Fighting the Left-Wing Promotion of Transgenderism for Children


Last week South Carolina State Representative Stewart Jones filed legislation that, if it were to pass, would ban gender reassignment surgery and/or treatment for minors. Jones was inspired to take this action by the James Younger case in Texas, where the seven-year-old Texas boy’s mother was going force him to undergo gender reassignment without the consent of the father, who said the boy does not even believe himself to be a girl. Also just last month, Ginny Ehrhart, a Republican state representative in Georgia, proposed to make it a felony to perform gender transition surgeries on minors. Such efforts are in response to the left-wing and majority of Democrat lawmakers’ attempt to ultimately destroy American society by legalizing child abuse via the promotion of transgenderism for children.

The transgender ideology in itself stands in complete contradiction to the known science on biology and physical reality, and sadly, this mental distortion is now being thrust onto children as part of a sick, demented political agenda to appease the most lunatic fringe elements of the political spectrum. In September the American multinational toy manufacturing company Mattel announced its is intention to “retool” its products in order “to align with fast-advancements in representation, inclusion and diversity,” such as a “gender-neutral” Barbie doll.

The s first series of gender-neutral dolls by Mattel. – (Photo: Mattel)

Rather than the overtly female Barbie for girls or super-masculine GI Joe for boys, the maker of the ever-popular figurines’ latest creations show no signs of gender identification — they are six inches of androgyny that can be styled as male, female, both, or neither. Each comes with a choice of short or long hairstyle options and a selection of different outfits.

The new dolls have been welcomed by GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), an LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) advocacy group. “So many children and parents never saw themselves represented in toys and dolls, but this new line raises the bar for inclusion thanks to input from parents, physicians and children themselves,” the group tweeted. Their argument is that purchasing for children a gender-neutral Barbie, for example, will immunize them against the evils of stereotypes for life. As one can fathom, this is right in line, as already indicated, with most Democrat lawmakers — not excluding some Republicans — such as presidential-candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren.

CNN lgbtq transgender 9 year old
Nine-year-old transgender child and advocate for transgender children “Jacob” asking Sen. Elizabeth Warren what she would do to promote transgender rights for children.

Last month CNN sponsored a LGBTQ town hall event in California; a wide a range of topics were discussed, including “sexual-political-correct” advancing gender equality through legislation, how to deal with religious objections to gay marriage, and public anxieties about receiving blood transfusions from gay people. The heartbreaking moment, however, occurred when an innocent nine-year-old asked  Sen. Warren how she would make life easier for transgender children like himself (biologically a girl): “My name is Jacob [bolded for emphasis], and I’m a 9 year old transgender American. My question is ‘What will you do to make sure that kids like me feel safer in schools, and what do you think schools can do better to make sure that I don’t have to worry about anything but my homework?”

Warren applauded “Jacob” and said: “Oh, I like that question, Jacob! Let me start by saying I want to have a secretary of education that who both believes in public education and believes in the value of every one of our kids and is willing to enforce our civil rights laws. We’ve had some secretaries of education who’ve been better, and we’ve had one that’s been a whole lot worse. Her name is Betsy DeVos. So, when I’m president, she’ll be gone.”

Click here to see video of Sen. Warren answering nine-year-old transgender child

The liberal ideology can pretend that transgenderism is a “third sex,” a man pretending to be a woman does not make him a woman, or vice versa. Such “biological subjectivism” is being thrust upon us via shaming tactics of political correctness. Naturally, politicians are not the only ones to blame for this agenda. Ultimately, the parents and the surgeons who perform the criminal procedure to alter children’s sexual physiology, even as early the age of five, are even more guilty.

Tyler O’Neil, writer for PJ Media, recently noted that a growing number of states are starting to take similar action against radical transgender ideology being imposed on children. Matt Carpenter, deputy director of state and local affairs at the Family Research Council, told PJ Media, “I think in 2020 we will see other states enter the fray and attempt to protect minors from undergoing unproven, harmful, and irreversible, decisions that will dramatically impact their health every day for the rest of their lives.” GOP lawmakers in Texas, Georgia and Kentucky are also calling for laws to prohibit minors from receiving gender transition-related health care such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy.

While laws or judicial sentences can help prevent to put a halt to this latest phenomenon, it will take more to eradicate the latest advocacy of sexual exploitation of children, especially in that the U.S. government promotes the LGTBQ agenda, as manifested by hanging their rainbow flag during the month of June at American embassies and consulates. Aside of not voting for candidates, such as Joe Biden, Senators Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren who would advocate the sexual exploitation of children, there must be an understanding and teaching of the laws of nature by which God created us male and female, which both politicians and church leaders must reinvigorate.

As the Vatican’s Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline Cardinal Robert Sarah said: “Identity is not something we give. God gives it to us.” The West, he said, arrogantly “refuses to accept” that identity.” “The great issue are the economic and media leaders who contaminate the environment concerning the identity of the human person.” This is, he said, “the rejection of God.” He added that should focus on “the unprecedented anthropological and moral crisis of our time which demands that the Church should assume a greater responsibility and commitment to propose its doctrinal and moral teachings in a clear, precise and firm manner.”

The Proposed Israeli Occupation of the West Bank: The End of Peace?

An Israeli soldier points gun at a Palestinian child in occupied West Bank. – (Photo:

In a decision that has been criticized as a reversal of American policy and that may have diminished whatever hope for peace between Israel and Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo endorsed this past Monday American support for the proposed Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (renamed “the West Bank” by Jordan in 1948) as announced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — recently indicted for corruption. Both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council and the International Court of Justice have all said that Israeli settlements on the West Bank violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Pompeo went so far as to say that the U.S. support of Netenyahu’s goal decision reflects the Israeli policy of President Ronald Reagan: “After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan: the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law,” although he added that the U.S. government was “expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement” or “addressing or prejudging the ultimate status of the West Bank.” This decision, Pompeo added, was “based on the unique facts, history and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.” This could not be any farther from the truth.

Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

The West Bank, which is home to nearly three million Palestinians, is a stretch of territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, bordered by Jordan to the east and by the Green Line separating it and Israel on the south, west and north; in theory it would make up the heart of any Palestinian state. Israel took control of it after winning the Six-Day War (5-10 June 1967). The West Bank was also the central of the ancient Jewish state because of its holy sites, such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. In essence, Israeli control of the West Bank means military administration of a territory full of Palestinians who are not open to live under Israeli authority.

Pompeo stretched a fine line by suggesting that President Reagan would have justified such a measure, i.e., giving Israel the green light to do as it pleases. It is true that Reagan was instrumental in forming the present-day U.S.-Israel relationship, even helping reform Israel’s economy in 1985 — following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445%, the U.S. approved a $1.5 billion emergency assistance package and helped formulate Israel’s successful economic stabilization plan. Reagan also worked to free Soviet Jews, and also approved the CIA-sponsored rescue of 500 Ethiopian Jews from refugee camps in the Sudan in 1985’s Operation Joshua. Yet he also supported the UN Security Council resolution condemning the Israelis after they bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, suspending the delivery of F-16 jet fighters to them. Also, after Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, Reagan suspended the strategic cooperation agreement prompting then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin to accuse Reagan of treating Israel like a “banana republic.”

It should also be made clear that even David Ben Gurion, who became Israel’s first prime minister, rejected demands that Israel should capture the central highlands (before it was known as the West Bank), saying it was time to end the war and concentrate on building the country. Ultimately, as former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro had a former US ambassador to Israel, had indicated: any Israeli occupation of the West Bank would put any “peace plan is on ice — maybe permanently.”

One of countless photos of Palestinians fleeing their homes when they were forced from their land by the new state of Israel. – (Photo:

We need to understand that the disputed land between Israelis and Palestinians has been the scene of tension and violence between Arabs and Jews since the time of the British mandate, which in 1917 ended four hundred years of Ottoman rule. With the Balfour Declaration by the English colonial occupant, support was officially charted to create a “national homeland” for Jews in Palestine, thus following through with the appeal of the Zionist protagonist Theodor Herzl. After the World War II, with the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis, the UN General Assembly approved a partition plan for Palestine, with the establishment of the Israeli State in 1949 and another one for the Arabs. About 688,000 immigrants came to Israel during the first three years; approximately 650,000 Jews were already living in Israel when it was formally established as an independent and sovereign state. Simultaneously, approximately 750,000 Palestinians (75 percent of the Palestinian population) were expelled from their homes to make room for the influx of Jews. This led to a coalition of Arab nations launching an invasion of the nascent Jewish state as part of the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948. It was followed by a second major conflict, the Suez Crisis which erupted in 1956, when Israel, the United Kingdom and France staged a controversial attack on Egypt in response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal; what followed was the aforementioned Six-Day War.

Palestinian children taught to die at Islamic-Jihad-run kindergarten.jpg
Children attending Islamic Jihad-run kindergarten in Gaza celebrate graduation. – (Photo:

Netanyahu’s would-be takeover of Palestinian land, which is bound to be disastrous and ignite more bloodshed, falls right in line with Ben Guiron’s policy of conquest.  In a letter he wrote to his 16-year-old son, Amos, on October 5, 1937, Guiron stated: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places — then we have force at our disposal.” Such Israeli expansionism further compels Palestinian Islamists to continue in their jihadist ways, which includes the indoctrination of their children to hate non-Muslims and kill innocent civilians.

A seven-year-old Palestinian boy, Ahmad Zaatari, was arrested and interrogated by Israeli regime forces for nearly eight hours, in what Mansour described as “a horrifying and traumatic ordeal for a child of any age.” – (Photo:

Undoubtedly, it is legitimate to think that sooner or later peace will be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians, though it appears to be more of wishful thinking regardless if Israel occupies the West Bank or not — of course, occupation of the West Bank would be met with Palestinian aggression. This is because there is a factor the U.S. and the international community do not want to admit, and that is peace can never and will never be achieved since both Israelis and Palestinian Muslims uphold the principle of vengeance: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Detail from miniature painting The Prophet Muhammad, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th-century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil. Manuscript now in the British Library. (Image: Public Domain)

While the Jews have overcome certain barbaric disciplines of the Old Testament, such as the stoning of adulterous women attributed to the Mosaic Law — something Jesus Christ abolished — they have learnt how to put such accounts in historical and exegetical contexts. However, if someone starts to create problems for them, the Israelis have historically shown to be anything but tolerant, reverting to justifiable vengeance. The Palestinian Muslims, on the other hand, have not overcome the principle of retaliation because the Quran does not allow them, let alone coexistence with a people who democratically elect their government, especially if the head of state is a Jew: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture [Jews and Christians] until they give the jizyah [tax] willingly while they are humbled.” (Sura 9, 29) — This was fulfilled by the Prophet Muhammad in 627 AD when he wiped out the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Beni Qurayza by beheading the men and the pubescent boys, enslaving the women and children as loot.

It would be beneficial to everyone in the Middle East region to remind the Israelis that any further annexation would not just be in violation of the Partition they had agreed to but an act of self-righteousness equally as bad as when the Prophet Muhammad reneged on the Hudaybiyya Accord of 628 AD — a ten-year treaty with the Jews he disavowed two years later — which Islamists refer to whenever they wish to break treaties. If both Israelis and Palestinians want to make peace they can do so just as Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin did on September 17, 1978, with the Camp David Accords. Both were able to incorporate the teaching of forgiveness as Jesus Christ taught and overcome their bitter past history they both shared understanding that we are all children of God, which requires to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”


Erdoğan’s Ottoman Fantasies


British journalist Robert Fisk once stated, “The story of the Armenian genocide is one of almost unrelieved horror at the hands of Turkish soldiers and policemen who enthusiastically carried out their government’s orders to exterminate a race of Christian people in the Middle East.” The extermination of one and a half million Armenian Christians during World War I was the completion of a jihad that began in 1071, when the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert. Having overrun the Armenian provinces of the Byzantine Empire, they imposed sharia-based norms upon the Christians since they collectively refused to convert to Islam.

Despite a few countries in the world recognizing the Armenian genocide, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan continues to deny this tragedy. Even U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham sided with Erdoğan this past Wednesday in blocking House Resolution 296, which would have recognized the Armenian genocide by Ottoman Turks hours after he and President Trump met with Erdoğan. Senator Graham objected, saying senators shouldn’t “sugarcoat history or try to rewrite it.”

Many today ask what would change if Turkey and other nations publicly admitted to this infamous part of history. It’s not that recognition would undo past evils—alas, we can never take back our sins. But we might better understand how President Erdoğan’s ambitions match (and even stem from) those of his Ottoman predecessors: the implementation of the hakimiyyat Allah, i.e., the kingdom of Allah on earth.

The Seljuk Turks, up to the fourteenth century, encouraged the illegitimate transfer of property and the dispossession of the rural Armenian population, and compelled their emigration from their homeland. Under the reign of Murad I, in order to meet the increasing manpower demands of their janissary troops, the Turks levied a special tax (on all Christian subjects within the empire), the devshirme (i.e., blood tax), which required forced collection and the Islamization of Christian children. As do present-day Islamists, they took inspiration and justification from the Koran and from what Muslim jurists had to say regarding the methods of tyrannizing non-Muslims (i.e., the dhimmis) under Islamic despotism.

The journalist and scholar Joel Gillin, writing in The New Republic back in 2015, argues that “the Young Turks’ [the new forces at the helm of the state during World War I] attempt to annihilate the Christian Armenians was not a faith-driven genocide by radical Islamists” but instead “tied to the creation of modern nation-states” by nationalists. Such propositions fail to perceive that while there is a religious sentiment at the base of every jihad, its goal is not necessarily religious but social. Such was the case with Muhammad’s military raids and his establishment of Islamic citizenship in seventh-century Arabia, which had more to do with Islamic expansion and control than religious purification. This is why, for example, the Muslim Turks created the Armenian patriarchates in both Jerusalem and Constantinople in order to regulate the Christian religion. These state-imposed patriarchal churches were not (and still are not) accepted by the authority and the faithful of the Armenian Apostolic Church, all the more so since the Turks’ aim was not to promote religious liberty and diplomacy but rather to discourage it by maintaining continual surveillance.

Since he came to power, Erdoğan has reportedly built 17,000 mosques: one-fifth of Turkey’s total. From Mali to Moscow, by way of Cambridge and Amsterdam, Erdoğan is ceaselessly active in “diplomatizing” his religion. The biggest mosque in the Balkans is Turkish and is located in Tirana, Albania; the largest one in West Africa was built by Erdoğan in Accra, Ghana; and the largest mosque in Europe will be his new Turkish mosque in Strasbourg.

While Erdoğan publicly was seen to fight ISIS, he played a duplicitous role in permitting foreign jihadists to cross into Syria from Turkey in 2011 with the goal of overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It was also reported in 2015 that his daughter, Sumeyye, ran a hospital located in the southeastern Turkish city of Sanliurfa to help injured ISIS militants. He has also seized churches, including, in April 2016, the 1,700-year-old Virgin Mary Syrian Orthodox Church in Diyarbakirch. Just five months later, the pro-government newspaper Akşam published a front-page article accusing the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of conspiring with the CIA and the Fethullah Güllen in the “attempted coup d’état” to oust Erdoğan from power.

In June 2017, under the surveillance of President Erdoğan, the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (i.e., the Diyanet) seized control of at least fifty Syrian churches, monasteries, and cemeteries in the Mardin province. This liquidation committee, established in 2012 with the task to confiscate and redistribute the property of institutions whose legal entity had expired, denied that it had carried out the aforementioned raid as a result of religious discrimination.

Since last year Erdoğan has also employed al-Qaeda and Islamic State militants along with his troops in the 2018 takeover of Afrin, where 300,000 Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds were displaced. According to a high-ranking member of the Syriac Democratic Federation, Abdulrahman Hassan: “Our heritage was attacked, the city was destroyed. Villages were plundered, women and girls were taken hostage, men are missing. Also several churches were destroyed and church members arrested.” And just days after the U.S. pullout from northern Syria, Turkey began to assail Kurdish and Christian civilians—many of them children—with chemical weapons.

Then-U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau stated: “When the Turkish authorities gave the order for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal this fact… I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.”

Erdoğan has practically undone the secularization and religious freedom established in 1924 by Kemal Mustafa Atatürk when he abolished the thirteen-hundred-year caliphate that essentially left the political lineage of the Prophet of Islam unclaimed. By reigniting Islamic-Turkish nationalism, observance of the sharia has subtly resumed. In doing so, Erdoğan has incited a jihad against Christianity, simultaneously targeting Kurds, Yazidis, and Shi’ite.

Is history repeating itself? It would seem so.


N. B. This article was originally published on November 21, 2019 by Crisis Magazine. Sources not cited may be found in my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up.

The Trump Impeachment Hearings: A Bad Soap Opera

Impeachment witnesses directly incriminate Trump | The All I Need
U.S. House Impeachment Hearings – (Photo: AP)

It has barely been a week since the U.S. Congressional impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump began, and the only thing I can say is, what a ghastly performance it has been. The hearings, as 24-year State Department veteran Peter Van Buren said: “[are] the latest public spectacle un-ironically displaces daytime soap operas, the picture is starting to become clearer. The people testifying aren’t there to save America. They are a group of neo-somethings inside the administration who disagreed with Trump’s Ukraine policy and decided to derail it.”

The drama is based on President Donald Trump’s July 25, 2019 phone call to Ukraine’s newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump had asked Zelensnky to investigate then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s lucrative post with the corrupt Burisma oil and gas company in 2014 in Kiev where he made $165.5 million; Trump’s argument is that Joe Biden had tried to damage his election campaign in 2016 and wanted to root out corruption. The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is trying to prove that there was a quid pro quo when Trump said, “I hope you can do us a favor, though,” which would constituted an impeachable offense of “misconduct” or “abuse or violation” of “public trust,” given that as presented, the statement comes right after Zelensky indicated he wanted the U.S. President to release frozen funds to help the Ukrainians fend off Russian separatists.

The impeachment hearing testimonials have thus far come from second-or-third hand witnesses who have produced uncorroborated evidence based on hearsay and recollected memory, some of it retracted, in an effort to support what America’s newest icon, the “whistleblower,” provided. This was highlighted yesterday by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and by an earlier testimonial by National Security Council aide Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman.

Sondland testified that he had a “direct order” from the president to urge Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit the president politically; he said that there was a “quid pro quo” between a White House meeting for the new Ukrainian president. Aside that he had been blocked access to certain records, Sondland circumvented questions, even contradicting his testimony affirming that he had never been told that the “[monetary] aid was tied to political investigations[.]”

Alexander Vindman’s testimonial seemed to be equally implausible. Prior to testifying, he had declared that the president had underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity — within its internationally recognized borders — and expressed his commitment to work together with President-elect Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption. Yet during his testimony before Congress, Vindman “clarified” that the Trump did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

There is one important factor that has been bypassed in this Washington tear-jerker that could make the hearings look like a pandemic mirage: the money transaction to the Ukraine from the U.S. that had already taken place prior to the July 25 phone call.

Again, the accusation is that the U.S. President held up frozen funds to help the Ukrainians fend off Russian separatists in exchange for information. Yet according to the U.S. Department of Defense, the truth of the matter is the “sought after” monetary aid, $391.5 million to be specific, was spent on time, according to law, before, during, and after the July 25 call stemming from Ukrainian reforms as shown in a May 23,  2019 letter from John C. Rood to Congress; this certification was only necessary to release the second $125-million tranche — click here to read the letter.  The tables therein refer to that $125 million as “Tranche 2.” So what happened to the first $125 million?  It was already spent on Ukraine before the July 25 phone call with Zelensky.

On February 28 Rood wrote to Congress about the first $125 million. He informed Congress the Pentagon was going ahead with this money for Ukraine. It was spent by July to defend the country from Russian aggression. This is the real reason why neither Zelensky nor any other Ukraine official knew that assistance was “held up.”  As reported by The Wall Street Journal on March 11, 2019, the funds were was flowing freely to the Ukrainians, never subject to President Trump’s subterfuge:

“The U.S. is channeling support to Ukraine’s navy to help counter Russian efforts to choke its neighbor’s economy and destabilize its pro-Western government by blocking access to ports. U.S. training and equipment have helped strengthen Ukraine’s army in its five-year conflict with Russia, but the fresh U.S. focus reflects concern over the Kremlin’s new maritime efforts to halt Ukraine’s westward integration and keep Russia’s sphere of influence.”

One may call it “Fake news,” but as Ren Jander says “the award for most deceptive publication of an impeachment-destroying fact must go to the wonderful folks at the Associated Press.” On September 27, 2019 the AP published the following:

“Rood, in his letter, noted that ‘there remain areas that require significant attention’ by Ukraine, and that the United States remains committed to helping its ‘multi-year effort,’ suggesting that fighting corruption was seen as a long-term project. He had notified Congress in February that the Pentagon was going ahead with the first $125 million in security assistance. By law, certification of Ukraine’s progress against corruption and in defense reforms was required before the second $125 million in aid could be provided.”

The Pentagon began spending the first tranche upon Rood’s February 28th letter to Congress, and the $125 million was spent by July. The AP article also notes that only the second tranche required Department of Defense certification.  But what wins AP the aforementioned deception award is the first sentence of this same report: “President Donald Trump has said [bolded for emphasis] he withheld nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine because of corruption in the country…” The key word above is “said.”  The president did not do what the AP claims the president said he did.

The statute authorizing security assistance requires Ukraine to crack down on corruption so our money doesn’t end up in the pockets of oligarchs.  It mandates: “The certification described in this paragraph … by the Secretary of Defense … that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms … for purposes of decreasing corruption … and sustaining improvements of combat capability … shall include an assessment of the substantial actions taken to make such defense institutional reforms and the areas in which additional action is needed[.]”

Thus far the lawmakers, let along the Americans who are glued to this soap opera, are in the least bit concerned with the aforementioned, to say nothing of the most popular yet unknown pop-star: the whistleblower. And until the American people hear from him (or her), the impeachment entertainment will make America laughable before both national and international viewers.

How the whistleblower came to be at the ground zero of electoral politics will tell us whether this is a legitimate impeachment or a political assassination. The popular impression is that men like the whistleblower, former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Bill Taylor — there are suspicions that he is the whistleblower — and Alex Vindman are non-partisan, and there is some truth to that. As Van Buren states:

“They came up through a system that strongly emphasized service to the president, whomever that is. But it would be equally wrong to claim that they are policy agnostic; in fact, they are quite the opposite. They see themselves as experts who know better. That’s why they were hired, and under Obama their advice (for better or worse, they wanted to bring us to war with Russia) was generally followed… But it appears they came to see Trump as not just wrong but dangerous [having America’s favorite knucklehead Rudy Giuliani work for you would be enough to encourage this]. Add in some taint of self-interest on Trump’s part, and he became evil. [Both Taylor and Vindman] convinced themselves it was a matter of conscience, and wrapped their opposition in the flagged courage of a (created?) whistleblower. Certainly if one hadn’t existed, it would have been necessary to invent him.”

Until the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives comes up with an “ace up their sleeve” — and perhaps they have it — to prove that President Trump did in fact commit an impeachable offense, the hearings  will continue to be a partisan soap opera, which is the last thing the American nation needs. This is what Alexander Hamilton had warned would be the “greatest danger” to the country — the decision to move forward with impeachment will “be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” He worried that the tools of impeachment would be wielded by the “most cunning or most numerous factions” and lack the “requisite neutrality toward those whose conduct would be the subject of scrutiny.”

The Plight of Iraqi Christians: Is There a Solution?

A sixth century Christian monastery in Mosul destroyed during bombardment in Nineveh, Iraq.

Today the Baghdad streets look no different than when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. If anything, it is more apocalyptic. According to the Iraqi High Commission for Human Rights, 319 protesters have been killed and 15,000 wounded in the violence since October 1 when Iraqis started hitting the streets in anger over what they see has a predominantly Shi’ite government so corrupt it cannot provide jobs, clean water, health care and basic security to its people. As recently reported by the The New York Times and The Intercept, Iran is primarily to blame as it has been at painstaking work” to infiltrate every aspect of Iraq‘s political, economic and religious life in order to keep the country under its control. A 22-year-old Omar, a medical volunteer working in Tahrir said: “We’ve known for years that the Iranian government destroyed and killed our people.” 

Yet as made known by the Catholic Archbishop of the Chaldean Archdiocese of Erbil (the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan) Bashar Warda, who has been one of Iraq’s most prominent Christian leaders has deeper concerns, while in the past anti-government protests were sectarian, today there are Christians hand in hand with Muslim protesters in Baghdad to contest government corruption. This is something that has thus far been completely ignored by Western countries, including the European Union and the mainstream media. In fact, most protesters in Baghdad remain skeptical of all foreign intervention, including an American one. “For us, America and Europe don’t think about us, they care only about their interests,” said 69-year-old teacher Sabri.

In like manner, so has been the plight of Iraqi Christians. Of course, the the phenomenon of the Islamic State, attention had been drawn unto Iraq. Yet after the defeat of the physical caliphate, even though ISIS has not not been truly defeated, Iraqi Christians and religious minorities are barely a past recollection. This was highlighted by Archbishop Warda during his visit to the United Kingdom this past May in which he also expressed that UK and the EU, while being able to provided concrete and substantive assistance to help Iraqi Christians, have not done so.

Since the US-led invasion that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Christian community had dwindled by 83 percent, from around 1.5 million to just 250,000. Warda recalled: “Christianity in Iraq, one of the oldest Churches, if not the oldest Church in the world, is perilously close to extinction. Those of us who remain must be ready to face martyrdom.” He did say, however, that there is a way for all Iraqis to find a peaceful co-existence despite centuries of a dichotomy between Muslims and Christians as it used to be before sharia law became prevalent. 

Visualizza immagine di origine
Enter a captionArchbishop Bashar Warda tending to a young refugee, one of many victims taken in by the Archdiocese of Erbil during the war with ISIS. – (Photo:

“Things were not always so bad. Apologists for 1,400 years of Christian oppression point to periods of Muslim tolerance as a possible and desired alternative to violence and persecution. One cannot deny the existence of times of relative tolerance. Under al-Rashid, the House of Wisdom, the great library, was founded in Baghdad. There was a time of relative prosperity while Christian and Jewish scholarship was valued, and a flowering of science, mathematics and medicine was made possible by Nestorian Christian scholars who translated Greek texts, already ancient in the ninth century.  Our Christian ancestors shared with Muslim Arabs a deep tradition of thought and philosophy and engaged with them in respectful dialogue from the 8th century. The Arab Golden Age, as historian Philip Jenkins has noted, was built on Chaldean and Syriac scholarship. Christian scholarship.  The imposition of sharia law saw the decline of great learning, and the end of the “Golden Age” of Arab culture. A style of scholastic dialogue had developed, and which could only occur, because a succession of caliphs tolerated minorities.  As toleration ended, so did the culture and wealth which flowed from it.”

The Archbishop also referred to the current and pressing threat from Islamic State jihadists as a “final, existential struggle,” following the group’s initial assault in 2014 that displaced more than 125,000 Christians from their historic homelands. “Our tormentors confiscated our present,” he said, “while seeking to wipe out our history and destroy our future. In Iraq there is no redress for those who have lost properties, homes and businesses. Tens of thousands of Christians have nothing to show for their life’s work, for generations of work, in places where their families have lived, maybe, for thousands of years.” Post-ISIS, Iranian-backed militias are now threatening the return of those Christians across large areas of Northern Iraq.

Having visited Northern Iraq last year — Kurdistan and Nineveh, war-torn town of Mosul and the surrounding cities and villages in particular — I had the opportunity to speak with a number of Christians still there. They collectively concurred that the drastic reduction of the population, and I would add an abandonment in post-ISIS Iraq, is in part due to the lack of commitment from both Western countries and local government officials to formulate the ways and means for Christians return to their land.

Billboard of Iranian-backed militias in city of Teleskof.

The Kurds of northern Iraq who had provided protection and shelter to thousands of Christians at the height of the Islamic State crisis have since then not been able to contain, or rather eliminate the obstacles to the hopes of preserving a Christian presence in Iraq. For example, in the town of Karemles — an Assyrian town less than 18 miles south east of Mosul — where Christians were the majority before the occupation of ISIS, predominantly Shi’ite groups, like the Shabaks have appropriated for themselves the places vacated by Christians, which allows them to impose their Islamic law and culture. They also try to shortcut Christians of government funding for the reconstruction of houses and employment opportunities. The parish priest of Saint Adeus at Karemles, Father Thabet Habeb, had told me that it is an ongoing struggle with the government to try to preserve or regain housing and all that was relevant to them.

There has also been a breakdown in the rule of law in which various Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias have been able to exploit an already incendiary situation to their favor in those cities that were predominantly Christian before ISIS. Instead of working towards peace and stability, Christians have been allowed to be harassed for purely religious reasons, and without granting them any chance to appeal to the central Iraqi government.

Statue of the Virgin Mary in Erbil.

The mayor of the city of Teleskof — 20 miles from Mosul; one of the most ancient Christian communities in the world — Bassim Bello, who is a Christian, told me that aside from trying to have the central government recognize Christians as equals as Iraqi Muslims and Kurds, Christians face threats just to rebuild and reopen their churches. In addition, the fact that former ISIS members have taken on key positions in local government have added to the burden of Christians. And even in Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan, which is autonomous from the Iraqi central government and which is perhaps the safest region in all of Iraq, many Christians suffer abuse of various kinds: Christian women are hassled because they do not wear hijab (the scarf that covers the head). This is just one example of how precarious the situation is in a city in which there is a statue of the Virgin Mary in one of its squares.

Iraqi Christians, the young in particular, as well as those Westerners working in Iraq to restore stability, had expressed their great distrust in politicians. They are convinced that the heads of state are more interested in the petrodollar than in human rights. The Trump administration’s gripe, despite previous financial support and pledges to continue, that Iraq should financially compensate the United States for the costs of its invasion and stay there until the end of 2011 — Trump had stated: “If they’re going into Iraq,” Trump said, “keep the oil.” … If you did that, Iraq would be a much different story today because they would be owing us a lot of money — only agitates, if not confirm, their suspicions.

This is rather pretentious since the Iraqis had never asked President George W. Bush to invade their country and topple Saddam Hussein, let alone occupy their land and impose a “democratic” government with a pro-Islamic Constitution that has proven to be ineffective, at best. As journalist Kelley Beaucar Vlahos says, it is more than worth noting that the U.S. spent billions of dollars and sent thousands of troops, contractors, consultants, diplomats and all manner of do-gooders to Iraq between 2003-2009 to help set up a stable, democratic government. Yet it was already understood that it was a farce to begin with since the U.S. never asked the Iraqis what they wanted.

Christians restoring one of their churches in Iraq

There may still be a bright spot to all of this. Christians retain a strong will and continue to fight for their faith and their rights, with the hope that their example will bring other Iraqis, regardless of religion and ethnicity, to a constant mutual respect. Some churches destroyed during the war with ISIS have been reopened to worship, despite the discouraging threats and obstacles. In fact, Archbishop Warda founded the Catholic University of Erbil a few years ago. His hope is that in providing the opportunity of a higher education to Iraqi Christians they can be not only inspired to stay in Iraq but build a thriving and brighter future for their country and the region. If the Western nations, including the EU and members of the Catholic hierarchy, followed this phase of Iraqi reconstruction and not just provide money to local government officials that end up in their back pockets, then there would be a possibility of establishing a new era not only on the political-economic level but also of a peaceful co-existence among Iraqis, the Christians in particular.

N. B. Quotations are first-hand; photos are my own personal collection, unless noted.

The Islamic States of America: One Nation Under Allah

The White Mosque (Formerly Called The White House)
A futurist look at The White Mosque in Washington, D.C., formerly The White House – (Image: tmq2.wordpress)

Could you imagine in the year 2040 what used to be the White House is now the White Mosque and the flag fluttering above the U.S. Capitol is not the Stars and Stripes but one emblazoned with a crescent and star? Chants of “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is the Greatest) rise from inside the building where U.S. lawmakers meet and the Super Bowl is being played at Ayatollah Khomeini Stadium. Allahs divine mandate to the Prophet Muhammad has been fulfilled in America: “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allahs Messenger.”

Such provocatives were part of Robert Ferrigno’s novel Prayers for the Assassin (2006) and a documentary-style movie, obtained by The Washington Post, outlined ten years ago by Stephen Bannon that envisioned radical Muslims taking over the country and remaking it into the “Islamic States of America.” “The road to the establishment of an Islamic Republic in the United States starts slowly and subtly with the loss of the will to win,” the outline reads. “The road to this unique hell on earth is paved with the best intentions from our major institutions. This political/accommodation/appeasement approach is not simply a function of any one individual’s actions but lies at the heart of our most important cultural and political institutions.”

Daniel Pipes wrote in 2004 that the hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemys ultimate goal, which is to apply the Islamic law (the sharia) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an.

Pipes went on to say that “[o]ver the last 40 years, small groups of devout Muslim men have gathered in homes in U.S. cities to pray, memorize the Qur’an and discuss events of the day. But they also addressed their ultimate goal, one so controversial that it is a key reason they have operated in secrecy: to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well. [The Muslim] Brotherhood members [already in the U.S.] emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day — perhaps generations from now — a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law.”

Muslim Leader at National Cathedral: ‘We Condemn ...
Muslims pray at a Friday prayer service on Nov. 14, 2014 at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. – (Photo: Starr)

In June 2015 the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of Muslims in the United States stated that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to sharia.” Their poll also showed that 20 percent of American Muslims believe that the “use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make sharia the law of the land;” 25 percent of them stated that violence is acceptable to punish those who offend Islam. Over half of America’s Muslims believe that sharia should be the law of the land! A fourth of American Muslims condone violence for drawing a cartoon of Muhammad. This is the new jihad led by Islamists — while the term is interchangeable with the term Muslim, an Islamist is one who actively or passively supports Islamic nationalism and a sharia-based society, whether through political or violent means — in America.

Image 11-15-19 at 4.47 PM.jpg
The Prophet Muhammad (holding the Quran and sword) is among the “lawgiving” figures that line the North Wall frieze inside the U.S. Supreme Court chamber. (Image: U.S. Supreme Court website)

I am sure that many who read this post will say, “This cannot and will never happen in America.” To that I respond, “Look what is happening around you.” Just last month the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition — if four of the nine Justices feel the case has value, they will issue a writ of certiorari: a legal order from a high court for a lower court to send the records of the case to them for review — presented by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), to hear Wood v. Arnold, a case brought by Caleigh Wood, a Christian student in 11th grade at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland. Wood refused to take part in a school exercise she felt would deny her faith “by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer known as the shahada – “There is no god by Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” The TMLC argues the school violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Speech clauses when it ordered Wood to do an assignment that she could not complete without violating her Christian beliefs. The teacher then gave her a failing grade. This is not just a violation of the First Amendment but an ongoing, albeit subtle, diffusion of Islam in our Western society.

Islamists seeking our Islamization have also gained support from our lawmakers. As reported by the Clarion Project, on November 9 at the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) 25th Anniversary Gala event, Muslim Brotherhood-linked boasted that “120+” members of Congress had sent them letters of support. The list was published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, along with the letters of support. Among the names were Democrat presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. Ninety-seven out of the 100 names on the list were Democrats; three were Republican.

You can see the full list and the letter by clicking here

Getting politicians and the mainstream media to give terrorists and certain rogue regimes prime-time attention has distracted us from confronting the true Islamic threat. In other words, Islamists or, as William Kilpatrick classifies cultural-jihadists, have successfully diverted attention away from the protagonists of those who are subtly Islamizing our society.

Out of concern of Muslim terrorists entering the U.S., Trump implemented a 90-Day Travel Ban that was to “temporarily” bar travelers from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. Yet none of those countries is the birthplace of terrorists who committed recent attacks in the United States connected to extremist Islamist ideology, unlike Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Pakistan.

Muslims praying in front of U.S. House of Representatives. Muslims also pray inside congress, delivering
opening prayers to Allah for the Congress men and women who represent the American people. (Photo: Getty Images)

Because certain countries that should have been on the list but were not, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular, like a Trojan Horse, Islamists have been able to  infiltrate the U.S. as they have already done in Christian Europe. Consequently, they have been creating an environment of receptivity and understanding for the next generation of Americans to accept their sharia-based lifestyle. We see this, for example in the field of education, where Saudi money has financed institutions alongside multitudes of other Islamic organizations across the world and within the United States (80 percent of 1,200 mosques operating in the were built after 2003 were built by them). Qatar’s equal vision for America is being peddled through our children’s classrooms, targeting a pliable population and one with a long shelf life.

Immagine correlata
(Photo: Public Domain)

A quotation I continually refer to as a warning of the Islamic invasion is that of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who had said: “As long as Muslims are an insignificant minority in a Christian country, they can live on friendly terms, because they accept the laws and customs of the country that receives them. But as soon as they become numerous and organize, they become aggressive and try to impose their laws, which are hostile to [Western] civilization.” As already in numerous major European cities, sharia-controlled areas are arising; such is the case in Dearborn, Michigan, which is America’s biggest Muslim ‘NO-GO Zone’. Although Islamists are still small in number, their political clout is enormous. They (CAIR) even recently coerced President Trump to cancel the annual banquet of ACT for America — a nationwide grassroots group, founded in 2007 by a Lebanese Christian immigrant journalist Brigitte Gabriel, that educates the public about radical Islam — at his own Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on November 7.

The House opening prayer led by Imam Hamad Chebli of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey in 2014. – (Photo: Pubic Domain)

The would-be Islamic takeover of the United States within this century may seem far-fetched, but that is what is presently happening in Christian Europe. True, the latter has to deal with an unprecedented flow of immigration from the Muslim world; the U.S. to a much lesser degree because of its natural barriers of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. America, however, is equally facing a demographic collapse. Apart from the observance of polygamous marriages, the fact that Muslims for the most part do not practice abortion or artificial contraception, they are increasing in number. Consequently, Islamists are inserting themselves in key governmental and NGO positions getting the rule of law to favor them. For whatever reason, this nescience has convinced numerous Westerners to embrace Islam, failing to see it for what it truly is: a political entity with the global end to Islamize society: It is He [Allah] Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may exalt it above every other religion. Allah suffices as witness.  — Sura 48, 28

While imams have been invoking Allah in the House of Representatives, please God, the United States of America will never have to pledge One nation under Allah,” as students at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, were coerced to recite in 2014, or like those of the Pine Brook High School in New York in 2015. Yet because of the refusal to admit that our culture and moral standards were shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs as expressed in the Declaration of Independence,  individualistic secularism — this is not what the separation of church and state entails as proclaimed by U.S. First Amendment — has superseded our once abundant Christian roots, giving way to Islam. Kilpatrick says: “No matter how you parse it, it’s difficult to read “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “endowed by their Creator,” “appealing to the Divine Judge of the World,” and “a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” as an endorsement of secularism,” let alone Islam. If our dormant approach to our religious background and openness to Islam persist, the “Islamic States of America” may not be too far-fetched.

N. B. I invite you to take a look at my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up. Everything you want to know about Islam and how to confront the Islamization of society is in it.


The Nigerian-State Sponsored Jihad

Mourners at funeral of two Christians slain in Agom village, southern Kaduna state, on Nov. 14, 2019. (Morning Star News)
Mourners at funeral of two Christians slain in Agom village, southern Kaduna state, on Nov. 14, 2019. – (Photo: Morning Star News)

This past Thursday a group of Fulani Muslims in the Christian Agom village in Sanga County (Kaduna State, Nigeria) hacked an 87-year-old Christian man to death by machete and killed another, age 48, by gunshot, an area resident. Sanga County was the site of a Muslim Fulani herdsmen attack on March 16 that killed 10 Christians and burned about 30 houses. That attack also occurred as residents of Nandu Gbok village were sleeping. The assault followed other attacks in southern Kaduna State that took the lives of one-hundred-thrity Christians.

It was also within Kaduna State that on October 3 six girls and two staff members from a Christian-run high school were kidnapped by Fulani herdsmen  Muslims. The hostages were tortured each time the kidnappers called the parents so they could hear their screams. One of the parents reportedly said that after the kidnappers set the hostages free, police picked them up and dropped them off near a toll gate about five kilometers (three miles) from the city center. Suspected to be herdsmen who have carried out numerous kidnappings and attacks in southern Kaduna state, the armed Fulani [Muslims] invaded the school at 12:20 a.m.

Shunom Giwa, vice principal of Engravers’ College, previously told Morning Star News that initially five armed herdsmen appeared at the door of his house and spoke with each other in the Fulani language. Others with the school’s vice principal arrived shortly after they told him to lie down, and Giwa escaped, he said. The school, which is open to both Christian and non-Christian students, has a secular curriculum in accordance with Nigeria’s Ministry of Education but includes a Christian perspective, and students take Christian Religious Knowledge as a subject, which is forbidden under sharia law.

Christians make up 51.3 percent of Nigeria’s population, while Muslims living primarily in the north and middle belt account for 45 percent. Nigeria ranked 12th on Open Doors’ 2019 World Watch List of countries where Christians suffer the most persecution.

Christian persecution in Nigeria, which can be traced back to the Sokoto caliphate (1804-1903), has surged since 2015 when Muhammadu Buhari was elected president. The late-Catholic bishop Joseph Bagobiri of the Diocese of Kafanchan (northwest Nigeria which has had  sharia law since 1999) had stated“The persecution of Christians in Nigeria is not given anything like the same level of international attention as persecuted Christians in the Middle East.” A most recent example of this — unreported by the Western mainstream media — was the killing of Father Paul Offu (southern Nigeria) at the hands of the Islamic Fulani herdsmen on August 1. This let the former Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, to write an open letter to President Muhammadu Buhari, warning him of the risk of a “Rwandan-style genocide” of Christians in Nigeria if the government does not take immediate measures to stop the violence — Buhari has yet to have condemned the Fulani militants as terrorists since he stems from the same tribe. What can be surmised is that this is all part of a well-organized operation to exterminate Christians altogether.

Just like the gunning down of nineteen Catholics, including two priests by Islamists during mass at a church in village of Mbalom, Benue (southeast Nigeria) on April 24, 2018, the government-sponsored Islamic war on Christians continues — in other words, it is not just Boko Haram! Apparently, it cannot be denied that Buhari has always had Islamist agenda. In 2001 at an Islamic seminar in Kaduna, then-General Buhari stated: 

“I will continue to show openly and inside me the total commitment to the Sharia movement that is sweeping all over Nigeria. God willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total implementation of the Sharia in the country.”

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria has urged Buhari to resign in the wake of the Mbalom massacre arguing that he “has deliberately placed in the hands of the adherents of only one religion.” The Speaker of the Nigerian House of Representatives Yakubu Dogara publicly summoned Buhari “to answer pertinent questions concerning what [he] is doing to put a decisive end to the spate of killings in different states of the Federation.”

During a White House joint-press conference President Trump held with President Buhari on April 30, 2018, Buhari did not address nor did he outright reject  “the narrative that his government was persecuting Christians in the ongoing attacks linked to [Fulani] herdsmen.” Trump specifically condemned the acts: “We have had very serious problems with Christians who are being murdered in Nigeria, we are going to be working on that problem very, very hard because we cannot allow that to happen.” Critics, however, said that his response “lacked gravitas in view of Mr. Buhari’s domestic narrative that while the killings might have taken a worrisome dimension since he assumed office, the killers are not buoyed by sheer ethnic identity that they he has in common with them, even if those behind the killings are Fulani.” 

Trump reassured a nearly $600 million sales of military planes and security equipment, initially “stalled under the Obama administration because of allegations that Nigeria’s military has been involved in human rights [violations] including rape and extrajudicial killings.” Trump vowed that such assistance is to combat terrorists in Nigeria. The dilemma is, just as with Nigeria’s $320 million purchase of Russian fighter jets in 2017 and other military aid he has received from China, Buhari’s focus is to protect his oil facilities from rebel attacks and abductions of foreign oil workers. Like the killing of two-hundred-eighteen Christians between June 23-25, 2018, including a pastor show a continual lack of interest on Buhari’s part to ensure Christians’ safety in the country.

N. B. Quotations and sources can be found  in my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up, unless otherwise noted.



Trump Pardons Soldiers Accused of War Crimes

President Donald Trump addressing troops in Iraq (Photo: Public Domain)

President Donald Trump personally intervened yesterday in three military war crimes cases, issuing full pardons to two Army soldiers and ordering the restoration of a Navy SEAL’s rank and pay, over the objections of his own Department of Defense, specifically  Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, both of of whom reached out to Trump in recent days to request he not interfere in the high-profile cases.

trump pardons clint lorance
Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance – (Photo: Facebook)

The first of Trump’s pardons went to Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, who was charged with ordering fellow soldiers in July 2012 to fire on Afghan motorcyclists. Members of his platoon had testified the motorcyclists posed no imminent threat. Lt. Lorance was convicted of murder and is serving a 19-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The White House said that the motorcycle, with three men on it, had approached Lt. Lorance and his unit with unusual speed, prompting the order to fire. After serving six years of his sentence, Lorance cited a petition signed by 124,000 people seeking his freedom. US House Representative Duncan Hunter, (R-Calif.), a Marine combat veteran, had pleaded the President saying: “For the record, Clint never fired his weapon. More importantly, previously withheld information now confirms forensic evidence linked DNA found on detonated roadside bombs to the DNA of the Afghan men.”

Golsteyn (seen here in Afghanistan in 2010) is charged with murdering a man whom he suspected of being a Taliban bombmaker. The man in the photo on the right is unrelated to the suspected bombmaker
Golsteyn (seen here in Afghanistan in 2010) is charged with murdering a man whom he suspected of being a Taliban bombmaker. The man in the photo on the right is unrelated to the suspected bombmaker.

The second pardon, to Army Major Mathew Golsteyn, ends a nearly decadelong process following the 2010 death of a suspected bomb-maker in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. The White House said the suspected bomb-maker was caught after an improvised explosive device killed two U.S. Marines, and was questioned by Maj. Golsteyn. The suspect was subsequently released and later found fatally shot off base. Army officials said it was not clear at the time whether Maj. Golsteyn should have been charged in the suspect’s death. However, Maj. Golsteyn, while interviewing for a job at the Central Intelligence Agency in 2015, admitted to killing the suspected Taliban bomb maker — the fact he initially withheld this in indicative that he did something wrong — whom he identified as the terrorist responsible for the deaths of the two  Marines he was commanding in Afghanistan, and that the act was justified during wartime..

U.S. Navy SEAL Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher at Naval Base San Diego after he was acquitted in July of the most serious charges against him. – (Phot: John Gastaldo/Reuters)

The third case involved Navy Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL. Navy prosecutors charged that Chief Gallagher in 2017 stabbed to death a 12-year-old Islamic State fighter while deployed to northern Iraq with SEAL Team 7, and indiscriminately shot at civilians, threatening fellow SEALs not to report his actions. His case faced a series problems for prosecutors, and he eventually was convicted of a single count of posing with the Islamic State fighter’s dead body. That conviction included forfeiture of about $10,000 in pay, four months imprisonment and a reduction in rank. Trump commuted the penalty and restored his rank.

Under Trump’s action, his previous pay and rank will be restored. Noting his prior decorations, the White House said “a promotion back to the rank and pay grade of chief petty officer is justified.”

Michael Behenna – (Photo: Free Michael Behenna via Facebook)

This is not the first time President Trump grants clemency to a soldier convicted of war crimes. This past May he pardoned Army First Lieutenant Michael Behenna convicted of unpremeditated murder. Ten years ago U.S. forces arrested an Iraqi man named Ali Mansur, on the suspicion that he was a member of al-Qaeda who had knowledge of a recent roadside bombing that had killed two American soldiers. After intelligence professionals interrogated Mansur, they ordered Behenna to drive him home. Instead, Behenna drove the detainee into the desert, stripped him naked, interrogated him at gunpoint, and then shot him in the head and chest. Behenna insisted that he shot the naked man he illegally abducted in self-defense. In this once case, aside undermining military discipline, the presidential pardon sends a horrible message that U.S. forces will be allowed to get away with anything. It also insults the hundreds of thousands of other people that have served honorably in the military.

Stephanie Grisham, the White House press spokeswoman, said on November 15 in a statement that a president is responsible for ensuring the law is enforced and when appropriate, to grant clemency. “For more than 200 years, presidents have used their authority to offer second chances to deserving individuals, including those in uniform who have served our country. These actions are in keeping with this long history,” she said.

For the record, unless one has been in active combat, one cannot pretend to know exactly what our troops who are called to defend us go through. So many of our veterans who fought in Vietnam were faced with unprecedented situations, such as women and children running towards them with grenades seeking to kill them. Without having time to reflect, they had to pull the trigger in order to defend themselves and their fellow soldiers — the film American Sniper depicting U.S. Navy SEAL marksman Chris Kyle is an exemplar of this. The same terrorist strategy is used by Islamic militants. Yes war crimes have been committed in the past by those in uniform, and there is no excuse for it. They, however, cannot go into hostile terrain and be expected to fight the enemy as if he or she is fighting with a butterknife. These presidential pardons, while having my own reservations, should serve as a reminder to all of us that the troops are sacrificing their lives for us and for others and they should not be tainted by those few rotten apples. God bless them!

The Islamic Trojan Horse

(Image: Public Domain)

Many in the West today are grappling as to how Islam has been able to get a foothold in our society. We know of Islamists’ present-day means to get government officials to capitulate to their whims through lobbying and the mainstream media, presenting themselves as victims of the same Western society that has helped them. But how have they been able to acquire such political leverage? Apparently, there has been a willful lack of circumspection or foresightedness. Back in the 1970s, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had said:

“As long as Muslims are an insignificant minority in a Christian country, they can live on friendly terms, because they accept the laws and customs of the country that receives them. But as soon as they become numerous and organize, they become aggressive and try to impose their laws, which are hostile to [Western]* civilization.”

Protagonists such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both supposed allies of the United States and the European Union — have been able to forge or manipulate situations having politicians and the mainstream media to direct attention to military conflicts in the Middle East, such as Syria and Afghanistan, or by “exclusively” focusing on the Iranian regime as the principle source of terrorism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained, because of the West’s obsession with terror, we have become blind to the broader threat of the dawa, (Islamic proselytizing): the ideology behind the terror attacks — and what drives numerous Muslims to Islamize us. In other words, by leading us to believe that the threat of Islam is only in far-off distant lands, Islamists have been able to conceal their ultimate weapons of Islamization: exploitation of democracy and pluralism, immigration, and the multiplication of the progeny.

Since its foundation, Islam has always been transnational as it spread across the world when the nation-state and national identity were at best inchoate and more often nonexistent. This has impelled many Muslims, regardless of their views of democracy, to utilize the democratic instruments of pluralism and freedom of expression to insert themselves into society with the goal of propagating Islam at the expense of others. The most salient example has been the election of Ilhan Omar to the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding marrying her own brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, to get him a green card to the U.S., even before being sworn into Congress on a Quran, she successfully demanded that Congress reverse a 181-year ban on the wearing of any headgear — in her case she was able to wear the hijab: a religious attire, when lawmakers cannot even display a cross — on the floor of Congress.

Like a Trojan horse, Islamists have been able to infiltrate, for example, the Western field of education, creating an environment of receptivity and understanding for the next generation of Americans to accept their sharia-based lifestyle. Saudi money has financed institutions alongside multitudes of other Islamic organizations across the world and within the United States (80 percent of 1,200 mosques operating in the United States were built after 2003). Qatar’s equal vision for America is being peddled through our children’s classrooms, targeting a pliable population and one with a long shelf life.

This has reciprocally occurred with the assistance of terror-linked NGOs, such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, which have bought off Washington influencers and think tanks and having them capitulate to Islamic “needs” in our society.

Reading the collapse of Western demographics, Islamists see our century as the time to make their move if they are going to have a realistic opportunity to Islamize the West.  While a key strategy has been immigration, a more effective weapon, as already indicated, has been the multiplication of the progeny in opposition to the demographic collapse. As of 2017, there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, according to the Pew Research Center; nearly one-fourth of the world’s population, making Islam the world’s second largest religion after Christianity. Within the second half of this century, Muslims are expected to become the world’s largest religious group.  The Pew Research Center estimates that by 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity, due to faster birth rate (2.7 children per family vs. 2.2 for Christian families).

According to some experts, a reason for the latter is that millennials are not having or postponing having children because of financial strains.  Yet those with a family income of less than $10,000 had a birth rate of almost 50 percent higher than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or higher. As Jeremy Carl, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, explains, “The lack of commitment of middle-class and wealthy Americans to having and parenting their own children goes hand in hand with our elite’s casual approach to other issues — in particular, mass immigration.” The understanding that we can simply import foreigners to make up for the child-rearing job we have refused to do ourselves completely ignores the cultural, civic, and economic impacts of immigration — as well as the impacts to ourselves when we bring in foreign adults as a substitute for raising our own children. In any case, in 1970 there were one hundred thousand Muslims in America; today there are nearly four million.

With the most popular name for babies born in both Belgium and Berlin in last year being Muhammad, it is reflective of what former Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi stated in 2006: “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe —  without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” 

Chilling words, but this had been already foreseen by then-Algerian President Houari Boumendienne. In an address to the United Nations, stated, “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere.  And they will not go there as friends.  Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

Perhaps this is why President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told his fellow Muslim-Turks who are already living in Europe: “Have not just three but five children.” Apart from the observance of polygamous marriages, the fact that Muslims for the most part do not practice abortion or artificial contraception, the increase of the child rate per family in comparison to the low birth rate in the West, Muslims are inevitably geared to taking over.  At this rate, unless if Western society finally wakes up, it may just be just a matter of a few generations before this happens.


N. B. Originally published on November 13, 2019 by the American Thinker.

* When I speak of “Western” I do not just speak of countries, such as the United States or Canada, but those parts of the world that had originally been Christian and shaped by the Greco-Roman culture. This had been a theme of Archbishop Lefebvre; it is also used by Raymond Ibrahim in his book Sword and Scimitar.


The Duplicitous US Policy in Syria: It Is All About Oil

American military convoy stops near the town of Tel Tamr, north Syria, Sunday, October 20, 2019. Baderkhan Ahmad/AP)

Daniel Larison, senior editor at the American Conservative, recently wrote that President Donald Trump “isn’t kidding when he says that the U.S. mission in Syria is all about illegal plunder.” Trump declared this past Wednesday that the American mission in Syria is focused solely on protecting oil fields, which seems to directly contradict the Pentagon’s contention that fighting ISIS is still the priority.

“We’re keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil,” Trump told reporters during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan whom Trump publicly hailed a as friend at the White House. Keeping in mind that the oil fields do not belong to anyone but to the people of Syria, yesterday, vice director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, Rear Adm. William Byrne had to correct a reporter who said the mission there was to protect the oil:

“I’m not going to pick on your words, but I would only — I would be cautious with saying that ‘the mission [is] to secure the oil fields. The mission is the defeat of ISIS. The securing of the oil fields is a subordinate task to that mission, and the purpose of that task is to deny ISIS the revenues from that oil infrastructure.”

Trump in early October ordered the withdrawal of almost all of the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria after learning that Erdoğan planned to send troops into the country’s northeast to clear the area of YPG (People’s Protection Unit) Kurds, which Turkey considers terrorists. Trump later switched course and decided to send in US troops to protect oil fields in eastern Syria.

Just days after, reports that the Turks are using chemical weapons against the Kurds — including Kurdish civilian populations, President Trump announced that the US will lift the sanctions on Turkey he imposed over Turkey’s operation against the Kurds in northern Syria due to the promise of a “permanent” ceasefire. Multiple sources have reported that the chemical weapons were dropped in the border town of Ras al-Ayn after images and video surfaced of civilians, including children, suffering gruesome chemical burns. This would not be the first time that Erdogan has been accuesd of using projectiles carrying poisonous gas in Syria.

See photos of children burned by the chemical weapons – Warning graphic

The present-Trump policy is no different from Presidents Jimmy Carter’s helping create the ongoing chaos in Iran or George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. In fact, is is right in line with what a mentor of mine, Father Samir Khalil Samir, S.J., had always explained in that the US-led West, while publicly accusing rogue nations for killing innocents and pillaging from lands not their own, is no different since it appears that its only interest is the petrodollar — the system that buttressed the US currency hegemony for decades by ensuring that oil producers would recycle their dollar proceeds by purchasing more American-denominated assets, thereby boosting the financial strength of the US reserve currency, leading even higher asset prices and even more US currency-denominated purchases. Samir says:

“We [the West] raised our voices (rightly) against the violations perpetrated in the Balkans by Serbia, but we remain silent on the violations of human rights in Saudi Arabia, well aware that … we risk the profits connected with oil. The West has great respect for human rights but even greater respect for material advantages and wealth. If there is some conflict related to economic or commercial interests, human rights are placed second. If the defense of human rights implies the sacrifice of economic advantages, the rights are normally sacrificed, not the economic advantages.”

As Larison pointed out, “Trump was convinced to keep some troops in Syria after having the prospect of oil loot dangled in front of him by the military. The military has yet to endorse the president’s oil fixation as the real reason for the new mission, and so they are keeping up the pretense that this has something to do with fighting ISIS. The trouble is that the president is interested in staying in Syria only because of the chance to steal Syrian oil, and he doesn’t care that this is illegal and completely impractical.” To believe as US Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters on October 22 that Washington wants to be sure that ensure oil fields do not fall into the hands of ISIS or other militants tends to be pretentious at best.

This two-headed Syria policy has left us with the worst of both worlds. The president signs off on the continuation of an illegal military intervention for the worst reasons, and his underlings then try to exploit the situation to run the Syria policy that they want instead. The subordinates will be able to get away with this for a time until Trump realizes that they are not carrying out the oil-stealing mission that he wants, and then there will be another sudden upheaval. Neither of the two Syria policies is in the American interest, but the United States seems to be locked into a tug of war between the President Trump’s impulsive, bad decisions and the rest of the administration’s ill-conceived and unrealistic goals. No matter which side prevails, US troops are stuck in Syria fighting an unauthorized war that has nothing to do with American security. No matter who wins the struggle inside the Trump administration on Syria policy, the U.S. loses.