Why Islam and The West can not coexist

National Review ran a story on Wednesday, February, 15 regarding a professor from Georgetown University named Jonathan Brown, who gave a speech defending slavery in Islam. In his speech is was said by multiple accounts (Andrew Harrod who wrote about this 1 week ago and does fantastic work on Islam & Jihad) that he spent much time condemning Western Civilization slavery while exonerating slavery in the middle east where Islam is ramped. All this despite the fact that The West abolished slavery some 170+ years ago. Allow me to take this a bit further because as we all know the National Review does not have the guts to speak the entire truth.

In practice, Islam is a disease.

If you're a person of Islamic faith that doesn't make you a disease. It just makes your religious text you worship one. Now if you can't separate the two then well, the shoe fits.

The West was built upon Judeo-Christian values. I am not a Jew so I won't pretend to know Judaism. I will say however the New Testament was clearly a collection of books and accounts for the individual's relationship with his God. Not the church. The individual. That individual mindset and the ability to separate the two gave us the fertile ground for a Constitution & Bill of Rights. It gave us the power and confidence to have a Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion. Because the story of Christ wins on ideas.

Islam, on the other hand, is the religion built upon the words of an illiterate warlord who took wives as young as 6 years old. The very same book that is interwoven with almost 500 passages of rule of law and judiciary revelations. Following the Koran thus creates a problem if you live in the West. Like Prof Jonathan Brown (who supports Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel), It forces you to have to explain things like slavery and stoning a woman for walking at night alone and being raped; to a college kid in the US in 2017. But apparently, it's not that hard to do after all. Brown (who is white and was an evangelical) himself was converted at the very same university in 2010 by his Islamic studies professor. Consider the words of this Professor from Georgetown:

What’s the difference between someone who is captured in a raid in the steppes of Central Asia brought to Istanbul’s slave market, sold to an owner, who, by the way, might treat her badly, might treat her incredibly well. She’s going to bear him children. She’s going to be a free woman. She’s going to be the mother of his children. If he’s high status, she’s going to be high status. If he dies she might be a very desirable wife. That person’s situation? What’s the difference between that and some woman who’s a poor baker’s daughter who gets married to some baker’s son without any choice because no one expects her to have any choice? And that baker’s son might treat her well. He might treat her horribly.

When Jesus said to his fellow Jews: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is Gods” it put Jesus and the story of Jesus above anything man made. It did not attempt to set legislation or laws because those things are insignificant to Jesus. The Koran and its Sharia is about conquest and about rule of law mixed in with spirituality. This creates an impossible roadblock for the West at our most fundamental levels.

Jihadists sometimes refer to a group of “secular Muslims” and those are Muslims I support. If you're willing to stand up and denounce the Korans role in governmental affairs and laws much like a Christian can do here then I applaud you. But if not; do not call yourself a moderate. There is no moderate Muslim. Show me a moderate Muslim and will show you either an ignorant fool or a liar (Al-taqiyya).

If I am dangerous does that make Black men dogs? The curious case of Darryl Lynn Hughley

Some creature called Darryl Lynn Hughley or better known as DL Hughley, went on a rant this week regarding President Trump's 90-day immigration ban. This diatribe, while only three minutes in length, was all over the place and all those places were not good places.

Hughley doesn't hide his leftist leanings. He's ultra liberal and very critical of the right and white community. At the same time he's had his run in with his own ilk, so it's not like he's afraid to speak his mind regardless of how wrong or out of touch that mind may be.

Here was something I found astonishing:

“ISIS is supposed to be what we are scared of. The most dangerous thing in America is a white dude with an assault weapon and an attitude. If you wanted to really make America safer, you would ban assault weapons and not Muslims. What is more scary to you? A white dude that just got laid off with a gun? Or a dude reading a Koran?"

Now let's start out light. Assault weapons? What are assault weapons? How many white dudes who commit crime are doing so with “assault weapons”? Now, what about his claim about white dudes being dangerous along with said assault weapons? Notice how he follows that up with the talk of banning assault weapons but leaves out banning white guys? It would seem fair enough once is an inanimate object while one is a human being.

However, that's not the case because the very next sentence he points out banning Muslims doesn't make sense because they in Hughley's opinion are not the problem. Interesting he uses the word “thing” to describe the white man and the gun but doesn't include the white guy in his BAN DESPITE said white man being the most dangerous. Come on.

And yeah, reading the Koran can lead to suicide bombing. It does nothing for your argument when rational people hear this. Reading the Koran is like pointing out that someone reading Mein Kampf doesn't make them a threat. Of course it doesn't but in the wrong hands; that book and almost every religious book written 2k years ago can lead to things like.... Crusades. 9-11. Burning women as witches or stoning women in 2017 for being raped.

Just one minute later he doubles down:

“The most dangerous thing in America are white dudes… angry white dudes. Let's be clear.”

It's obvious DL Hughley is triggered here. But does that make him racist? I don't take the glee in making those distinctions. He is, however, a race baiter. A sensationalist in the mold of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All bark with no bite (spoiler alert). All hysteria with no logic. A race hustling pimp. His illogical - partisan race baiting is so pronounced it would make Emanuel (reparations) Cleaver of the Congressional Black Caucus fame weak at the knees.  

This is the same man who doesn't think Black on Black crime exists. No, he really thinks that. Despite places like Chicago, Baltimore, LA, NY... where the victims and offenders are almost exclusively Black; it doesn't exist.

"There’s more white on white crime than black on black crime…. crime is about proximity.. you hurt the ones you love because you are close to them … if you take any living organism and put it in a small space with limited resources it will kill anything around it… black on black crime a’int nothing but biology."

Now it's obvious DL Hughley isn't a deep thinker. He sees an FBI report, looks at some numbers and viola, there are more white people killing white people than black killing black people. That would be a valid point say if you lived in Flatland, where everything was in a two-dimensional reality. However, we live in a complex space and biology is rooted in mathematics. Just simple per capita data points out DL Hughley flaws.

77.35% of the US population as of 2014  identified themselves as White (including Hispanics who identify as White) or 246 million.

13.3% in America are identified as Black or African American.

Whites in this country are 6x the population of Blacks. So, for Whites to kill more than Blacks would not only make sense but it would be expected. And the numbers bear that. Whites do commit more murders than Blacks, barley but they do. Now if we are talking about the most “dangerous thing in America” there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically a young Black male. Because of, Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population commit 52% of all homicides and 59% of all felony murders on record from 1980-2008 according to the FBI as you can see below.

A piece written by the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley a few years back came out with these nuggets…

• Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
• Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s when black poverty was higher" and "racial discrimination was rampant and legal

There are also these bombshells from Edwin S. Rubenstein, M.A., New Century Foundation (courtesy of the American Renaissance)

1. There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
2. In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
3. In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
4. In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
5. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
6. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
7. In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
8. In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.
9. Both violent and non-violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.

No reason to pile on, the case is pretty clear. Black folks, particularly young black men who might make up, what 2-55 of the population... are unequivocally more dangerous than a white man despite an attitude or any weapon he might have. He can denounce and ignore “black on black crime” as not being real but the truth of the matter is it's pure evasion on his part and others like him because when you look at the data it's black and white (pardon that glorious pun).

Now let me make an interesting analogy.

If Black folks commit such an exorbitant amount of violent crime despite such small numbers could it be reasonable for people to be leery of that demographic? Is it racist for police to be more cautious or leery of young Black males? Can you really blame someone from crossing the street at night to avoid crossing paths with said young Black men? It doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out, it just takes access to the local or national news.

I said earlier there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically 2-5% of the population or aka young Black males. You care to guess what's “the most dangerous thing in America” on four legs?

Pit bulls

Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they're responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention.

This was a piece from Time magazine in 2014.

The correlation with Pit bulls and young black males is almost dead on and both highly disproportionate to their numbers of the US population in both dogs and people. There are people that will make the case that Pit bulls are only dangerous because they have bad owners. Pit bulls are good dogs in the right hands. Just like people on the left make excuses for the problems in inner cities with young Black males DESPITE the fact that before the 60’s under harsh conditions the Black community never had these problems. Remember, that was the days of the two parent household still - the Left has no time for that. Now, I know what you're thinking…. HE’S CALLING BLACK MEN DOGS.

That’s not it at all. I'm making the case that if you're going to go off hinge because you didn't like the election results and are triggered (still) then there is someone out there, despite being a nobody in terms of audience and notoriety is still going to take the time and check your ass. Because, I don't like being called dangerous without any empirical evidence to back it up; no more than does Darryl Lynn want to be compared to an animal that is bred to fight/maim/kill. Meanwhile, it was announced this week the gangs of Chicago want to meet with President Trump, while Darryl Lynn continues his SJW crusade fueled by false narratives and racial diatribes. This what it feels like to be winning again… 14 days and counting.

The post 9-11 double-sided coin

The continent of Africa has been in the news quite a bit of late and it's been a mixed bag of reasons why. Economically speaking, there has been astonishing progress and growth in emerging markets like Angola, who has seen its GDP increase over 1000% since 2000. There has also been a major boom in China and African trade agreements, as more and more African nations are brokering deals to send their vast resources into the commodity starved eastern power. George Clooney was arrested protesting at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington for the ongoing civil war that is ravishing the nation. Then we have had the blitz of KONY 12 the last few weeks and the bizarre twist, in which we seen the creator of the viral sensation get arrested for creating a scene in public naked and belligerent. 

The most fascinating aspect of KONY 12 wasn’t the astounding swath of attention through social networking then subsequent conventional media. It wasn't Jason Russell's public meltdown caught on camera. Nor was it the removal of an African warlord, because even when he was arrested, somebody would fill the vacuum. No, the single most important aspect of this “movement” is something nobody is talking about and that is the American public double standard.

For over a decade now, we have all at one time or another heard the world Islam and it immediately became synonymous with the word terrorism. I have done it. We see it in person, in the media (all facets of the media) and every other aspect of our lives. It’s only human to do so, considering the coverage and the emotional impact a 9-11 will have on a country. When you add the fighting of two wars to defeat terrorism, it only adds to the cognitive dissonance we experience as a whole.   

However, an open mind and a clean motive will allow you to understand that Islam, like any other widespread religion, is for the most part, made up of peaceful, good natured people. If we take the 1.5+ billion people whom call themselves Muslims, it is mathematically unavoidable to not have some bad apples. We have seen just 19 Hijackers on 9-11 send the world into a tailspin. We have heard of just 75-100 people alone taking on the US military in Afghanistan. To this day that has us still counting losses in blood and treasure. Economically, the cost being somewhere in the hundreds of billions. In the form of life, priceless.   

It is expected and highly probable to have a small percentage of people be violent and/or suicidal by human nature alone. Then suppose you factor in degrading aspects like: lack of education, no commerce to provide steady work or access to true representative government… the numbers of bad apples only swell.

And that is where we find the disconnect in our rational.

Here we have a tyrant, named Joseph Kony, who leads the Lord’s Resistance Army. That “Lord” at the forefront of the acronym isn’t some arbitrary name for a gang. It means what it does in Uganda, as it does here. That "Lord" being the very same as the Jedeo-Christian "Lord". Joseph Kony is the mastermind of a  guerrilla war against the Ugandan government (whom are Muslim’s) as he is hell bent on installing a theocracy ruled by the Ten Commandments; to replace the Islamic theocracy already in place. Where have we seen this movie before? Oh yhea, it’s called the Crusades. 

Dont tell that to people like Rush Limbaugh though. He actually went on his radio program trying to politicize the situation last year after Obama sent in 100 troops to "to remove them from the battlefield".  Now I personally don't agree in any military engagements in Sudan or Uganda, but i also don't defend a guy like Joseph Kony because it's politically expedite either. Now Rush Limbaugh later apologized for it days later but the damage was done. Here you have in Rush, a Christian-Conservative defending Joseph Kony based on the fact that he was a Christian, without even so much of a thought who or what he has done.

That is the type of mindset many of us here in the states use when the subject of religion comes up regarding Islam. What Limbaugh did was a microcosm of what most of us have done and many of us still do, we relate Terrorism to Islam and Christianity to righteousness. Even though Kony himself is a terrorist responsible for countless murders, executions and war crimes - it was assumed at face value he being a Christian, he was "fighting the good fight". Now most people who watched the video seen him for whom he was but the fact that he was calling himself a Christian goes relatively unnoticed, while anytime a brown person commits an act of terrorism, his relgion is bundled alongside his actions.

Just like many self described Christians, such as Jim Jones and David Koresh, their acts don’t jive with the overwhelming majority of Christians. Could those two and Joseph Kony actually find biblical evidence and accounts justifying their actions? Sure. The Old Testament is littered with stories or commands to kill non believers amongst other heinous acts. One of the most telling comes from Deuteronomy (13:7-12 NAB):

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. 

Now, many of you are probably saying to yourself, well those laws were for Jewish people and those were their laws... and you would be correct. However, the Bible doesn’t come with a disclaimer and if it is truly the word of God, why should it? And if it is simply a case of “lost in translation” like many parts of the Bible when something controversial comes up (funny how that problem never arises with the messages of eternal love and forgiveness) why would God trust man in the first place? Why trust an obvious fallible messenger   to be the courier of his word, if he cant even copy the word from one sheet of paper to the next without error? That however is another discussion for another day.

So, because books like the Bible and the Koran are obviously open to interpretation, you will always have people for a myriad of reasons using these books as a tool (consciously or subconsciously) to justify or promote what they read literally. Most Christians do not do this. Just as most Muslims do not. However, many here in the states, seem to lose sight of that.

The Koran has many passages where it talks of peace with “people of the book” meaning Christians and Jews. Yet some Muslims choose to find other passages that contradict those passages in favor of something more hostile, because it suits or justifies their means to an end. Just as what happens with some Christians and their relation with the Bible. There is plenty of uplifting and spiritual enriching lessons to be found in both books, but like the Koran (and YouTube) there is dark places to go and find the justification for almost anything you want.

So, if we are to condemn Joseph Kony as a murder and support (and i do) that he is someone who should be found and put to death based on his actions and nothing else, fine. If we are to ignore his motives and his faith as a Christian, separating them from his cruel and ruthless actions, fine again. Then, it is only logical we treat Muslim extremists the same way.