have turned America's time-honored value of individual liberty against our society in much the same way that an autoimmune disease turns the body's own immune response against itself.

The Apostle Peter spoke of the days we now live in: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19) The Psalmist wrote, “But unto the wicked God saith, ‘What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.’” (Psalm 50:16-17) Why is this important?

The West has tossed out God’s Law and a terrifying irony is unfolding as a result—an implacable ideology is rushing in to fill the spiritual and moral vacuum in Europe, Canada, and the United States. What is this terrifying irony and what is its prophetic significance?

Muslim populations and thus, Political Islam, are metastasizing indomitably across Europe, Canada and the United States. Muslim birth rates in the west are far outpacing native population birth rates which in many cases have fallen well below the replacement birth rate. If these demographic trends continue, the only thing that stands between Eurabia, Canadistan, and Amerabia is time, and not much of it. What does neo-Liberalism have to do with the spread of Islam?

The terrifying irony is this: As Political Islam (a redundancy) ascends to prominence in the West, what is left of the Law of the one and only God, who is love, will gradually be replaced by an intolerant, oppressive, imposed Islamic morality that is at war with everything modern Liberals hold dear.

The neo-Liberal values the West has stubbornly refused to let go of will be ripped from its hands to be replaced with Sharia.[5] Voluntary adherence will be replaced by forced subjugation to Islamic law which rejects Multiculturalism, Feminism, Homosexuality, and Abortion and imposes austere penalties for law-breakers, capital punishment among them. Then the West which opted for absolute “freedom” over the perfect “Law of Liberty” (James 2:12) will be given absolute tyranny.

As the scenario above plays out, the West will find itself in the horrible predicament described in the first chapter of Proverbs for those who reject God’s wisdom and counsel:

"Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices." (Proverbs 1:24-31)

© 2009 Seeds for Good Soil. For reprint permission, send email to: spincipher@comcast.net.
_______________________________________________

[1] Liberalism: Also known as Classical, Traditional, Laissez-Faire, and Market Liberalism. (Source: Wikipedia).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Statism: 1. “the political expression of altruism [which] is collectivism … [statism] holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” 2. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the … government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same.” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon)
[4] Moral Turpitude: Vile, shameful, or base character; depravity. A vile or depraved act. (Source: Wikipedia)
[5] Sharia: The body of Islamic law. (Source: Wikipedia)

The Good Ship Lollipop (a.k.a. The Supreme Court)

Good Ship Lollipop is a fitting metaphor for a Supreme Court that will be that much closer to weighing anchor for Candyland (for statists) if Sonia Sotomayer is confirmed by the US Senate. Captain Obama will only need one more oarsman and then he can sound the All aboooaaard! for liberals and their interests. The Court is already listing hard to port. The weight of Sotomayer's activism might sink the whole Country.

Once Lollipop shoves off, the US Constitution will be made to walk the plank, effectively leaving the Court blindfolded on a rudderless ship. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas will be reduced to four dissenting voices whose opinions will be stowed down in the bilge directly below the poop deck. Intially, America, like the seemed-to-be invincible Titanic, will seem fine, but her fate will have already been sealed.

Be not deceived! Obama wants Sotomayer on the Court for one primary reason; to import her ridiculous views and rulings on immigration so he can fling US borders wide open and ensure amnesty for illegals who, as a voting bloc, favor liberalism. As a card-carrying member of Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida, someone like Sotomayer is his best bet. This is part of O's strategy to circumvent any legislative impediment, federal or state, to amnesty. If he can stack the numbers, he will ensure his reelection, regardless of how many Americans join Tea Partys.

Note: For another chilling reason why we need to be concerned about US immigration policies, see YouTube video on the Nation of Atzlan.

Why does the Supreme Court bother accepting cases at all? In reality, a judicial ruling by fiat doesn't require a legal case, does it? I propose that the Supremes cut to the chase, choose 6-12 social inequities they feel need fixing in America, and render opinions on them? Why wait for cases? We need 'Hope and change' now!

Forget the Constitution; I'd settle for a little common sense! How did we manage to put a bunch of community activists with absolutely no common sense, on the highest court in the land?! What a joke!

Multiple Outbursts, The Pontiff of Bombastism, and Other Profanities

"Why Rush is Right: The party of Buckley and Reagan is alive and well because of the politics of Limbaugh. A true conservative's rebuttal of Frum’s lament"

The cover story of the March 7, 2009 edition of Newsweek Magazine features a contentious article by David Frum entitled, “Why Rush is Wrong: The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.” Frum opens his dirge with an outburst over an outburst (Frum’s term for any of Levin’s opening monologues) by Conservative talk show host Mark Levin in which he castigates pseudo-Conservatives using Frum as an illustration.

After his initial outburst over Levin’s outburst, Frum launches into another outburst, this time to bombast Rush Limbaugh for his bombastism. Realizing that bombasting a bombastic Conservative icon like Rush Limbaugh in Newsweek might not carry as much weight with Conservatives as it would say, in the American Spectator or Human Events, Frum precedes his bombastation of Rush with his CV of Conservative “bona fides.” He cites a meal with Mark Levin, volunteering for the Reagan campaign, attending Republican conventions, presiding over his law school’s Federalist Society, working on the WSJ editorial page, writing Bush II speeches, serving on the Giuliani campaign, voting for McCain, supporting the Iraq war and supporting Clinton’s impeachment, to prove he’s earned the right to bombast Rush.

In his bombastation, Frum insinuates that Rush’s bombastism typifies the views of a small but vocal Conservo-Fascist fringe and this, he argues, disqualifies Rush to be anointed “Conservative Pontiff.” He then explains why Rush as Conservatism’s ex cathedra bombastador would accelerate the current exodus from Conservatism and spell the end of the movement as we know it. I thought Frum was against Conservatism “as we know it?”

So let me get this straight; Frum’s participation in a bunch of Conservative field experiences makes him a bona fide Conservative? Considering the level of intelligence those activities demand, Frum must be smart enough to know that joining a Conservative scavenger hunt doesn’t automatically make someone is a true scavenger, any more than participating in Conservative activities makes someone a true Conservative.

The activities Frum lists would be expected of a model Conservative, to be sure. But they are only an indication that someone might be a Conservative, not dispositive proof. I don’t mean to be profane, but for Buckley’s sake! Judas participated in discipleship activities with Jesus for 3.5 years, heard his teachings, ate with him, and witnessed his miracles, but in retrospect, few would argue that those activities by themselves made Judas a bona fide disciple of Jesus. Neither does doing Conservative activities make one a bona fide Conservative.

I can’t recall ever hearing Rush Limbaugh say he wants to be anointed “leader of the Republican Party,” as Frum asserts, except perhaps as a tongue-in-cheek gadget to illustrate the absurdity of his detractors’ bombasts and outbursts. To be honest, we true Conservatives don’t “need” Levin to outburst or Rush to bombast for us, we can do it ourselves. We love Mark and Rush, not because they teach us what to believe, but because they espouse principles we already believe.

Conservatism is simple, really. “In a nutshell,” true Conservatism is a set of absolutes that derive from a Judeo-Christian understanding of right and wrong and a devotion to the United States Constitution as the Framers intended it. As such, Conservatism and bombastic Government are mutually exclusive; Conservatism and abortion cannot coexist, and so on.

Granted, it’s not always easy to tell who is and who isn’t a true Conservative. Some people who look a lot like Conservatives might actually be of the Heinz 57 variety, Liberoconservamoderate mutts if you will. But true Conservatives are, by definition, pedigreed purebreds. You can’t be a Conservative and have a little bit of Liberal in you. You can’t be a Conservative on every issue save one, such as abortion, and still be a Conservative. “Purebred mutt” is an oxymoron.

A Republican is a Conservative is a Republican does not hold up; true Conservatism is party agnostic anyway. Which brings me to another question: Is Frum a true Conservative or not? Is he a purebred or a mutt? Has he relaxed his Conservative values, or is he just now “coming out.” The difference is subtle, but the answer could explain why so many people who claim to be true Conservatives never were.

As for Levin’s outbursts and Rush’s bombastism, they comfort me. Why? Because they provide cathartic relief by mirroring the anger that has been building in me as I watch the irresponsible, dangerous, idiotic, America-destroying things that, as Frum decorates him, our “soft-spoken,” “conciliatory,” “never angry,” “always invoking the recession and its victims,” “devoted husband and father,” President and his appointees are doing to dismantle America. Again, not to be profane, but for Reagan’s sake! just because he’s smiling doesn’t mean he’s not destroying the country!

It is unfortunate that Mark Levin’s outbursts and Rush Limbaugh’s bombastism are offensive to David Frum and other pseudo-Conservatives, but it wasn’t Limbaugh or Levin who said, “Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a howling reproach.” It was ABC Nightline anchor, Ted Koppel, a noted master of artful confrontation. The only thing I see in Frum’s lament is an adolescent over-sensitivity to frank logic and tough love.

We Will Never Quit!

Winston Churchill had ordered Operation Dynamo to begin. It was an ambitious plan to evacuate tens of thousands of Allied troops who were pinned between an advancing German army and the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, France. The rescue was performed by an ‘armada’ of 860 boats that included British naval vessels and the legendary “little ships of Dunkirk,” whose civilian crews had been pressed into service for the urgent mission. In the end, 338,226 Allied troops — 198,229 British and 139,997 French — were ferried to England. On June 4, 1940, the final day of Operation Dynamo, Churchill delivered his famous “We shall fight on the beaches” speech to the British House of Commons. Following is one of the most notable excerpts from that speech.

Even though large parts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

In view of the ominous threat to our liberty Americans now face from radical Socialists who have taken control of our Government, I thought it fitting to adapt Winston Churchill’s words to inspire our own "Operation Dynamo" to rescue America from the oppressive hand of tyranny that has infiltrated our country’s leadership.

Even though we and our ageless Constitution have fallen under the oppressive hand of tyranny and all the odious apparatus of Marxism, we who are patriotic Americans shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in every state, we shall fight in every city and town across the Fruited Plain, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in prayer, we shall defend OUR country, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the halls of every state and local government, we shall fight in the halls of Congress, we shall fight in the courts, we shall fight on every sidewalk in America, we shall NEVER surrender to this tyranny, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, our beloved country or a large part of it were subjugated, we will draw on the strength of Almighty God who gives strength to the weary in their just cause, and we shall carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, this great nation, with all of its potential and promise, is liberated and returned to her rightful owners as “the Land of the free and the home of the brave!"

We will not, we must not allow fear or resignation to incapacitate us or defeat us. We must not give up for we shall not lose if we do not surrender. We must remain confident in this our mission because God is with us and our cause is just!

Dumb criminals are in jail ...

... but the smart ones are running America. The "Stimulus" Bill is evidentiary proof that the smart criminals have learned to codify their thievery before they steal somebody else's stuff.

Frankly, I'd feel less violated with a gun pointed at my head than I do as my representatives pilfers my paycheck. At least the armed robber doesn't try to convince me that he's merely making sure I pay my "fair share."

A robber only demands the money I have in my wallet. By this legislation, our Government has intercepted our hard-earned dollars long before they will ever reach our wallets. And if you refuse to pay their definition of your "fair share," you can bet a legally-armed federal agent will show up at your front door to help you come to your senses.

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States and principal author of the Declaration of Independence said, "I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing."

In the eleventh chapter of his Second Treatise, influential English philosopher John Locke wrote, "For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it, between him and his fellow subjects, if he who commands those subjects, have power to take from any private man, what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good."

Where are the Thomas Jeffersons and John Lockes of our day? It is as if our elected representatives have lost their minds, substituting whim for constitutional principles!

The "Stimulus Package" is nothing less than Government-sponsored embezzlement. Strong words? The Founders had a far more visceral response to the comparatively minor British incursion on their property rights. Ultimately, this "taxation without [a corresponding] representation" will be used by our Government, not to benefit their confiscates, but to transfer wealth in a "money for votes" scheme.

As we try to recover from the federally-sponsored fiscal rape that has just been perpetrated on us, we must remember that more money in US Treasury coffers is not the zero-sum game they are playing. Increased power and control are. And they will use our hard-earned dollars to heap new benficiaries to themselves and thus solidify their power and control for years to come.

No longer is organized crime in competition with Government; they are bedfellows! Wake up America!

All Roads Lead to Caliphate Shangri-la

It is encouraging to know the US Government is doing everything they know to protect us from acts of terrorism. But there’s a more insidious concern.

Perhaps not as obvious to the casual observer, is the need to understand, not only how Islamic ideology drives Islamists to commit acts of terror, but also how that same ideology energizes a subversive "stealth jihad" that seeks to gradually transform our culture by infiltrating our institutions of government, education, and law.

I am not at all convinced that radical and Islam are separable, exceptions notwithstanding. If, as author and syndicated columnist Mark Steyn discredits, radical Islam is "desperation born of poverty,” then equal opportunity and “random acts of kindness" toward the Islamic community should defuse their animus. If, however, Islamic fundamentalism and Islam's own sense of its “manifest destiny” are driven by core theological beliefs, then a 'social services' approach will cost valuable time and resources and accomplish little to interdict the real problem. I believe it is mostly the latter with poor economic and social status fueling proselytizing efforts.

I am amazed at the level of ignorance and "Willful Blindness" (to borrow the title of Andrew McCarthy's book) most Americans exhibit toward the Islamist threat to our way of life, style of government and culture. Few, including most policymakers, understand the 'pathology' of Islam that sometimes leads to terrorism. As a result, the West is capitulating fast, particularly Western Europe. If we are to create effective solutions, we must 'choose wisely' in assessing the underlying energizing theological principles that spawn terrorists. Otherwise, we will be firing at the wrong target and empowering the real threat as we strive to convince our sworn enemies that we aren't such bad people once they get to know us.

Few would disagree that Islam is an ideology; it is also a religion with a mono-deity, a holy book (the Koran), a one-of-a-kind 'prophet' who ostensibly received the revelation recorded in that book, which book enjoins strict and extreme requirements on its adherents, including an austere set of religious disciplines. Taken together, these ingredients provide a powerful inoculation against Western attempts to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, not to mention understand and combat the terrorist threat. In order to fully and accurately assess the threat, analysis must be informed by an unvarnished understanding of Islam in its various forms. Understanding the ideology may also shed light on the method or timing of terrorist attacks. Absent this understanding, analysis is apt to misread the 'tea leaves' in its assessment of 'cold, hard facts.'

All this to say, the West must not force its “politically correct” filter over Islamism. Otherwise, we risk walking into a seductive trap. Islamists don’t particularly care which road they take to Caliphate Shangri-la; they just want to arrive. Terrorism or subversion from within, either will do. Superimposing our own idiosyncratic wishful thinking on Islam that “Mohammedism” is a “religion of peace” may make us feel more secure, but it won't prevent Islamists from turning us into a nation governed by sharia.

Islamists neither play by nor recognize our world view or principles of governance; they will gladly allow us to believe that they want what we want, when they do not. Until we come to terms with this "elephant in the room," we will continue to problem-solve by exception with our pineapple doormat set out to welcome those who would replace our way of life. Our good intentions may pave the road to our demise.

Associating Islamic extremism with Islamic ideology creates discomfort because it flies in the face of prevailing 'politically correct' beliefs. Of course, if this connection is made, it will force us to rethink our position on multiculturalism and a religious freedom that keeps quarter with an ideology sworn to supplant it. Then we really will have something to worry about.

Freedom of Choice for Who?

Certainly not for the "blob of tissue." If you believe freedom of "choice" is tied to accurate and complete information regarding opposing alternatives, then certainly not for the mother or her parents (in the case of minors).

If, for example, in the process of applying for a job you withhold germane information about yourself you present yourself as "someone else," you have impeded a prospective employer's ability to choose whether or not to hire you as opposed to the impostor you portray. "Choice" without true and complete information is no choice at all.

Someone recently asked me, “What legal impediments [to abortion] does this law ["Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)"] remove?”

According to Americans United for Life, fifteen "impediments" to abortion that will be overturned by FOCA are:

1. Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
2. Hyde Amendment (restricting taxpayer funding of abortions).
3. Restrictions on abortions performed at military hospitals.
4. Restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion for federal workers.
5. Informed consent laws requiring parents to be notified if a minor is seeking abortion.
6. Waiting periods.
7. “Delayed enforcement” laws if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned or abortion is returned to the states.
8. Parental consent and notification laws.
9. Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics.
10. Right of licensed physicians to not perform abortions.
11. Bans on abortion after viability.
12. Limits on taxpayer funding for elective abortions.
13. Limits on the use of public facilities for abortion.
14. State and federal legal protections for healthcare providers who refuse to participate in abortions.

Baby boomers gave us abortion. Absent the Social Security revenues that would have been generated by 50-million aborted taxpayers, boomer generation progeny will give boomers geriatric euthanasia, particularly in economic hard times. The boomer generation taught their offspring that life is only important if it is convenient. When boomers are are old and inconvenient, their children do likewise.

Granted, I speak in simplistic, broad strokes, but mark my words - America's hospices, nursing homes and hospitals will become killing centers for the aged or disabled. We are already moving in that direction.