Islam, Terror, & Our President

Here’s what we know thus far about the murderous rampage in San Bernardino yesterday: the murderers were a Muslim husband-wife team; it was well planned, not spur of the moment; their home was booby-trapped and was like an IED factory.

But we can’t call this Islamic terrorism, you understand. No, that doesn’t fit the Obama administration’s narrative. We must maintain the double standard that both the administration and its media allies have constructed:

Complicit in Murder

As with the Ft. Hood shooter and the massacre he carried out, we must instead call this “workplace violence.” That’s already the theme being pushed by Obama and his people. That, and the real cause of this violence: citizens owning guns. Yes, our commander in chief’s first response to yesterday’s terrorist attack was to call on Congress to rein in gun purchases. They’re the problem, not the people committed to a genocidal religious ideology.

Our president’s own radical ideology doesn’t allow him to admit that Islamism is the actual problem. He’s still wedded to the concept that America has caused all of this by its own braggadocio and interventions in the world. Consequently, this is why he has no genuine plans for combating the terrorism—in the deepest area of his heart, he somehow thinks they are right to be outraged and we deserve what we are getting.

It just so happens, before yesterday’s attack, I had been compiling some excellent political cartoons showcasing the Obama approach to terrorism. Here are a few that pretty well summarize it:

More Boots on the Ground

Not Who We Are

Twitter Attack

After all, he knows who the real enemies are:

Radical Republican Terrorists

Yet has the media ever confronted him about his worldview and where it leads?

Tough Question

What was truly funny—well, I don’t know that “funny” is the proper term—was to see him in Paris, where 129 people were recently killed by Islamic terrorists, proclaiming that those kinds of events only happen in America.

Huh?

And why was he in Paris? Why, he was dealing with the one issue that causes all this terrorism and that is going to destroy the entire world: climate change. Yes, Islamic terrorism is nothing compared to this danger:

Terror Climate Change

How are we going to send those so-called terrorists a message? By attending a climate change conference, of course.

Powerful Rebuke

If our president had his way, the evening news would look like this:

First the Weather

One can only speculate how America would have handled the Pearl Harbor attack if FDR had subscribed to the Obama perspective. Well, one cartoonist did speculate:

InfamyWe’re going to have to put up with this until January 2017—if we last that long.

Dangers of Misguided Compassion

I’m concerned that many of my fellow Christian believers are falling for a lie—the lie that if the US doesn’t take in thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugees that we are a hard-hearted, unchristian people. Accusations against those who want to be cautious about the refugee crisis come from the very top:

You're Racist

First, let’s drop the racist angle; it’s getting pretty old and stale. Then there’s the accusation that those who are opposed to unlimited immigration from Syria are religious bigots who hate Muslims. Again, that’s too stereotyped.

Do I hate Muslims? Absolutely not. I believe they are misguided and have pledged allegiance to a false god, but I would hope that every Christian would want to help them see the truth of the Gospel that can set them free from the chains that bind them.

Yet there is, within Islam itself, a worldview that is basically inconsistent with the American constitutional system of government. Muslims who are not Muslim in name only, and who seek to establish a culture grounded in Islam—not allowing for any dissent—are bent on destroying the edifice of the American Republic.

Of course, we have others who are doing the same from a completely secular viewpoint, but why invite more problems?

It is not hard-hearted to take seriously the responsibility to protect and defend the citizens of one’s country. From a Biblical perspective, that is the primary reason for a government to exist. Too many Christians don’t grasp the essentials of how government is to be carried out in a Biblical manner.

Instead, we often allow our emotions to overrule Biblical principles. True compassion will differentiate between those who deserve help and those who do not. True compassion will make judgments on who is a real refugee who should be granted asylum and who is not.

Christians who are suffering persecution in the Middle East should be first on the list for refugee status because the goal of radical Islam is to kill them all. President Obama, though, calls that an unfair religious test. No, it is facing reality.

All who are fleeing Syria should be thoroughly vetted if they come here at all because it is obvious that the jihadists will use this flood of refugees to insert themselves into our country. It doesn’t take a PhD to realize that.

Good SamaritanThe example of the Good Samaritan is being used to try to shame those of us who want a proper vetting. That is a misplaced analogy. The context is different. In the parable, there is no overarching story about a bloodthirsty, fanatical group devoted to world domination. It’s simply the story of one man in great need who received aid from the most unlikely source.

The true Syrian refugees do deserve compassion and aid. Yet is the best solution an open-borders policy? Why not instead an international approach where they are provided a “safe space” (to use a term floating around so carelessly nowadays) in a culture where they fit in better? Why not apply pressure to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to take in their own? Why flood America with the teeming masses who might hide those who wish to destroy us?

Proper Christian compassion does reach out and offer help. We must be wise, though, in how that help is extended. Bring the persecuted Christians into America and find another way to take care of others who deserve our compassion because we just don’t have the means to do a proper vetting, despite what the government tells us.

Misguided compassion could be the death of us all.

The Rush to Self-Deception

Paris AttacksEveryone who has a blog is probably commenting today on the Paris attacks of last Friday. Although I haven’t superimposed the French flag on my Facebook image (I’m not one for fads of that kind), that doesn’t mean I’m not deeply disturbed over what has occurred. This was another prime example of Islamic terrorism, even if our president stubbornly continues to avoid using that terminology.

Paris Attacks MapThe attacks in Paris took place at a number of locations at approximately the same time. They were well orchestrated. ISIS has claimed credit for them. At least one of the attackers was part of the Syrian refugee flood, a tide of humanity that ISIS takes advantage of by inserting its adherents, knowing that they will not be vetted properly before infiltrating the welcoming nation’s population.

This is nothing new, of course. Western nations have been the greatest abettors of their own destruction. We are so afraid of appearing insensitive, racist, or intolerant, that we opt for allowing avowed enemies into our midst.

I’m reminded of Mark Steyn’s comments in his book America Alone:

America AloneAfter September 11, the first reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, so did the Prince of Wales, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, the prime minister of Canada and many more. And, when the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died away, you couldn’t help feeling that this would strike almost any previous society as, well, bizarre.

Pearl Harbor’s been attacked? Quick, order some sushi and get me into a matinee of Madam Butterfly! Seeking to reassure the co-religionists of those who attack you that you do not regard them all as the enemy is a worthy aim but a curious first priority. And, given that more than a few of the imams in those mosque photo-ops turned out to be at best equivocal on the matter of Islamic terrorism and at worst somewhat enthusiastic supporters of it, it involved way too much self-deception on our part.

That self-deception seems to exist more at the top levels of our government than among our citizens in general. Polls show that most Americans expect Paris-type attacks to be coming soon to a city near us. A government’s first task is to protect its own citizens; are we sure our current government really believes in that?

For Christians, there is kind of a divided mind on these matters at times. We want to help genuine refugees, particularly since we know that some of them are Christian brothers and sisters trying to escape persecution and annihilation. We don’t want them sent back into that maelstrom.

Yet we can help those refugees through some very effective ministries, and we should do so, even as my church is doing now. But that doesn’t mean we ignore the very real threat that this refugee explosion contains. It’s not Christian to blindly accept everyone, thereby endangering our fellow countrymen.

This unfolding tragedy has no easy answers, but governmentally, it could at least start with an acknowledgement of the real problem. With our present government, that will not happen.

Recognizing “The Agenda”

The Agenda marches on. What agenda, you ask? The attempt to paint a portrait of evangelical Christians as the narrow-minded bigots of the world and the obstacles to “progress,” as defined by the new Progressive Movement.

We see this in many facets, but let me point out two in particular today.

One prong of The Agenda is to say that we are agents of propaganda against Muslims. It’s Christian bigotry, some say, when we warn of the Islamic threat to what once was a society based on a Biblical worldview.

This gets tied in to concerns about the border and illegal immigration, where we can also conveniently be called “anti-immigrant” and racist.

Yet the concerns are real. This latest wave of sympathy for refugees from Syria is a case in point. I would welcome all the persecuted Christians from that region. I would even welcome Muslim families fleeing the radicals. But is that what we will be receiving? Reports from European nations accepting these refugees tell us something different.

Refugee Trojan Horse

I, and other evangelicals like me, make a distinction between individuals and stereotypes. Every individual, Muslim or otherwise, is a potential child of God. We have no qualms opening our hearts to those who are in genuine need and who might be able to see the errors of the way in which they have been raised. We reach out to offer the good news of the Gospel to anyone with ears to hear.

Another prominent prong of The Agenda is to portray Christians as “homophobes.” Let’s be clear—I do fear a society that accepts homosexuality as mainstream because that destroys the family structure as established by God, thereby ultimately destroying that society in the end.

However, I would gladly welcome anyone struggling with that particular sin to sit down and talk about God’s absolutes and the freedom He offers through the Cross. I don’t hate anyone caught in that sin, but I do believe it is essential to recognize it as sin; that’s the first step in being set free.

What I do object to is The Agenda, which is to use every avenue in our culture to normalize homosexuality and to depict anyone opposed to it as hardhearted and evil.

It has become nearly mandatory for television programs to include a homosexual story line to accompany the main theme. The latest instance for me came in the latest episode of an otherwise fine Masterpiece Theater WWII drama called Home Fires. It is a superb story of how one English village had to deal with the problems of the war. Yet in the middle of the plot, we now see a lesbian relationship.

Home Fires

The character on the right is the new schoolteacher in the village who has gone there to escape the bigotry of those who fired her for her lesbian relationship with the character on the left. The one on the left has now followed her to the village and we were subjected to a full and lingering mouth-to-mouth kiss. We are to understand that they are not allowed to express their love openly because of the stilted morality that continues to dominate England in this “backward” time.

So what I object to is The Agenda. It is very real, and the eventual goal is not only to drown out the voice of Christian morality but to prosecute those who continue to be so “bigoted.”

If you don’t think that’s the goal, you are not paying attention.

The irony for those on the “progressive” side, of course, is that if they have their way, and we become Islamicized, all homosexuals will be put to death. Christians only want to help them out of their sin, not kill them.

So what do we do? We continue to proclaim truth and reach out to all who are open to that truth. Will we ever reclaim the entire society? No one can guarantee that, but I do know that the Lord has called us to be faithful, and if we are, there is no telling what He may be able to do through us.

Russia & the Decline of American Influence

Syria? Who cares about Syria? Iraq? Old story. Never should have gone there in the first place. Leave it alone. Let everyone in that whole region just fight it out amongst themselves since there’s no one to support anyway.

That last paragraph summarizes what a lot of people think. That’s pretty much what Donald Trump said as well. Some of the sentiment I can understand. Trying to build nations is a complicated mess when there is no practice of self-government and when there is no Biblical basis for governing.

So, yes, I understand how some people feel.

But that doesn’t erase the threat emanating from radical Islam in the region, a threat that won’t be contained there but will show up more consistently within our borders, especially if we cut and run.

Unfortunately, cutting and running seems to be the Obama administration’s policy—to the point that we have now allowed Russia to take the lead, particularly in Syria.

ISIS Strategy

Vladimir Putin’s bold move into leadership in that civil war came directly after meeting with Obama. Apparently, there was no warning he was going to intervene; he simply did so and informed us afterward. Most insulting was the directive that American planes should keep out of the way. Of course, those planes weren’t doing much anyway, given the strategy (?) for victory (?) Obama has put into operation, but the demand itself shows that Russia is now in the driver’s seat and America is an afterthought.

No matter what you think of American involvement in the region, the insertion of Russian authority should be a warning about the loss of influence America now has in the situation. Why, it’s as if no one really believes Obama’s warnings. I wonder why that might be?

Red Line

Ah, yes, that infamous “red line” he supposedly drew in the Syrian sands, which he then conveniently forgot about when Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons anyway. The term has now taken on a whole new meaning:

Russian Landing Strip

Perhaps you recall a comment Obama made during his first term when he thought his microphone was off while speaking with a Russian leader—you know, the comment that if he were to win a second term, he could then be more “flexible” in his foreign policy. Well, that certainly has come to fruition:

More Flexible

Obama’s leadership has become little more than a joke around the world, particularly with nations we should be the most concerned about:

Love That One

America doesn’t always have to put boots on the ground and be the world’s policeman, but we ought to be a major player in dealing with global problems that will come home to roost. Under our current leadership, the United States has become pretty much a laughingstock.

And you wonder why so many of us look longingly back to the days of a real president, one who was able to exert American influence without major loss of life and while overseeing a robust economy? Yes, I’m talking about Ronald Reagan.

There is no Reagan on the horizon, but we can definitely do better than the leadership we’re stuck with now.

We can blame Obama, but who put him in the position he now occupies? It’s never been more true that a nation’s leaders are the reflection of the nation’s people—and that’s a sad development. It says something about Americans in general that should shake us to the core.

Carson, Islam, & the Constitution

Ben CarsonBen Carson says he wouldn’t support having a Muslim for president and the politically correct world explodes in outrage. He says Islam and the American Constitution are at odds and he’s decried as some kind of constitutional ignoramus.

Time to step back and breathe. As many have noted, he made the quite valid point that anyone who is devoted to Sharia law as the basis for one’s personal life and for how a society should operate is not in sync with the government established under our Constitution.

A truly devout Muslim does follow Sharia law, and anyone who believes that law should have priority over the laws of this nation under the Constitution clearly should not be in high office, president or otherwise.

ConstitutionYes, the Constitution does not place a religious test on officeholding. Yes, anyone, Muslim or whatever, is free to run for president or Congress. We have at least one Muslim congressman right now. But anyone who tries to change our constitutional republic via Islamic law is sabotaging the very nature of the republic.

Under Islamic law, you can forget about religious liberty. You can forget about quite a few of our liberties. They would no longer exist. Therefore, I know that I would oppose any individual running for office who would want to move the country in that direction.

All of this, though, was more of a “gotcha” question than anything. How many Muslims are currently running for president? Right. The question was designed simply to trip up Carson and try to make him into a bigot.

Carson should have been more clear what he meant in his original statement, but since then he has come out and clarified, saying essentially what I have just written. I commend him for not bowing to the hollow cries of outrage and for sticking to the truth about the nature of Islam and the nature of our constitutional republic.

Now, let’s get on to the real issues.

Obama vs. the Founding Fathers

On President Obama’s favorite “news” station, MSNBC, over a week ago, he was interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Matthews, you might remember, is the one for whom Obama’s election sent a thrill up his leg, which means he is of course a serious, non-biased interviewer who won’t let anyone get away with silly comments. Well, you judge.

In the course of that interview, Obama declared, “There actually is probably less war and less violence around the world today than there might have been 30-40 years ago.” Does that strike you as an intelligent, discerning statement? Or does it lend itself to the diminution of an already diminished presidency?

Less Violence

Respect for this kind of “leadership” is hard to come by. That statement is from the man who still refuses to identify the victims of terrorism as Christians and the perpetrators as Muslims. This is the man who has sidelined the war on terror because he doesn’t think it exists. The facts just don’t back him up:

Never Say Never

This is also the man who thinks that Iran will join the civilized world if only we give them what they want. He perhaps views himself in the Reagan mold when he reached agreement with the Soviets. Reagan, though, had a guiding principle for those negotiations: trust but verify. Obama has modified that somewhat:

Trust

He also seeks to do what Reagan did not do: carry on this negotiation and “deal” with Iran unilaterally, without any congressional oversight or approval. The Constitution clearly says that all treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. The way around this is to say this is not a treaty, just an agreement. Yeah, that’s a big difference. Whom is he kidding? His concept of an ideal government is slightly different than that of the Founding Fathers:

Branches of Govt

I’ve studied the Founding Fathers. I believe I know what they thought, and why they thought it. This much I do know: they had far more knowledge of the operation of government and far more wisdom as to what makes for a balanced government than Barack Obama will ever have. I trust their judgment above his any day.