Empty the stadiums.

Boycott the NFL

I don’t usually waste time even thinking about “sportsball,” much less writing about it. But the National Football League has jumped the proverbial shark, with this “take a knee” during the National Anthem B.S. – and even more, by refusing to admit they have taken a wrong turn, but instead doubling down on their stupidity.

The idea that the NFL would dare to complain about “lack of respect,” when they are disrespecting our flag and everything it stands for – including the sacrifice of all those who have fallen defending that flag, and “the Republic for which it stands,” over the centuries – just fills me with absolute and complete disdain for those sorry excuses for human beings. “Respect”? They deserve none. They’re being paid millions to play a frickin’ game, and they’re acting like spoiled children! Despicable.

And yes, I agree that they have a right to “take a knee” if that’s what they want to do. Absolutely. And the rest of us have the right to think that they’re despicable, reprehensible children with no respect or appreciation for the incredible opportunities they and everyone else in this country possess simply by virtue of being born here. As one friend pointed out, the very fact that they have the right to behave in such a pitiful fashion without being jailed for it is precisely why they should not do it!

Cretins.

Advertisements

Touché!

British Prime Minister Theresa May reacting to the recent train-bombing in London by an 18-year-old Islamic immigrant

STEP 1) Feign shock
STEP 2) Express resolve
STEP 3) Say good things about Islam
STEP 4) Pretend that taking in more Muslims “defeats terrorists” and makes us safer

Source: The Religion of Peace

London bombing shows danger of Islamification in Britain and Europe. Is the US next? | Fox News

The terrorist bombing Friday of a train on the London Underground, which injured 30 people – including one of my very close friends – was yet more evidence of a painful truth: the Islamification of the United Kingdom and Europe is well under way, changing the very character of the continent that gave birth to Western Civilization.

Source: London bombing shows danger of Islamification in Britain and Europe. Is the US next? | Fox News

This is indeed an excellent essay, and the fact that it is written by someone who was, herself, touched by the latest bombing in London – through a friend of hers, who was fortunate that when the bomb detonated in her train compartment, it did not go off properly. I strongly recommend that you “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” this essay!

But like most other writings on the subject of Islam, in her commendable zeal to protect religious liberty and avoid tarring with too broad a brush, Ms Davis misses a few important points.

She quotes the Brookings Institute definition of Islamism, which of course is quite accurate, as far as it goes. However, consider: any religion worth its salt believes that its “values should play a role in public life,” and that it “has things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people – not just themselves – should conduct themselves.” If it does not, it hardly qualifies as a religion at all: at best, it is some form of nebulous personal spirituality.

Certainly, Christianity has things to say about these issues. Buddhism (more so in the East than in the West, but in some places even here) has things to say about these issues. Hinduism and certainly Taoism have things to say about these issues. The difference lies in how those values are promoted and expressed, and what the religion in question sees as its ultimate role in society.

I don’t feel that I can speak authoritatively for the other religions mentioned, but I do believe that I can speak fairly authoritatively for Christianity, having degrees in medieval studies and theology and being an ordained Christian minister. And what I can say is that while Christianity has certainly not been immune to the temptations to power-politics and even violence that come from a too-close alliance with secular authorities, such things are foreign and even contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith itself.

The fundamental teachings of Christianity are encapsulated in Christ’s summary of the law: “Love the Lord your God… and your neighbor as yourself.” This concept is repeated and reinforced in such passages as “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” and “a new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another.” Similar teachings appear in the writings of the Apostles, Christ’s successors after His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

And his final instruction was to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptize. Not conquer. Not subjugate. Not kill. Baptize. That is a voluntary action: one must make a choice to receive the teachings, before baptism can take place (1). Nowhere is violence called for (2). Nowhere are Christians called to fight, kill, or make war against the “infidel.” Nowhere are they told to make non-Christians second-class citizens (dhimmi) who must die, convert, or admit they are inferior and pay protection money (jizya).

Beyond that, Christians are supposed to be the “leaven in the loaf” of the body politic, not its rulers and dominators. Christ was clear about this, stating “My kingdom is not of this world,” and instructing his listeners to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” His Apostles followed the same track, exhorting the early Christians to “honour the king,” and to obey the secular authorities, including the (then pagan) Roman Emperor. Christians were – and are – intended to seek to exert a positive influence on the actions of secular and political authorities by example and moral exhortation, not, as I say, domination and rulership.

So Christianity has, and God willing will continue to have, “things to say” about “how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how [people in general] should conduct themselves.” The important point is that the Christian faith itself – regardless of what deluded or over-zealous devotees may have done on their own initiative – does not teach that Christianity, or its followers, should politically dominate the world, and it does not teach violence as a way to spread its teachings. You can search the New Testament, and for that matter the Fathers of the Church (approximately corresponding to Islamic prophet Mohammed’s immediate successors), in vain for any such teachings.

And that is the point that so many otherwise intelligent and perceptive individuals – on both sides of the political aisle – consistently miss, or misunderstand: Islam is not just another religion. It does not merely believe that “its values should play a role in public life.” It does not simply have “things to say about how politics should be conducted, how the law should be applied, and how other people… should conduct themselves.” Would that that’s all it were! But it is not.

It is a religious / spiritual / theological justification for absolute dominance, conquest, and subjugation, in all realms: religious, political, judicial, economic, and military. One is either part of the Dar al-Islam, the Realm of Submission to Allah, or one is part of the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of Conflict, and thus subject to conquest so that submission to Allah may be enforced upon you. Those are the choices. And that is why the present contest between the West and Islam is a civilizational, existential conflict, whether one likes to think of it in those terms or not. Islam has not left us any choice in the matter.

All of that said: this is nonetheless a cogent and timely article, and an important warning for us, here in the U.S. It is well worth a read! Just don’t let yourself get caught up into too erroneous concepts, which this otherwise superb essay implicitly accepts: a) that Islam / Islamism is just a religion, and that b) no other religion has, or should have, things to say to and about the rest of (secular) society.

Personally, as The Anglophilic Anglican, I am heartsick at what is happening in Britain, and I pray it’s not too late to reverse it. But it will take some doing, and it may take sterner measures than people nowadays have the stomach for, unfortunately.

I also pray that we may resist this evil – and yes, it is an evil, both Islam and its Sharia law, and the loss of Western values, ideals, and the history and heritage of our Western civilization to Islam – here in the United States. Better not to let it gain any more of a foothold than it already has, rather than trying to get the camel back out once it’s already in the tent!


 

(1) Yes, I know there were some mass, forced baptisms in the course of the conversion of Europe. But those were the exceptions rather than the rule; they were done by secular rulers for primarily political purposes; and they were clearly contrary to the teachings of the Christian faith. Everyone has sinned and fallen short, and Christians are no exceptions.

(2) Christ’s most violent action was to make a whip of knotted cords and drive the money changers out of the Temple, turning over their tables. Not, please note, killing them! And when he exhorts his disciples that “let he who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one,” and is told they have two swords (for twelve disciples) he says, “It is enough.” When one of them actually uses his sword, cutting off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, Christ heals him. Contrast that to the actions of the Prophet of Islam and tell me there is moral equivalency between the two!

Does Immigration Mean The End Of Western Civilization?

“In the long term, Europe can either prefer its own civilization and culture, and defend it, or capitulate to another. But it cannot… absorb masses of unassimilated members of another culture and expect to survive. It will be changed forever, and the change will be in the direction of the immigrants’ way of life, and away from that of the native-born. This is a difficult truth to accept in our egalitarian age.”

Source: Does Immigration Mean The End Of Western Civilization?

The situation is, of course, most critical for Europe. But if Europe falls, it is unlikely that America will be far behind.

On recognizing the REAL threat to our culture and institutions (hint: it’s not the Right)

A tale of two rallies.jpg

A dear Facebook friend of mine accurately and perceptively posted the following, this morning:

I am constantly being told we need to find common ground and meet in the middle to deal with the alt left and alt right. I just made this reply on a comment on my timeline:

Well, I am not personally concerned with the so-called alt right. I believe that’s all smoke and mirrors meant to pull our focus away from the extreme leftist agenda. Suddenly, everyone is screeching about alt right, kkk, neo nazi, white supremacists… when was the last time you recall a bunch of skinheads pillaging, vandalizing, attacking cops, defacing property, throwing bottles filled with cement at folks and shooting people with paint guns? There is a BIG difference in exercising [our] first amendment right to speech, even if it’s racist in nature and I disagree with it, and being a violent mob that tries to stop free speech and peaceful assembly as well as demand the destruction and removal of anything “offensive.”

There is no middle ground there for me. I will stand by anyone’s constitutional right to express views, contrary to mine or not. I will not even attempt to compromise on the issue of violence and lawlessness. I don’t see how I can find middle ground with folks whose main agenda is the destruction of my nation and my freedom.

Needless to say, I agree completely. Some things should not be compromised on, period, ever. There are radical rightists, of course. Some of them are pictured (if they are authentic, and not planted agents provocateurs) in the top image, above. But they are small potatoes indeed, compared with the large, well-funded, media-savvy, and politically well-connected radical Left, who are actively attempting to destroy not only our historical and cultural heritage, but the very fabric of American society.

Besides, the problem with “finding middle ground” is that the “middle ground” keeps shifting. I saw this with the struggles in the Episcopal Church, back in the 1990s (and later): OK, so you agree to “middle ground.” Well, guess what? You now have 50% of what you once had. And you’ve been pegged as being “willing to compromise.” So then they come back and want to “compromise”… again. If you agree, you’re down to 25%. Then 12.5%. And so on… Nope. Sooner or later, we’ve got to take a stand. Better to do it sooner, while there’s enough ground left to stand on!

It’s one thing to compromise on whether to play checkers or chess, whether to go out or stay in tonight, or even which neighborhood to live in. It’s another thing entirely to compromise on issues like freedom of speech and assembly – and the right to exercise these rights freely, without being broken up by violent assault – or the protection of history and heritage. On these issues, in my opinion, there can be no compromise.

Either one supports the inalienable rights given to us by God and enumerated in the Constitution, or one does not. Either one believes that history should be preserved, even the parts of it which one finds problematic, or one does not. There is no “middle ground.”

Some will attempt to use the Biblical imperative to “love your neighbor as yourself” to justify the actions of the iconoclasts and the barbarians. But a foolish or misplaced compassion is not truly compassion at all. God is a God of truth, as well as a God of love, and a love which is grounded in falsehood is founded on shifting sand and will not long endure. And much of what is going on today is rooted in ignorance of our nation’s history (and the world’s), or worse yet, an unwillingness to even seek the truth.

And this willful ignorance is leading, in too many cases, to violence. Violence against human persons, violence against historical imagery (the difference between Antifa and ISIS has more to do with geography than principle), and violence against the truths of history. As another friend has put it, “it is Kristallnacht in the U.S.” A long, slow-motion Kristallnacht, but I agree. And it is not coming from neo-Nazis or the KKK, but the Left.

When they destroy statues with impunity, can burning books – or, these days, electronically altering them – be far behind? And then, can it be long before they come for us?

As my dear friend so aptly put it:

There is no middle ground there for me. I will stand by anyone’s constitutional right to express views, contrary to mine or not. I will not even attempt to compromise on the issue of violence and lawlessness. I don’t see how I can find middle ground with folks whose main agenda is the destruction of my nation and my freedom.

I stand with her.

In Their Own Words: This Chilling Chant Shows What ‘Antifa’ Fascists are All About

These four words tell you everything you need to know about antifa.

Source: In Their Own Words: This Chilling Chant Shows What ‘Antifa’ Fascists are All About

What are those four words, chanted at the Berkeley “demonstration” on Saturday? Listen for yourself:

Hard to miss: “No Trump. No Wall. No USA at all!”

Note those last four words. Mark them. Ponder them. Consider their implications.

You don’t have to like President Trump. I don’t, particularly, although I do respect him as the Constitutionally-elected President of the United States. You don’t have to agree with the concept of a border wall to keep out illegal immigrants. I think we should keep out illegal immigrants, and deport those who are already here, but I am ambivalent on whether a border wall is the best way to do that.

But… “No USA at all”…?

Yep, the article is correct: that tells you everything you need to know about these… people (and I used the term loosely).

This is what we’re fighting, folks. While the politicians and media and the professional complainers of the Left are whining and moaning about “racists,” “white supremacists,” Nazis, and God knows what-and-all, this is what’s sneaking in the back door. Except that they’re not exactly sneaking, anymore. More like breaking down the front door!

And we’re not fighting it; too many Americans are embracing it, or – what is almost as bad – ignoring it, and hoping it’ll go away. But it won’t. It’s a disease, a cancer, and if we don’t oppose it, actively and vigorously, it will spread and worsen.

“No USA at all.”

Is this what we want? Really?

Understanding the purpose of Confederate memorials

Courthouse Statue - Loudon County Courthouse, VA
Courthouse Statue, Loudon County Courthouse, Leesburg, Virginia

Understanding the purpose of Confederate memorials

The statues were erected as a means of healing the nation’s wounds

By Richard H. Black — Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Richard H. Black, a member of the Senate of Virginia, is a former U.S. Marine pilot and Vietnam War veteran. He is a member of the Virginia War Memorial Commission.

ANALYSIS/OPINION: The Virginia General Assembly wisely enacted Va. Code Section 15.2-1812 to protect war memorials from destruction for political reasons. It provides: “If such [war memorials] are erected, it shall be unlawful to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected.”

Localities erected monuments to those who fought in the War Between the States several decades after the war, while millions of those veterans were still living. The Confederate soldier monument, at the Old Courthouse in Leesburg, was erected in 1908, roughly 43 years after the war ended. Most Confederate veterans would have been in their 60s by then, and many had befriended old adversaries.

In Northern Virginia, John Mosby, the famed “Gray Ghost,” had bedeviled the Union armies with hit-and-run cavalry tactics that earned him a prominent place in Civil War history. After the war, he befriended his old nemesis, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. Their friendship began in 1866, when Grant issued him a handwritten safe-conduct pass. Later, Mosby became President Grant’s Republican campaign manager for Virginia, and he was fondly remembered in Grant’s memoirs. In such ways did our nation gradually bind the terrible wounds of our most tragic war.

Millions of good people, North and South, endured great suffering. In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he set forth his postwar goals: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.”

When the Courthouse Statue was erected, it was “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” The statue is a quiet, reflective image of the men who fought that war. One can imagine those who attended when it was erected in 1908. No doubt they included veterans, widows, and those for whom the statue was a solemn memorial to long-lost friends; to fathers, husbands or brothers. It was not a political statement any more than the Vietnam War Memorial is a political statement about that war.

The Virginia Code protects war memorials because they record our history. The purpose of the law prohibiting the removal of war memorials is to avoid the type of conflict that occurred in Charlottesville.

Troublemakers rip down historically significant statues for political reasons. The Islamic State employed cultural destruction as a weapon of terror in Iraq and Syria; we mustn’t follow suit in Virginia.

The chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors proposed a change to the Virginia Code making it easier to tear down war memorials. Attempts to remove Loudoun County’s Confederate Statue would harm our image and divide our community. The board should be calming racial tensions – not inflaming them.

As senator for the 13th District, I represent the Manassas National Battlefield and Balls Bluff Battlefield Regional Park. Visitors quietly walk those hallowed grounds with a sense of reverence that honors fallen heroes of both sides; political leaders should approach them with that same respect.

On the 106th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis, the Arlington Cemetery Confederate Monument was unveiled before a large crowd of Northerners and Southerners on June 4, 1914. President Woodrow Wilson addressed a large crowd of Union and Confederate veterans, who placed wreaths on the graves of their former foes, symbolizing reconciliation between North and South – the memorial’s central theme.

Those who paid the price in blood formed bonds of brotherhood for the benefit of America. We do them a disservice when we reverse those magnanimous acts of love and mercy.

I have no doubt that statue removal would eventually invite removal of headstones from Confederate gravesites; there is always some new tool to perpetuate division and hatred.
We should have the wisdom to respect our history and draw lessons from it.

I oppose weakening the Virginia statute protecting war memorials. If bills attacking war monuments are introduced in the Senate, I will vote against them.


Thank you, Senator Black. I wish more politicians shared your wisdom and plain common sense.