Meanwhile, Back in America – Understanding the Threat

Written by John D. Guandolo While the U.S. government decides on a course of action with regards to Iran, the Islamic and Marxist Counter-States inside America continue to roll forward unimpeded. If U.S. leaders understood America is in a war against Marxists and jihadis joined together in a knock-down-drag-out fight…
— Read on www.understandingthethreat.com/meanwhile-back-in-america/

‘Hail Satan?’ — Satanic Temple Documentary Released; Media Loves It

Make The Stream my Homepage


‘Hail Satan?’ — Satanic Temple Documentary Released; Media Loves It

YouTube; Film Trailer2.5K56

By TOM GILSON Published on April 27, 2019 • 34 Comments

Tom Gilson

I haven’t seen Penny Lane’s new documentary, “Hail Satan?” It’ll be at least two weeks before it reaches any theater within a hundred miles of here. I’ve only seen the trailer. There’s plenty there, though — enough to know that I’ve seen enough. That’s in spite of — or because of — the film’s overwhelmingly glowing reviews since its premiere at Sundance earlier this year.

Its subject is the Salem, Massachusetts-based Satanic Temple group, famous for erecting a statue of Baphomet in front of the Oklahoma capitol. They don’t believe in Satan, they say, but they sure do hate Christianity. And they’re hardly alone in that, judging from the reviews.

“Basic Human Rights” or “A Poke in the Eye”?

Blake Edwards, writing for The Humanist, says the group’s efforts “are responses to Christian indoctrination and monopoly over public spaces.” He stands firmly in agreement with them: “Shoulder to shoulder against traditionally religious conservatives in America, the Satanist and the humanist are not just reluctant allies but enthusiastic comrades in rebellion against the Christian notion of a deity.”

Humanists and Satanists, enthusiastic comrades? I could stop right there. Except it gets worse. The Satanists have plenty more allies.

The Hollywood Reporter gushes over both the film and the Satanists: “Wickedly funny, fascinating and niftily made, this crowd-pleaser will reign at festivals.” It will “prove, yet again, that the devil always has the best tunes.” The group itself, says the review, is “a religious organization dedicated to protecting basic human rights in modern America.”

NPR informs us the Satanic Temple is “a fully sincere spiritual movement itself, one advocating principles of nonviolence, religious pluralism, scientific inquiry, individual liberty and Dungeons & Dragons garb.” Gush, gush.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

But which rights are we talking about? They call it religious freedom. In reality, they’ve aimed their horns straight at one group: believing Christians. NPR calls it “a poke in the eye of religious conservatism.” I just love getting poked in the eye, don’t you? Sure, it’s a metaphor. I can roll with it. But there’s more.

Entertainment Weekly minces no words, speaking of the group’s opposition to “the increased presence of Christian theocracy in America’s public spaces,” which “they see as contra to the foundational ideals of a country that offers not just freedom of religion, but freedom from it.”

Still, Come On, They’re Really Nice!

That’s the Satanic Temple’s view. Here’s Entertainment Weekly’s own opinion: “The group has a lot on its side; the Constitution, for one.” The Temple’s leader, Lucian Greaves, is driven only by the purest motivations, they say: “Justice — along with science, reason, and the right to reject the adjudicating of public life in the name of Jesus Christ.” It makes me wonder if that writer is heading off to join the Satanic Temple this weekend.

The Washington Post loves them, too. They are “A brave, idealistic band of misfits and rebels dedicated to such values as reason, personal liberty, bodily autonomy and secularism in the public square.” And if that’s not good enough, they’re also “a collection of thoughtful, creative, passionate people.” Possibly the nicest people in the world, even: Their “core tenets,” says The Post, “include compassion, empathy, rectification of harm and respect for scientific understanding.” And to cap that off, a masterpiece of misunderstanding: Those tenets “coexist happily with the most humanistic impulses of traditional religions.”

The NY Times’ take on the group’s tenets is that they’re “well, pretty nice.”

Did I say they were nice, though? I’ll have to admit I borrowed the word. From The NY Times, whose take on the group’s tenets is that they’re “well, pretty nice.”

So it seems if you’re writing for any of the country’s major media, you think it’s a great film. And it’s about a really nice group of people. They must be: a lot of them are animal lovers! Even if they’re not so happy working together with other humans (5:12 here).

Maybe human cooperation doesn’t matter that much, though, for “trolling the culture wars” (per Reason.com). They don’t need it, apparently, in order to be “more than just a middle finger to the evangelical right,” as Greaves put it.

Taking Direct and Hateful Aim at Christianity

They’re freedom fighters, says The Washington Post, “waging front-line battles on behalf of free expression and the separation of church and state.” Their method is clear: “to present Satanism as a religion that deserves equal time with Christianity, in order to call attention to the un-Constitutionality of Christianity in public spaces” (The Wrap).

They do wrap their story in constitutional language. But there’s more to it than that, and it gets a lot uglier than you’d gather from the reviews. You do get a hint of it in their warnings (in the trailer) of “Christian theocracy creeping its way into our government … it is our duty to stand up to this.”

The subtext is clear enough: the media love this.

What that word means in the wider conversation is that the Christian right is a Handmaid’s Tale world, an “American Taliban” currently led by at least one “ anti-science, anti-women, anti-LGBT, radical religious extremist, a cold, cruel, Christian extremist.”

Nice? This sounds a lot more like their admitted inability to play well together with others, if you ask me.

Far more so, however, does their including the Hallelujah Chorus, in their movie trailer. Worse yet, it’s playing while men and women on screen are intoning “Hail, Satan!” Honestly, it’s one of the most hateful things anyone could do to a fellow human who believes in Jesus Christ. Short of physical violence, I have trouble thinking of anything to match it.

But there is tragedy here. It applies to more than the Satanists; for the subtext is clear enough: the media love this.

Jesus —Not Satan! — Is the One Who Cares

But I refuse to take offense without grieving for them at the same time. For one of the key voices in the trailer says, “Satanism is looking out for the other, because we are the other.” I’m sorry, but no. That’s just prettifying a sentiment that’s actually quite self-centered: “Satanism is looking out for people like us — people who don’t like Christianity.” Not so other-oriented after all, is it?

Meanwhile there is one person who stands out among all the rest for His care and concern for others. He is the one Person in all history — and even all of literature! — whose entire recorded life is focused entirely on giving to others. Bonhoeffer rightly called him the “man for others.”

They’ve chosen Jesus’ enemy as their symbol, not knowing he’s their enemy, too.

Granted, we Christians have come nowhere near to living up to the standard He set. Still, if looking out for others were this group’s true goal, they would never set up Jesus’ chief adversary as their symbol. They’d be looking to Jesus instead as their guide and model. He came to give His life for them, too. He died for them, just as He did for us all. Even though they’ve made themselves as “other” from Him as they know how to be.

They’ve chosen Jesus’ enemy as their symbol, not knowing he’s their enemy, too. May they come to know the true Jesus for who He is.

Tom Gilson is a senior editor with The Stream, and the author of A Christian Mind: Thoughts on Life and Truth in Jesus Christ. Follow him on Twitter: @TomGilsonAuthor.

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

By Kyle Smith

January 14, 2017 | 2:06pm | Updated Enlarge Image

It’s time to face facts: Obama’s presidency was a failure

Getty Images

MORE FROM:

KYLE SMITH

Now Hillary Clinton’s loss is being blamed on Jon Stewart

Pathetic Democrats have become the party of apologies

Prosecutors just spat in the face of Chicago cops in Jussie Smollett case

Why Ocasio-Cortez’s trendy brand of ‘socialism’ is doomed to fail

Sunday’s #WhoCares Oscars left us longing for big-star glamour

The closing arguments for the Obama years are arriving, and they aren’t helping the outgoing president. A case in point is a new book published this week, one that acknowledges “Obama’s supporters have experienced [his presidency] as a continuous disappointment.”

Those supporters, and others, must have noticed that “for most of Obama’s term, wage gains were largely confined to the rich.” Or that “The administration’s planning in Libya clearly failed” or “It is certain that the actual outcome [of Obama’s Syria policy] was disastrous.”

Even many of President Obama’s proudest achievements look about as enduring as April snow: “If there was a single aspect of Obama’s legacy most vulnerable to reversal, it was his achievements on climate change,” the book says, and “Obama’s regulatory offensive is, of course, vulnerable to reversal by Donald Trump or the Supreme Court, since it rested upon executive action.” The longest chapter is titled “The Inevitability of Disappointment.”

Yet the title of the book containing these quotations is “Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail,” by the New York magazine columnist and lefty firebrand Jonathan Chait.

Sustained coherence seems to elude the author. On Page 99 we hear about those “overblown or even false claims that the new law [ObamaCare] was raising premiums,” but three pages later we learn, “Big insurers like Aetna pulled out of the exchanges, reducing options, and insurers in most markets raised their premiums.” Oh. Republican opposition, which boils down to wariness of new spending while Obama is racking up more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined, doesn’t earn a rational counter-argument.

No, the GOP simply means “rage.” “Republican terror,” Chait writes, is “berserk” with a “fierce and even crazed tone” (this last describes Paul Ryan).

On Page 31, Chait declares “the simplistic initial hope of Obama’s giddy supporters that the symbolism of a black president could help heal, if not eliminate, racial prejudice turned out to have a real basis in fact.” But 20 pages back, he comes to the opposite conclusion: “racism continues to lurk deep in the American psyche,” “Americans had split once again into mutually uncomprehending racial camps,” “the continued existence of racism in American life has been confirmed by a library of social-science research.”

Only an Obama fanboy would argue, just as a fire is going out, that the whole forest is about to burn down.

Meanwhile, current polling on the matter is clear. American worries about race relations, which had been stable for nearly 20 years, increased markedly in Obama’s second term, reaching a new high last spring, while the president’s approval rating on race issues, which was very high when his first term began, has ranged from 48 percent to a low of 26 percent for the last seven years or so, according to Gallup.

Chait grouses that the 2009 stimulus was dismally small and admits that the Republican critique of it as funding “a wish list of long-standing Democratic policies” had “an element of truth.”

Yet he also celebrates it as saving us from depression. Really? The downturn actually ended in June 2009 as the first stimulus checks were being signed. Only an Obama fanboy would argue, just as a fire is going out, that the whole forest is about to burn down.

Moreover, deep recessions (such as the 1981-82 one) that cause people to cut way back are generally followed by booming rebounds. This one wasn’t. Far from turbo-charging the economy, the stimulus was such a dud that five years after the recovery began, 72 percent of Americans said in a poll that they thought we were still in a recession. “The stimulus ultimately failed to do what America expected it to do — bring about a strong, sustainable recovery,” wrote Michael Grabell of ProPublica.

That’s hard to dispute given the sluggishness of the recovery — economic growth has been by far the weakest of any post-recession period since World War II. But Chait has zilch to say about that. Nor does Chait mention that Obama is the first president since Herbert Hoover to fail to preside over a single year of 3 percent growth. But hey, Obama fans, stay in your bubble. It’s cozy there.

Sealing himself off certainly didn’t work for the Bubble President, though. President Obama entered office thinking: “They love me! So they’ll love everything I do!” No. He had no backup plan for what to do if Congress became less than generous with the rubber stamp. Virtually every president has to negotiate with Capitol Hill — Ronald Reagan faced hostile Democrats in the House for his entire presidency — but Obama thought horse-trading was beneath him.

So he contented himself giving speeches and signing executive orders that Donald Trump is about to feed into the shredder. It looks like Obama’s chapter in the history books is going to be much like his résumé when he was elected president: thin.

CAIR Director Herman Mustafa Carroll: Practicing Muslims Are Above The Law of the Land

CAIR Director Herman Mustafa Carroll: Practicing Muslims Are Above The Law of the Land

May 6, 2019 Tim Brown Culture 0

ShareTweetShare

From the archives: July 30, 2013.

According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

I suppose at the very least, Carroll is being honest about what practicing Muslims believe. This is what we’ve been telling people all along. Now CAIR is becoming a bit more vocal about what they are really about.


TRENDING ON DC CLOTHESLINE:Supreme Court Shoots Down New York City’s 2nd Amendment–Avoidance Scheme Main Core: Millions Of Americans That Will Be Subject To Detention During Martial Law 


Carroll made the statement at a rally in Austin, Texas as part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the event website Muslims came to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

It appears to me that they are promoting jihad and lawlessness. “We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

He then attempted to dismiss his critics as “anti-foreign.” I wonder if we should just out him now as “anti-American,” since he thinks he is above the laws of America.

“When you even say the word Sharia, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Sharia. We are not trying to make Sharia the law of the land,” he said.

While saying that Muslims only want the right to practice their faith, Carroll also included this little tidbit. “If you understand Sharia, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Sharia.”

He must have intentionally left out the parts about jihad, honor killings and treating women and infidels as chattel, while seemingly speaking about harmless treatment of neighbors and parents.

They discussed “the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Sharia’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”

Carroll attempted to downplay Sharia law, despite joining with the ACLU to oppose the anti-Sharia legislation in Texas.

I told you about how the federal government was seeking to close the mouths of free speech in regards to Islam back in June. I don’t recall Mr. Carroll standing up and opposing that. In fact, his organization didn’t make a peep about that, which simply means they are complicit in it.

The event even included a speech by a representative of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, who declared that Texas was an awful place and that Islam was the answer.

“Why did Muhammad say that he would not rest until the Koran was the law of the land?”

“Islam does not have Texas in the current condition, the current socio-political condition that Texas is in. What is this condition that Texas is in? Why is Texas on the brink, when you look at Texas in comparison to 50 states, education, percent of population graduating from high school is 46, high school completion rate is 46, the scholastic assessment rate, the SAT score in Texas is 47, the percentage of population with no health insurance in Texas is first, those without health insurance Texas is first. When you look at the state of a child in Texas, the percentage of uninsured children, Texas is first… etc etc

You shouldn’t be filing legislation against Islam, when you look at Texas, Islam is not the problem. Islam is the solution. Allah Akbar.”

Well I suppose if you consider a means to illiteracy and poverty as your goals, then perhaps Islam is the answer. If you consider the merciless killing and degradation of women as what you are out to achieve, then yes, I suppose Islam is the answer. If you are considering an eternity in Hell, then yes Islam would provide that answer.

However, Carroll has also defended terrorists on the same grounds as his statement above; Muslims are above the law of the land.

“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas.”

“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qur’an, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Qur’an told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”

Now ask yourself, those that read the Qur’an believe they are above the law of the land and some even go so far as to obey the words of the Qur’an and murder infidels. They both share a common core: The teachings of a demon-possessed pedophile, murdering thief named Mohammed.

Back in 2003, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad sought to bully a newspaper that quoted him saying:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.”

For my friends who think Islam is not a threat to our society, let that one sink in.

For years Ahmad has been trying to seek a retraction from the newspaper, but to no avail as the paper stands by the article. I applaud their courage to do so and expose the attempts at taqiyya being put forth by Ahmad and his Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.

COMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network

Rep. Tlaib Got Into Politics Out of “Fear” of Americans After 9/11

Rep. Tlaib Got Into Politics Out of “Fear” of Americans After 9/11

APR 28, 2019 1:00 PM BY DANIEL GREENFIELD45 COMMENTS

After the Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, Americans became fearful of Islamic terrorists. And terrorists, and their supporters, became fearful of Americans.

The media insists that we empathize, not with the fears of the former, but of the latter.

Americans may be killed by the thousands, but we are never allowed to be victims. Much like the Christians of Sri Lanka, a day will pass and the media will switch its attention to the “backlash fear” group.

Here’s Rep. Tlaib’s “backlash fear” story.

“I was probably my second year in law school when 9/11 happened. And I was — I was really terrified of what was going to happen to my husband, who’s only a green card holder at the time,” she said.

“I immediately called my brothers and told them to be very careful who you hang out with, telling my sisters, you know, just be real careful out there, and being really afraid of my fellow Americans.”

She added that the attack and the fear pushed her toward public service and becoming more involved in her community.

“It really pushed me to be more involved, and I got really curious and really angry. And I think that combination got me, you know, in front of a number of issues in the city of Detroit,” she said.

After 9/11, some Americans rushed into the buildings and into the military to serve their fellow Americans.

And some people with American papers rushed to fight Americans, on foreign battlefields or in the war at home.

If only the media had as much sympathy for Americans as it does for their enemies.

D.C. Muslims Want Restaurants Open at 4 AM for Ramadan

D.C. Muslims Want Restaurants Open at 4 AM for Ramadan

APR 25, 2019 6:00 PM BY DANIEL GREENFIELD70 COMMENTS

Washington D.C. has a sizable Muslim population. And while Rep. Ilhan Omar has gotten a lot of attention, there are more Muslim aides and staffers than ever before.

Some of them would like D.C. restaurants to open at 4 AM.

Katherine Ashworth Brandt, a former congressional aide now studying political management at George Washington University who founded the campaign late last year, is urging Washington restaurants to expand their hours next month to accommodate Muslims celebrating Ramadan, the 30 days of fasting that begins May 5 this year for most Muslims.

“I want this to be a common business practice,” said Brandt, 34. “I want customers to be able to expect that places will be open when they need them during Ramadan.”

Restaurateurs participating in Dine After Dark would open around 4 a.m., to give Muslims two hours before sunup to eat before abstaining from food and drink for the rest of the day, or close around 10:30 p.m., about two hours after sunset, when observant Muslims break their fast.

For an eatery to open at 4 AM, the employees have to start work anywhere from 1 AM to 2 AM.

Making this Ramadan accommodation a common business practice would be expensive for employers and miserable for employees.

But, as usual a convenience issue for Muslims seems to trump the comfort and welfare of non-Muslims.

As an Orthodox Jew, we keep fasts certain times of the year. Some of them begin very early in the morning. We don’t expect places to open at 4 AM for our convenience. There’s a great deal of entitlement embodied in such an attitude.

Muslims in Washington D.C. don’t need to go out in the morning. They can prepare their own food ahead of time. Microwaves and toaster ovens make it easy to have a meal without expecting businesses to accommodate you or workers to go without sleep.

But instead, also as usual, an Islamic entitlement is portrayed as a civil rights issue.

Depending on their business models, some restaurants would expand both morning and evening hours. Two extra hours may not be enough to serve all Muslims’ needs, Brandt acknowledged, but it’s a start.

It’s never enough. Everything you give is only a starting point.

“All of us need to be more considerate of other people’s traditions and holidays and know that these are important no matter what religion you subscribe to,” she said

How about being considerate of employees earning minimum wage and having little enough time to spend with their children?

Consideration is never given to infidels. Only demanded from them.