Jesuit Scholar: Islamic Extremists Are the True Muslims

Recently, discussion about the more recent "terrorist attacks" have been focusing around the meme that those committing these attacks are not "real Muslims". My take on this is that the left is attempting to protect the Muslim community from further animosity by those either directly, or indirectly, impacted by those attacks on Muslims who may be encountered in their daily business and actions. After all, it appears the left has much in common with Islamic values and principles.

The following article provides the world, steeped in denial of the truth and obsessed with not offending the feelings of anyone, with a point of view which reveals how drastically out of phase the greater percentage of out nation's population is on this topic. (Yes, I tend to agree with this view based on years of study and research on this topic/issue.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.16 Jun 2017

Islamic extremists who carry out acts of terror are simply applying what their faith requires of them, according to Jesuit Father Henri Boulad, an Islamic scholar of the Egyptian Greek Melkite rite.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Father Boulad said that “Islam is an open-ended declaration of war against non-Muslims” and those who carry out violent jihad are true Muslims who are applying exactly what their creed demands.

Those who fail to recognize the real threat posed by Islam are naïve and ignorant of history, he said, and unfortunately many in the Church fall into this category.

Citing a letter he wrote last August to Pope Francis, Father Boulad said that “on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West.”

“Anything that does not espouse this ideology is immediately stigmatized in the name of ‘political correctness,’” he said.

The priest went so far as to chastise Pope Francis himself—a fellow Jesuit—suggesting that he has fallen into this trap as well.

“Many think that a certain number of your positions are aligned with this ideology and that, from complacency, you go from concessions to concessions and compromises in compromises at the expense of the truth,” the priest wrote to Francis.

Christians in the West and in the East, he wrote the Pope, “are expecting something from you other than vague and harmless declarations that may obscure reality.”

“It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness,” he said.

“If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth,” he said.

The priest also stated his belief that the West is in an ethical and moral debacle, and its defense of Islam is a denial of truth.

“By defending at all costs Islam and seeking to exonerate it from the horrors committed every day in its name, one ends up betraying the truth,” he wrote.

To back up his argument, Father Boulad enumerated a number of texts from the Koran that call on Muslims to employ violence in their conquest of the world for Allah.

The many passages he cited included: “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Koran 2:191), “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood” (Koran 9:123), “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (Koran 9:5), “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” (Koran 5:33), “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies” (Koran 22:19), and “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” Koran 8:12.

Father Boulad is not the first Jesuit scholar to criticize the West for its naiveté in dealing with Islam. Last year, Georgetown scholar Father James V. Schall contended that decades of students have been given a “sanitized education” that systematically excludes an honest portrayal of the history and theology of Islam, which limits their ability to assess what is going on in the world.

In his essay titled “Realism and Islam,” Father Schall argued that Islam “is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history” and the basic reason for this method is religious in nature: “obedience to the Law of Allah.”

Therefore, he wrote, the Western tendency to simply call Muslim violence “terrorism” is insulting to believing Muslims who “see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so.” Rather than terrorism, he insists, Muslims see their violence as “a religious endeavor to conquer the world,” which they understand to be “an act of piety.”

Because of this gaping educational void, “most citizens are simply not equipped to face the forces now reappearing in the world,” he wrote.

“And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider,” he said.

The Underground Jihad In America

I've often wondered how extensive the illegal activities of immigrants from middle-eastern countries was. Given that it was rather obvious to me during the last presidential administration there was a clear bias regarding Muslims by Obama - especially when his right-hand advisor, Valerie Jarrett, in the White House was originally from Iran - I suspected that there was a lot more than outward appearances revealed; both to the innocent community member, and the mainstream media's stories presented about their nefarious activities. After all, this president deliberately had the DOJ downplay its enforcement of much of their illegal crackdown on such activities well know by many in various communities around the nation.

This article provides proof, rather clearly, just how extensive a problem this has developed into over the eight year period of Obama's term in office and is a hint at just how extensive it might be in other heavily Muslim urban centers across our land today.

While the current administration is finally addressing this problem plaguing our land, it would be nice to see more prominent progress of our southern border wall project promised by candidate Trump. If we've not yet plugged the leak of illegal immigrants into our country, then we're only allowing the problem to replenish itself. Hopefully more will be forthcoming sooner than later about progress on the wall.

Are We Seeing Obama's Civilian Security Force In Action?

Watch this video to answer the question of this post for yourself while thinking about the picture above. The banner statements reveal their true goals for our nation! Need a little help? Allow me to recommend this article for your edification.

Update: Note in this article who Pres. Obama appointed from the Black Lives Matter organization, and for what. Looks to me like he had a direct hand in maneuvering things into place while still in office.

"Lock Her Up!" Is Political Ranting?

No... it's a demand for law and order, justice and equal treatment under it! There is a big difference.

As part of CBS's live coverage on Wednesday of the Alexandria shooting, discussion by Charlie Rose included the shooter's political rants on his social media posts. Rose also pointed out the chanting at Trump's campaign rallies of "Lock Her Up!" and equated them as just as incendiary as the shooters to illustrate the heightened political rhetoric now dominating our nation's divided condition.

But, for those who accept the media's false narrative about conservatives' motives and behavior, it seems perfectly logical. After all, it's their job to "carry the water" for the Democrat Party by pounding the meme and stir the emotions and concerns of their zombie hoards in the urban centers of America. These talking heads on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and other leftist oriented networks are skewed in their views because they've no real sense of America in "flyover country" and the "heartland" of our nation lives, works, raises their family and does its best to abide by the laws of our land.

This middle-America, and those who understand what's been done to divide our country during the previous administration - and the examples are too legion to recite here from that eight year period - were expressing in that chant their frustration that the opposing candidate had clearly broken the law, yet understood that, because of her position as an elite, she would never be prosecuted and sentenced. And the top law enforcement cop of the land had let her off the hook!

They were tired of hearing from the failed attempt at healing the land by electing a first black president that told them "they didn't build that". Instead, they got more and more divisive meddling in matters which normally a president wouldn't involve himself in; like his "Beer Summit", and the multitude of social justice issues; Treyvon Martin, et al. 

They were frustrated that their nation, which had in the past won two world wars at the great sacrifice of their own brothers and fathers, couldn't deal with a growing threat of ISIS because he clearly had an ideological bias towards not calling them what they were; Radical Islamic Terrorism! Yet, they saw the influx of immigrants invading their communities - forced by the federal agencies tasked to do so - who are not assimilating into our culture and at the same time demanding that their expectations are respected and observed. To any sane person, that is social and cultural suicide!

They realized that such a chant would send the clear message to the nation that such a reality is not acceptable to a sector of society who would most certainly have seen others in positions of lesser power, have been convicted and sentenced for lesser crimes. They had to make a statement which said, "Enough is enough! We want justice, not excuses and empty promises. We're tired of being ignored by those who we elected!" They had to vent, but NO ONE ever went out and acted on those frustrations by shooting at any Democrat politicians!

There is a huge difference here!

Why You Love Capitalism

Watching this five minute video nicely explains why everyone loves capitalism, whether they realize it, or not. Perhaps you can share it with your socialist friends who think what's happening in Venezuela is a cool thing.

Sadly, the Rhetoric Continues

In the tragic aftermath of the Alexandria, VA shooting on June 14th of the Republican Congressman and their aides practicing for today's baseball game, there were those in the media - in this particular instance - the New York Times newspaper editorial board - who just had to keep up the rhetoric which has helped to contribute to enraging those who believe what they hear, or see without question, in the news by acting on it. (The irony of this is that the leftists' meme is that it is the conservatives, Tea Party, Republicans, and especially Trump, who are the ones inciting violence.)

For those who are actually paying attention to what's going on and having any degree of critical thinking skills which allow them to realize the shift which has occurred in our mainstream media over the last few decades, it should be obvious and apparent that they no longer report "just the facts, mam!" (who, what, when, where and why), but instead interlace predominantly leftist opinions into much of their news reports today.

And, while the elected representatives in D.C. have been quick to call for a halt to the rhetoric on both sides of the isle, there are those in the media who just can't let go and don't realize this is a time to hold off on the ridiculous attack and accusations which are not about policies or issues, but about the character of individuals and those in the opposing party. Like post 9/11 it is doubtful that the rhetoric from the politicians will cease for long; even Rep. Pelosi of CA was quick to comment disparagingly about the other party earlier today! She's SO steeped in party ideology, that she can't even see how she's coming across in making such a statement!

For an interesting perspective on this matter, I invite you to read and listen to Glenn Beck's comments about this issue on who in the long list of who's to blame.

The following is a response from the Media Research Center; an organization that monitors and reports on media bias.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yesterday, the New York Times Editorial Board wrote an editorial that read, in part:

“In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear.”

Later, they went on to say about yesterday’s shooting in Alexandria, Virginia:

“Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack …”

MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement blasting the New York Times Editorial Board for their intentionally fallacious editorial:

“The New York Times Editorial Board should be embarrassed by the flaming pile of garbage they published today. Even in the face of a radical leftist's attempted assassination of numerous members of Congress, they try to find a way to cast blame on ... conservatives! Their editorial perpetuates a long-debunked leftist conspiracy theory about Gov. Sarah Palin inciting the Giffords shooting. They know better. The New York Times ’ own news reporters declared just yesterday that there was no evidence linking Palin to the Giffords shooting!

“If the New York Times Editorial Board is going to declare that one cannot place blame on Sen. Sanders for the Alexandria shooting, they must apologize to Gov. Palin for dragging her name through the mud to score cheap political points.”

By Any Means Necessary!

In stepping back from the minutia of various news stories, leaks, and claims by an array of "swamp creatures" in Washington, D.C., I have begun to construct what I believe has most likely gone on behind this whole charade. Here's my summation of it all without getting into the weeds on it:

Unable, unwilling, or both, to accept the results of the presidential campaign liberals at the top of the establishment food chain in our nation's political arena, a meeting - or at least a dialog in some way - was initiated within only days of the election to devise a way to try and reverse, or change the outcome as much as possible, so that the Democrats can maintain at least a modicum of control in Congress other than what they already have succeeded in controlling by moderating some of the Republicans in Congress.

How to achieve this objective is their desperate effort to combat the growing loss in elections over the past administration's eight year term in the White House. From all of what's transpired over the past eight months of this evolving case it appears that the liberal establishment - most likely led by Hillary and close friends of the campaign - determined that since their previous coup in 1974 against Pres. Nixon was ultimately successful in forcing him to resign, and that their total collusion with the mainstream media has now become an even more efficient and effective means by which to influence the voter base about what is happening, a similar campaign against Pres. Trump must be carried out to oust him from the White House. (Let's not forget who was a member of that investigation team against Nixon then; that's right, Hillary Rodham who was ultimately kicked off the team due to her dishonesty and efforts to hide documents and records pertaining to the investigation.)

Given that Pres. Obama supported Hillary's campaign, and, given that we now have reason to believe that F.B.I. Director Comey's appointment by the then "Golfer-in-Chief" for being in command of an agency that would carry out the liberals' long range objectives should an unexpected outcome occur (see my post titled, "The Corruption's Deeper Than We Thought!") I believe Comey is the Democrat's inside operative to sabotage and hinder Trump's administrative efforts to even begin to turn the ship of state off its current course towards an ever growing socialistic state of cradle to grave control.

I understand that anyone reading this theory might object by saying, "No! Why would Comey sacrifice himself as the "patsy" for the Democrats with the possibility of going to prison if his disclosure of his leaking information to the press through his college buddy and not calling Lynch on her demand to him for calling it a "matter" rather than the investigation it was? That just doesn't make sense!" It doesn't make sense that he's already testified that those two things occurred, either. But, my speculation - and knowing the liberal establishment as I do - I wouldn't be surprised that they've told Comey, "Hey look, if you'll do this for us, once we're back in power in 2021, then we'll pardon your sentence to get you out and set you up comfortably for the rest of your life!" I know this theory sounds rather "out there", but you can't discount the absurdity of what's gone on in other significant issue which have been revealed about how the liberals have made claims and manipulated those revelations via the mainstream media! The current handling of the Alexandria, VA shooting of Congressional members and staff by the liberals/leftists by connecting it in their weird way to the Gifford incident of 2011 to motivate the P.O.S. that carried out the Alexandria shootings the other day, is our most current example of why I say this.

An article in the National Review posted today by former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy on this whole effort to claim that Pres. Trump is now under investigation for obstruction of justice by Muller - the special prosecutor who's a close friend of Comey's (which is, BTW, not allowed under the rules for being appointed and the media is doing their best to maintain the meme that Muller is untouchable and "pure as the driven snow" as to his unbiased position in all of this) - poses a question which supports my theory I've posed. See what you think.

Then too, Ann Coulter has now chimed in with her own masterfully written column article about this whole issue. In doing so, she documents the reaction of the leftists when candidate Trump refused to say he'd accept the outcome of the election as the hypocrites they are.