FBI Director Says Satan Leads Islamic Terrorists

Breaking from the White House desperate avoidance of linking evil and/or Islam to worldwide jihadist terrorism, this week, FBI Director James Comey, while detailing the infiltration of Islamists into America, described the true nature of the battle.

“But what we see [the enemy] doing is trying in a way to test people’s bona fides by urging them to kill.  Sometimes supplying with them hit lists, sometimes suggesting particular targets, but other times just ‘kill in our name.’ If you can’t travel, kill where you are. It’s almost if there is a devil sitting on the shoulder saying, ‘Kill,’ ‘Kill,’ ‘Kill,’ ‘Kill,’ all day long.”
-- James B. Comey, FBI Director

“The whole threat goes beyond the kinds of things people were worried about with just al-Qaida.  We are in a different stage than we have been since 9/11.”
-- Michael Greenberger, Center for Health and Homeland Security, University of Maryland

UPDATE 11/20/15: Satanists Join Muslims in Minnesota & California

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Satan vs. God Is Supreme Court Justice's Decision

Pope Francis Warns of Satan; Media, Take Heed!

Pope Said the Gay Agenda is the Work of the Devil

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Satan on Throne at Oklahoma Capitol with ACLU Help

Satanic Book Distribution in Florida Schools

-- From "FBI knew shooter might go to Muhammad drawing contest" by Adam Goldman, Washington Post 5/7/15

FBI Director James B. Comey said Thursday his agents learned hours before the start of a cartoon contest and exhibit depicting the prophet Muhammad that one of the gunmen had expressed interest in going to the controversial event in Texas, but there was no indication he was planning an attack.

[Elton] Simpson and his roommate, Nadir Soofi, 34, who lived in Phoenix, were killed by a local traffic officer as they opened fire at a conference center in Garland, Tex., where the competition was taking place.

Comey said the Islamic State’s effort to recruit and motivate people in the United States to try to do harm was paying dividends.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Security level at military bases increased" by Ian Duncan, The Baltimore Sun 5/8/15

“There’s a lot of different threats that are out there, from ISIS to homegrown violent extremists,” [U.S. Northern Command] spokesman John Cornelio said. “By providing this increase in security measures, we increase the safety and security of our service members.”

Comey said the Islamic State presented a particular danger because it is proficient at using social media to deliver propaganda. The group has thousands of English-speaking followers online, he said, including many in the United States.

Comey said the group’s reach through social media is like a siren song for would-be supporters.

Soon after the Texas attack, a post appeared on an anonymous text-sharing site claiming that the Islamic State has 71 people in 15 states ready to carry out missions. Maryland was one of five states named.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "ISIS threat prompts U.S. military bases to raise security level" by The Associated Press posted at CBS News 5/8/15

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said federal authorities are aware of "thousands" of potential extremists living in the U.S., only a small portion of whom are under active surveillance.

The Texas shooting is part of what authorities have long considered an alarming trend involving would-be recruits for whom technology makes it easier to be exposed to ISIS propaganda. Beyond the communications that occur in the open, ISIS increasingly makes contact with followers and steers them into forums that allow for encrypted communications that can be harder for law enforcement officials to access.

The terror group has been encouraging its followers to travel to Syria to join the self-created caliphate there, but if they can't do that, to "kill where you are," FBI Director James Comey said.

"The siren song sits in the pockets, on the mobile phones, of the people who are followers on Twitter," Comey said. "It's almost as if there's a devil sitting on the shoulder, saying 'Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill!' all day long."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Is the devil real?" by Rusell Shaw, freelance writer, Arlington Catholic Herald 4/7/15

[Recent] news was all about the murder by fanatics of 150 children and teachers in a Pakistan school. As this is being written, the world is stunned by the action of a German pilot who deliberately flew his airliner into an Alpine mountainside, killing 149 others along with himself.

Human agency obviously was operative in these events, as in other recent horrors, but it’s easy to glimpse a devilish hand in them, too — and also in the multitude of less ostentatious but hardly less destructive acts of cruelty, dishonesty and lust that darken everyday life.

The standard response to this kind of thinking is to laugh it off. The devil has become a joke. . . . Getting people not to believe in him is one of the devil’s favorite tricks. . . .

But there’s too much evidence of his existence for disbelief to be a viable option. . . .

There are two extremes to be avoided in this matter: fearful obsession with the devil and ignoring the fact that we live on a battlefield with Satan and his forces drawn up against us. The letter to the Ephesians puts it best: “We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness” (Eph 6:12).

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Belief in Satan a psychiatric disorder?" by Rev. Austin Miles, posted at RenewAmerica.com 3/18/15

This is exactly the intentions of Satan[:] to discourage anyone from acknowledging him as the personification of evil. And that tactic has been so successful that you SELDOM hear any mention of this from behind church pulpits. Why? Most pastors today will avoid the subject and even eliminate this important teaching in the Bible, not wanting to appear fanatic. They want to show that their churches are relevant for today and are up with the times. That is called, progressivism.

As a result, Satan has been unleashed with little or no restraints as havoc is caused throughout the world including the brutal rapes of little girls and little boys and senseless murders. Notice the increase of evil for the sake of evil. Not to settle a score or to punish for a bad debt, but simply to kill someone just for the sake of doing it. Or the new thing, to travel in twos and suddenly hit someone walking down the sidewalk, young or old, in a fad called, "The Knockout Game."

While Satan cannot directly kill someone, he can manipulate one's mind to kill himself through demonic depression and manipulating the minds of others to suddenly lash out at their own families. He can attack one through health, not actually causing the health problems, but attacking those areas which are the weakest parts of your body or attacking the weakest part of your minds such as temptations that you foolishly have let in. The purpose is to confuse one to wonder where God is or, is there really a God? That is a steak dinner for the enemy.

The deceptive enemy is very much alive and active in destruction. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. But we all have power from on High to stop him in his tracks. Never give in, never give up, but press on! And move in closer to God.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Muslims Killing Christians Doesn't Make Headline

President Obama Ignores Hate Crimes Against U.S. Christians

President Obama Compares Christians to Islamic Terrorists

President Obama Honors 9/11 Muslim Heroes at White House

President Obama Praises Islam for Making America What It Is

Islamic 'Call to Prayer' at National Cathedral in Washington D.C.

Also read of the Islamic indoctrination in America's public schools.

Surviving a Terrorist Attack: Deny Christ or Die

The objective of worldwide jihadist terrorism is on full display, but how will American elected leaders portray it? In this week's Kenyan mall attack, as the al-Shabaab jihadists quizzed shoppers of their knowledge of Islam, they killed those who failed the test -- the Christians.  Will Americans now be advised to memorize Koranic verses in order to survive terrorist attacks?

"The extremists are gaining ground rapidly. It is not just the poor but the rich as well who are rapidly coming under the influence of extremist ideology or becoming latent-radical."
-- Ayesha Siddiqa, a defense and security analyst, based in Islamabad, Pakistan

For background, read President Obama's Army Says Christians are Worst Terrorists and also read President Obama on Jihad: Islam is a Great Religion as well as American Public School Textbooks Teach "Jihad" means "Doing Good Works"

-- From "Analysis: Nairobi mall attack strikes at Africa's boom image" by Pascal Fletcher, Reuters 9/23/13

From Mali to Algeria, Nigeria to Kenya, violent Islamist groups - tapping into local poverty, conflict, inequality or exclusion but espousing a similar anti-Western, anti-Christian creed - are striking at state authority and international interests, both economic and political.

They "called on all Muslims to leave the shopping center," Israeli businessman Yariv Kedar wrote in an eyewitness account published by the Tel Aviv daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

Other survivors told reporters that those who identified themselves as Muslims were ordered to recite a verse from the Koran, or to name the Prophet Mohammed's mother. Those who could do so were allowed to go; those who failed the test were killed.

This religious factor is a common denominator of nearly all of the insurgencies and conflicts across the Sahel, northern Nigeria and the Sudans, into east Africa and the Horn of Africa. It follows the historical faultlines of where the mostly Islamicised north of the continent meets the predominantly Christian and non-Muslim south below the Sahara.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Former L.I. University Instructor Among Kenya Mall Attack Victims" by The Associated Press and CBS News New York 9/23/13

[Nairobi mall shopper Dorcas Mwangi of Athens, Ga.] said terrorists were shooting hostages who could not recite a Muslim prayer. Her brother texted her crucial information.

“My brother sent me the Muslim Shahad prayer to memorize,” she said.

Mwangi was never spotted and made it out.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pakistan Christians take to the streets after bombing" by Naila Inayat, Special for USA TODAY 9/23/13

In the wake of the worst ever attack on Pakistan's Christian minority . . . Critics worry that the government is only allowing the Islamists time to get stronger.

More than 85 people were killed at the All Saints Church in Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday after a pair of suicide bombers targeted the Christian building, injuring hundreds of worshipers. A wing of the Tehrik-i-Taliban claimed it launched the attack.

Hundreds of Christians all over the country took to the streets. . . . In the southern port city of Karachi, a few hundred demonstrators chanted "Stop killing Christians!" and demanded that those who attacked their community be held accountable.

The bombing of the church was just the latest act of terrorism to set off a crisis in Pakistan over the Taliban [and al-Qaeda].

Earlier this year, a mob in Lahore burnt down two churches and more than a hundred Christian houses, and dozens of other attacks have taken place since June.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Dying Nigerian Pastor: 'I Will Never Deny My Savior'" by Katherine Russell, Christian Post 8/2/13

On May 14, in plain view of his wife and one daughter, suspected Boko Haram Islamic terrorist members gunned down Rev. Faye Pama Musa, general overseer of the Rhema Assembly International Church and secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Borno state.

“Today you are a dead man. Call your Jesus to help you, Mr. CAN man,” one of the terrorists shouted.

Musa did not give up without a fight. While wrestling with the three men, he continually called upon Jesus [saying] “I will never deny my Savior.”

According to the Associated Press, since 2010 the Boko Haram network is responsible for the killings of more than 1,600 people, many of them Christians.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Christians, Extinct in Middle East, as Islam Wins

In addition, read Muslim Beheads Christians in New Jersey per Koran

Christianity is Healthy Choice: Poll

A new Gallup poll has the media miffed as to why 'very Christian' Americans have healthier lifestyles than the non-religious, such as eating right, exercising and not smoking.

-- From "Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives" by Frank Newport, Sangeeta Agrawal, and Dan Witters - Gallup, Inc. 12/23/10

Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious. The most religious Americans score a 66.3 on the Gallup-Healthways Healthy Behavior Index compared with 60.6 among those who are moderately religious and 58.3 for the nonreligious. This relationship, based on an analysis of more than 550,000 interviews, is statistically significant after controlling for major demographic and regional variables.

Very religious Americans make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including smoking, healthy eating, and regular exercise. Smoking is one area of particular differentiation between the very religious and less religious Americans, with the nonreligious 85% more likely to be smokers than those who are very religious.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Do Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives?" posted at Science + Religion Today 12/24/10

Apparently so, according to a new data analysis by Gallup researchers . . .

This makes sense. After all, many religions have specific rules related to eating, drinking, or smoking. But does religion really cause people to lead healthier lives? Could it be that healthier people are more likely to be religious?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Does Religion Make You Healthier?" by Catherine Rampell, New York Times 12/23/10

It’s hard to know exactly what explains this relationship between religion and healthy habits. Some religions, of course, may specifically prohibit certain unhealthy behaviors. The relationship may go the other way, too: people who tend to lead healthier lifestyles may be drawn to religion for some reason. Or perhaps there is a third hidden variable that accounts for both healthier and more religious behaviors.

An earlier analysis from Gallup also found that the very religious were less likely to have received a diagnosis of depression.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Hollywood, Cure for Islamophobia: Katie Couric

CBS News anchor Katie Couric suggests in an interview that if Americans could learn about Muslims through a TV sitcom . . .

-- From "@katiecouric: 2010 in Review - Katie Couric talks to Politico's Jonathan Martin, comedian Mo Rocca and Sheryl Huggins-Salomon of theroot.com" posted at CBSNews.com 12/22/10

Couric: “The bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year. Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic Center, mosque, down near the World Trade Center, but I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful analysis and evaluation of where this bigotry toward 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong — and so disappointing.”

Rocca: “I’m pretty smart, and I can’t tell you … I mean I went to really fancy schools and I cannot tell you five things about Islam. I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.”

Couric: “Maybe we need a Muslim version of ’The Cosby Show.’ I know that sounds crazy, I know that sounds crazy. But ‘The Cosby Show’ did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country, and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand, like you, Mo … but, maybe if it became more a part of the popular culture.”

To view the entire video at CBSNews.com, CLICK HERE.

From "Katie Couric's Notebook: 'Mutilation'?" posted at CBSNews.com 7/19/07

Female Circumcision: It's a subject you don't hear much about -- but you should. It affects thousands of young girls every day, and can lead to infection, psychological trauma, or even death. It's female circumcision -- and critics call it mutilation..

To hear the commentary in a one-minute video, CLICK HERE.

From "Cleric Says Female Circumcision Recommended by Islam" posted at RUDAW 08/12/2010

The Imam of Hajji Osman Alaf Mosque in Iraqi Kurdistan’s second largest city, Sulaimani, has told his followers that anyone who believes female circumcision is not a recommendation from the prophet Mohammed is “ignorant.”

During his Friday sermon on December 3rd, Imam Mala Yassin Hakim Piskandi said female circumcision was a “Sunnah," a term used to refer to the practices carried out or recommended by Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.

He said, the Sunni Shafeyi, a school of jurisprudence which most Kurds follow, took a tougher stance regarding female circumcision, considering it an “obligation," but that the other three Sunni schools of jurisprudence regarded it merely as a Sunnah, meaning it was recommended, but not compulsory.

“When men and women have intercourse, their sexual organs should be circumcised and clean,” he quoted Prophet Mohammed as saying.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Most Muslims NOT Moderate: Poll

Religious Killing OK Says One-third of Muslim Students in UK

Europeans React to Islamization

Muslim Organization Forces College Class Cancelled

White House Claims Ignorance on Homeland Terrorists

Deadly Results of Pluralistic Political Correctness

Maine Fines Christians for Criticizing Islam

Christians Arrested for Debating Muslim

Muslim Terrorists Target Jesus Christ

Muslims Say 'Christmas is Evil'

Evil & the Failure of The Church

Rev. Graham Loves Muslim People, Hates Islam

Church Attacked for Proclaiming Beliefs About Islam

U.S. Military Destroys Soldier's Bibles in Afghanistan

Pastor Arrested for Witnessing to Muslims

Liberal 'Christians' Lobby Against Great Commission

Under the guise of noble embrace of religion, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is lobbying President Obama to terminate traditional American foreign policy of freedom of religion.

UPDATE 2/25/20: Bush created muslim terrorists; Obama's Cairo speech is improvement

-- From "'God gap' impedes U.S. foreign policy, task force says" by David Waters, Washington Post Staff Writer 2/24/10

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and "uncompromising Western secularism" that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The council's 32-member task force, which included former government officials and scholars representing all major faiths, delivered its report to the White House on Tuesday. The report warns of a serious "capabilities gap" and recommends that President Obama make religion "an integral part of our foreign policy."

The Chicago Council's task force was led by R. Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame and Richard Cizik of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. "Religion," the task force says, "is pivotal to the fate" of such nations as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Yemen, all vital to U.S. national and global security.

"Despite a world abuzz with religious fervor," the task force says, "the U.S. government has been slow to respond effectively to situations where religion plays a global role." Those include the growing influence of Pentecostalism in Latin America, evangelical Christianity in Africa and religious minorities in the Far East.

. . . Obama appointed a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and created a new Muslim outreach position in the State Department. In the past year, he said, embassies in Muslim-majority countries have held hundreds of meetings with a broad range of people not involved in government.

. . . Cizik said some parts of the world -- the Middle East, China, Russia and India, for example -- are particularly sensitive to the U.S. government's emphasis on religious freedom and see it as a form of imperialism.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Reach out to all religions, but more carefully with Islam" by Cal Thomas, Syndicated political columnist

One of the truisms I learned in college was that nations have interests. So do religions. Sometimes those interests are mutually exclusive. In most cases, religious interests focus on a "kingdom not of this world," to invoke a biblical analogy. But one -- Islam -- has an interest here on earth and large numbers of adherents to that faith believe not only that they have the only truth -- a characteristic found in most religions -- but that they have been ordered by Allah to impose it by force on everyone else. This imposition also includes the taking of land that can spread the Islamic kingdom on earth. This is not bigotry. This is fact as stated in the sermons of their imams and the media in many Islamic countries.

Any diplomatic "outreach" must understand this truth. It must also include at least some common principles in order for that outreach to produce objectives in the best interests of the nations involved, most especially the United States. The stated objective of the radical Islamists is to destroy America and impose Sharia law. It is hard to find common ground with such belief. Do we agree to less destruction if they will leave us alone? What more is there to understand about "you are infidels and deserving of death"? There doesn't appear to be any diplomatic wiggle-room there.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Related article: Obama Inaction re: Christian Persecution Worldwide

White House Claims Ignorance on Homeland Terrorists

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urges studies to understand motives of terrorists: "What really is it that draws a young person being raised in the United States to want to go and be at a camp in Yemen and then come back to the United States with the idea of committing harm within the United States?"

-- From "‘Homegrown’ Terrorism Threat Grew in Past Year, Napolitano Says" by Jeff Bliss, Bloomberg, posted at Business Week 2/22/10

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the threat of “homegrown” terrorism increased during the past year and more U.S. citizens or legal residents are “becoming radicalized to the point of violence.”

Napolitano, speaking yesterday during a panel discussion at a meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington, said the U.S. doesn’t have a co-ordinated plan for stopping the spread of militancy.

“We really don’t have a very good handle on how you prevent someone from becoming a violent extremist,” she said. Napolitano recommended studying efforts in foreign countries and states such as Minnesota to expand contacts with Muslim and immigrant communities.

The panel included White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who discussed the importance of providing state and local officials with access to information about terrorist threats.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Homeland chief: Domestic extremism is top concern" by Eileen Sullivan, The Associated Press 2/21/10

Americans who turn to terrorism and plot against the U.S. are now as big a concern as international terrorists, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday.

The government is just starting to confront this reality and does not have a good handle on how to prevent someone from becoming a violent extremist, she said.

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's homeland security adviser, echoed Napolitano's concerns about violent extremism Sunday.

The White House hosted a meeting to discuss these issues Friday, Brennan said.

"There needs to be community engagement," he said.

The government has been engaged in this sort of outreach for years. Homeland Security officials have periodic meetings with Muslim communities. And FBI agents in certain parts of the country regularly reach out to Muslim communities and leaders.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Gender Not Biologically Fixed Says U.N. Report

The U.N. worldview is exhibited in a new counter-terrorism report to the United Nations General Assembly; the study wanders into a politically-correct diatribe spouting that "gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts."

-- From "UN Report Says 'Gender Is Not Static, It Is Changeable'" by Adam Brickley, CNSNews.com 10/19/09

The report, written by UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, is titled “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism.” While the main focus of the document is gender-based issues that arise from counter-terrorism efforts, [it's] the report’s definition of gender that has generated opposition.

“While many of the measures discussed in the report relate to the human rights of women,” Scheinin wrote in his report summary, “gender is not synonymous with women, and, instead, encompasses the social constructions that underlie how women’s and men’s roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are understood.”

Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent women, [said] “By including such broad topics as the social construct of men and women’s roles, sexual orientation and gender identity, they dilute the important purpose of this report and have managed to turn this into something that looks more like some politically correct corporate human resources manual.”

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Biblical Worldview Virtually Non-existent Among Young Adults

Fewer than 0.5% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 reach The Barna Group measure of biblical worldview (defined as follows).

-- From "Survey: Less Than 1 Percent of Young Adults Hold Biblical Worldview" by Jennifer Riley, Christian Post Reporter 3/10/09

A biblical worldview, as defined by the Barna study, is believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

Only if someone held all the above beliefs did the research consider the person as having a biblical worldview.

George Barna, who directed the research, commented on the “troubling” generational pattern that suggests “parents are not focused on guiding their children to have a biblical worldview.”

“One of the challenges for parents, though, is that you cannot give what you do not have, and most parents do not possess such a perspective on life,” he noted.

The research shows that only nine percent of all American adults have a biblical worldview, which although significantly higher than that of the [young adult] generation is still a small proportion of the total population.

[Barna] also noted that the study raises questions on how effective of a job Christian churches, schools and parachurch ministries are doing in Christian education.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

"Sustainability": the New PC Code Word

First "social justice," then "disposition training," now "sustainability" is academia's new code word of forced ideology

From "The Worst Campus Code Word" by John Leo, posted 4/29/08 at Minding the Campus

The academic left is fond of buzzwords that sound harmless but function in a highly ideological way. Many schools of education and social work require students to have a good "disposition." In practice this means that conservatives need not apply, as highly publicized attempts to penalize right-wing students at Brooklyn College and Washington State University revealed. "Social justice" is an even more useful codeword. Who can oppose it? But some schools made the mistake of spelling out that it means advocacy for causes of the left, including support for gay marriage and adoption, also opposition to "institutional racism," heterosexism, classism and ableism. Students at Teachers College, Columbia, are required to acknowledge that belief in "merit, social mobility and individual responsibility" often produce and perpetuate social inequalities. Even in its mildest form "social justice" puts schools in a position of judging the acceptability of students' political and social opinions.

Now the left is organizing around its most powerful codeword yet: sustainability. Dozens of universities now have sustainability programs. Arizona State is bulking up its curriculum and seems to be emerging as the strongest sustainability campus. UCLA has a housing floor devoted to sustainability. The American College Personnel Association (ACPA) has a sustainability task force and has joined eight other education associations to form a sustainability consortium. Pushed by the cultural left, UNESCO has declared the United National Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014, featuring the now ubiquitous symbol of the sustainability movement - three overlapping circles representing environmental, economic and social reform (i.e., ecology is only a third of what the movement is about).

Only recently have the goals and institutionalization of the movement become clear. The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability is Higher Education (AASHE) says it "defines sustainability is an inclusive way, encompassing human and ecological health, social justice, secure livelihoods and a better world for all generations." When the residential life program at the University of Delaware - possibly the most appalling indoctrination program ever to appear on an American campus - was presented, Res Life director Kathleen Kerr packaged it as a sustainability program. Since suspended, possibly only temporarily, the program discussed mandatory sessions for students as "treatments" and insisted that whites acknowledge their role as racists. It also required students to achieve certain competencies including "students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society." At a conference, Kerr explained "the social justice aspects of sustainability education," referring to "environmental racism," "domestic partnerships" and "gender equity."

Read the rest of the article here.

Liberals Ask Themselves, "Why Don't Liberals Procreate?"

UPDATE 8/10/14 - The Extinction of Abortion Advocates: They Don't Procreate

From "Making moms: Can we feed the need to breed? -- Canada has a baby deficit. Will paying women to have more kids help?" by Lianne George, posted May 28, 2007 in Macleans

Canada's fertility rate has been in a free fall for decades. In recent years, though, it has hovered at an all-time low of roughly 1.5 children per woman (we need 2.1 if we're going to replace ourselves). Social analysts pin it on some jumble of female education and fiscal autonomy, secularization, birth control, Sex and the City, a heightened desire for personal freedom, and increasing uncertainty about bringing a child into a world plagued by terrorism, global warming and Lindsay Lohan. [Oops, forgot to mention abortion!] In a hyper-individualistic, ultra-commodified culture like ours, motherhood, for better and worse, is less a fact of life than just another lifestyle choice.

All over the developed world, the same pattern is apparent. Russia, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries are contending with fertility rates well below replacement levels. Forty per cent of female university graduates in Germany are childless. In Japan, where the birth rate has sunk to a record low of 1.26, family planning groups are blaming the Internet, charging that fertile men and women are spending too much time online, and not enough having sex.

In Canada, economists and demographers are already noting dysytopian, Children Of Men-tinged scenarios. Across the country, women on average aren't having their first child until the age of 31. Elementary schools and daycare facilities, without enough kids to fill the nap mats, are closing for business. Ontario's Ministry of Education predicts that, by 2010, total elementary and secondary school enrolment will drop by nearly 100,000 students from 2002 numbers. In New Brunswick, the province's death rate has overtaken its birth rate. And the economic implications of a disappearing population are substantial: analysts are estimating a shortage of 1.2 million workers by 2020. "For every two people about to retire in the coming decades," says Linda Duxbury, a professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, "there will be less than one person to take their place, which will put significant strain on the health care system." Alberta, B.C. and the Maritimes are already feeling the crunch. "Demographers have known for ages this is coming," she says. "An issue like this takes decades to solve and we've really pushed the envelope on starting to deal with it."

In a quest to hold on to older workers, the Canadian government expunged the mandatory retirement age in December. But this move alone will not avert a labour crisis. Who, after all, wants to work a full-time job much past the age of 65? (Currently, only about six per cent of Canadians do so.) . . . Nor will immigration be the solution. At the moment, Statistics Canada reports that Canada's average of 240,000 new Canadian immigrants per year more than compensates for our dismal fertility rate. However, those studying long-range trends say this is nowhere near enough, particularly as global competition for skilled labour becomes more aggressive in the coming decades. "The numbers that we're talking about are phenomenal," says Duxbury. "Half a million to two-thirds of a million per year. I wonder, where are we going to get those immigrants from? Because most of the industrialized world is going through this same set of problems we are."

Faced with this odd conundrum -- a supply-and-demand crisis in which the suppliers (women) theoretically have the capacity to meet demand (for babies) but are opting not to -- economists and demographers are left scratching their heads. By now, just about every country in the developed world has implemented some policy or monetary incentives, ranging from baby bonuses to tax breaks. Still, the numbers fall. Short of establishing a Handmaid's Tale regime, they're wondering, what will it take to make women have babies? (And they're not talking just one.) . . . Exacerbating the financial hit for women is the fact that they, unlike men, lose income when they have a child -- a phenomenon David Ellwood [a professor of political economy and dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University] calls the "motherhood penalty." In a study he co-authored, Ellwood tracked women's income over time, beginning in 1979, and determined that the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth, resulting in a loss of 15 to 20 per cent in income during the subsequent 10 years. Men's wages, on the other hand, don't appear to be affected. "Why are the most educated women postponing children the most?" says Ellwood. "The answer is, it's not because they can't afford child care. They're in a better position to afford it than most people. I think a lot of it is more fundamental than that, which has to do with what having children does to their own economic futures and opportunities."

Disparities at work are no longer a male-female issue. These days, they are most explicitly expressed between the women who have children, and those who don't. Kids are the new glass ceiling. According to U.S. economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Work-Life Policy, only 74 per cent of "off-ramped" women seeking to rejoin the workforce are able to, and only 40 per cent of those return to full-time, professional jobs. A Cornell University study found that mothers are 44 per cent less likely to be hired than non-mothers with the same resumé, experience and qualifications. "It's no accident that the majority of male senior executives have kids and the majority of female senior executives don't," says Ellen Bravo, a renowned American feminist and author of the newly published Taking on the Big Boys. "It's a requirement for the job."

But it's not only women's lost income that policy wonks are going to have to consider. It's also that, although child-rearing is a multi-pronged job which, if done properly, benefits the family, the nation, and everyone in between, the bulk of the responsibility for undertaking the whole thing still sits squarely on a mother's shoulders. Even as we bemoan our plummeting birth rate, and the grim economic future it may bring, everything about the way we've organized our culture is designed to force women to choose between work and kids -- and to penalize them if they choose kids. [Liberals view it as a penalty, others view it as a blessing!] And so, these days, it's not just a matter of a woman wanting children; it's a matter of wanting them at the expense of everything else she's worked for. . . . In Vienna, researchers at the International Instutite for Applied Systems Analysis have developed a disquieting hypothesis called the "low fertility trap," which suggests that the causes of low fertility are self-perpetuating. They foresee the potential for the baby bust to spiral out of control for three reasons: first, negative population growth means there will be fewer women of child-bearing age in the future to produce more children. Second, young people have been socialized [a.k.a. "brainwashed"] to believe that the ideal family size is a small one, which means fewer couples will have more than one child. Finally, the aging population will place tremendous financial strain on younger cohorts -- who have been raised with higher material aspirations to begin with -- which will translate into fewer children, or none at all.

"In the next 20 years," says Harvard's Ellwood, "there will be no net new native-born workers in the so-called prime age of 24 to 55 in the United States. The only new workers will come from two places: older workers and immigrants. And most immigrants in nations like the U.S. have been low-skill. Canada has had more higher-skill immigrants." The issue is made more difficult by the fact that, among Americans in particular, there is wide-ranging discomfort with a liberal immigration policy right now. "[Immigrants] are in a world where there's concerns about terrorism, and worries about jobs being sent abroad. So it's a real challenge."

Here is where we bump up against the dark underbelly of the demography discussion: the fact that it's not so much about urging women to have babies as it is about urging the right women to have them -- and to preserve Western civilization in the process. As it happens, the group whose fertility rates are declining the fastest are those with the greatest social and financial prospects. That is, Western (well-assimilated, if not white) professionals with university degrees. [Any conservative who would make such statements would be in the unemployment line along with Don Imus.]
. . .
It's this type of economic reasoning, paired with an underlying xenophobic angst, that is spurring pro-fertility policy initiatives in developed nations around the world. In Poland, where the population has fallen by half a million since 2000, the government has begun offering up a modest sum of 1,000 zlotys (roughly $400) for each child a woman produces. In Italy, officials are offering a reward of $1,500 for each second child -- and even toying with the possibility of paying women not to go ahead with abortions.

Amazingly, the evidence suggests that the most successful policies have one thing in common: they don't try to pay women to procreate. Rather, they facilitate the careers of working mothers. They are premised on the idea that, the more value a society places on women's work inside and outside of the home, the more likely she is to want to contribute meaningfully in both spheres. In other words, take some of the load off of her shoulders and spread it around so that children become everybody's responsibility. Who would have thought that the most economically sound solution to a fertility crisis would be rooted in good old-fashioned feminism?

The liberals just don't "get it!" They'll be asking themselves the same question (in the title of this Blog posting) until they're extinct.

Read the rest of this article.

Penance Won't Pay for the Sins of Liberals

It's interesting to observe the nominally-religious American talking heads refer to liberal causes such as Global Warming as being treated, by the liberals, as religion. For example, Al Gore, the American Bishop of the Church of Global Warming declares from the pulpit his gospel of environmentalism:

"After more than thirty years as a student of the climate crisis, I have a lot to share. I have tried to tell this story in a way that will interest all kinds of readers. My hope is that those who read the book and see the film will begin to feel, as I have for a long time, that global warming is not just about science and that it is not just a political issue. It is really a moral issue." -- Al Gore

From "Penance Won't Pay for the Sins of Liberals" by Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University: Tribune Media Services, posted May 18, 2007

What do leftist, mostly secular elites share with medieval sinners?

They feel bad that the way they live sometimes doesn't quite match their professed dogma.

Many in the medieval church were criticized by internal reformers and the public at large for their controversial granting of penance, especially to the wealthy and influential. Clergy increasingly offered absolution of sins by ordering the guilty to confess. Better yet, sometimes the well-heeled sinners were told to pay money to the church, or to do good works that could then be banked to offset their bad.

Of course, critics of the practice argued that serial confessions simply encouraged serial sinning. The calculating sinner would do good things in one place to offset his premeditated bad in another. The corruption surrounding these cynical penances and indulgences helped anger Martin Luther and cause the Reformation.
. . .
Take the idea of "carbon offsets" made popular by Al Gore. If well-meaning environmentalist activists and celebrities either cannot or will not give up their private jets or huge energy-hungry houses, they can still find a way to excuse their illiberal consumption.

Instead of the local parish priest, green companies exist to take confession and tabulate environmental sins. Then they offer the offenders a way out of feeling bad while continuing their conspicuous consumption.

You can give money to an exchange service that does environmental good in equal measure to your bad. Or, in do-it-yourself fashion, you can calibrate how much energy you hog, and then do penance by planting trees or setting up a wind generator.

Either way, your own high life stays uninterrupted.

Some prominent green activists pay their environmental penance in cash, barter or symbolism to keep the good life. Al Gore, for example, still gets to use 20 times more electricity in his Tennessee mansion than the average household.

Take also the case of Laurie David, the green activist and wife of "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David. She has recently generated plenty of publicity for her biofuel-powered bus tour to promote environmentalism. But in other circumstances, David still flies on gas-guzzling private jets.
. . .
These varieties of contemporary offsets could be expanded. But you get the picture of the moral ambiguity. Penance, ancient and modern, was thought corrupt because it was not sincere apology nor genuine in its promise to stop the sin.

Thanks to carbon offsets, Al Gore keeps his mansion and still feels good while warning others we all can't live as he does.

Read the rest of this article.

Why Capitalism Needs Christianity

From "Why Capitalism Needs Christianity" by Chuck Colson, posted 4/2/07 at Breakpoint.

Last week, electronics retailer Circuit City announced that it was laying off 3400 employees.
What made these particular layoffs noteworthy was not their size but, instead, Circuit City’s stated reasons. They had “nothing to do with [employees’] skills or whether they were a good worker or not.” Instead, “it was a function of their salary relative to the market.”
In other words, Circuit City was laying them off so it could replace them with people who make less. Rotten!

To be fair, Circuit City is not alone in this practice. It is part of a “new way of controlling labor costs in the service industry.” Employers “determine the prevailing market wages for particular jobs in various geographic regions” and “then find ways to make sure that their workers’ salaries stay within that range.”

There is no consideration of an employee’s productivity or quality of work. Nor is there any claim that the company can’t afford to pay what the workers are currently making—only that it doesn’t have to.

It is hard to imagine a clearer example of how rapacious unrestrained economic power can be. With all due respect to the late Milton Friedman, corporations’ social responsibility goes beyond maximizing shareholders’ returns.

But even if you do not think that unapologetically getting rid of workers so that they can hire cheaper workers is degrading and dehumanizing, it goes against your self-interest.
That is because it undermines the moral and cultural consensus that sustains free-market capitalism. Michael Novak has written about what he calls the “three-legged stool” that makes democratic capitalism possible: economic freedom, political freedom, and moral restraint. Take away any of these three and the system collapses.

Christianity’s great contribution to this consensus was that it provided capitalism with a moral dimension that capitalism could not provide for itself. Its teachings about the necessity for moral restraint in the marketplace were rooted in the Old Testament concerns for social justice, fair wages, and care for the poor. It incorporated the consistent biblical teaching about human dignity, including the dignity of honest labor.

Read the rest of this article.

District 214 School Board Says Parents Desiring Traditional Moral Values Should Go Somewhere Else...

Excerpts from “Is Dist 214 race centered on ideology or “scare tactic?" by Erin Holmes, posted 3/26/07 at dailyherald.com.

An article in the Daily Herald today revealed an interesting glimpse of the worldview driving the majority of members of the District 214 school board. Here's an excerpt:

As a months-long curriculum debate collides with an election in Northwest Suburban High School District 214, three incumbents are waging a pricey campaign on the premise that it could — adamant their defeat may pave the way for a conservative school board takeover.

“If it (the vote) goes the other way, it could literally change the very culture of what people have come to respect and cherish in this school district,” predicts Elizabeth Ennis, a recently retired 214 superintendent and incumbent supporter.

Does Ms. Ennis really believe that people (especially parents) have come to respect and cherish pornographic reading material for their children? The article goes on:

The incumbents, though, say their tactics are logical in the wake of board member Leslie Pinney’s 2005 upstart board victory. She’d pledged to bring her Christian beliefs to board decision…

…District 214’s now-legendary curriculum debate was sparked by one of Pinney’s first proposals: to pull nine books from required reading lists because of content she said was sexually graphic, vulgar and violent.

ARE the books, graphic, vulgar, and disgusting? You decide.

The ensuing saga drew hundreds to a six-hour board session, spurred ongoing dialogue about the appropriateness of class materials and prompted dueling Web sites on the issues. The board later voted 6-1, with Pinney dissenting, to keep the books on reading lists.

Today, they (the incumbents) insist they’re not out to ban varied views, but fear an influx of board members who would let their religious beliefs shape the schools.

Let me get one thing straight. Our schools ARE shaped by the beliefs and moral values of school board members – whether they be liberal or conservative, Christian or atheist. District 214 is currently a reflection of the values of the majority of its current board members, and administrators.

Since incumbent board members seem to believe that Christian moral values are inappropriate for 'shaping schools,' I am wondering which value system IS appropriate? Socialism? Secular humanism? Existentialism? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? I would like to ask the incumbents, which value system do YOU use? And why should we consider your moral value system (whatever it is) to be superior to Christian values?”

More from another supporter of the incumbents…

Ultimately, Friends of District 214 chairman Arlen Gould worries, that could lead to things like…censoring student newspapers or even questioning teacher applicants about their political views.

Censoring student newspapers? We could only wish that someone at Buffalo Grove had used better judgment before allowing students to publish an article in the student newspaper declaring “Oral Sex the New Romantic Norm.” Does Ms. Gould imagine that most parents want their kids told that oral sex is now the dating norm?

Does she not see that high school students openly writing about oral sex, in a student newspaper, is an indication that something is terribly wrong? Oh, I forgot. There can't be anything wrong. This is an award winning school district...

More from Ms. Gould:

…“If you have personal religious beliefs, that’s wonderful,” Gould said, “but if you want them involved in the schooling of your children, go to a private school or do home-schooling.”

Let me paraphrase. “Public schools are no place for traditional moral values. If that’s what you want you had better go somewhere else.”

They may not want our input but they certainly want our tax dollars…

Incumbent school board member Alva Kreutzer weighed in with this:

“I believe parents and people in the community should be able to ask questions. That’s fine,” Kreutzer said. “I just don’t want a total takeover of the board where someone says, ‘It’s going to be this way.”

Total takeover? It is now 6 liberals v. 1 conservative.

Adds Dussling (current board president): “Is it going to be something like Kansas? I have no idea. But I do know this: There are those who want to control our curriculum, and that’s what I’m concerned about. Public education.”

Does public education require exposing teens to graphic depictions of rape, sodomy, bestiality, oral sex, sex with a hotdog, and a real dog?

Those who want to ‘control’ the curriculum? Mr. Dussling, YOU and your fellow liberals now control the curriculum and you have neglected to use that power to protect whatever is left of our children’s innocence…

The article closed with an interesting quote by Melissa Deckman, author of “School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics.”

“It’s good in a community to have different viewpoints expressed. I think that’s healthy,” Deckman said. “But I think when any group that’s out of the mainstream tries to hijack that for their own causes, the parents ultimately will say, ‘We need to focus on the kids.”

Are people with conservative moral values really ‘out of the mainstream?’

Are we trying to hijack the school board for our own causes?

It seems to me, people with left wing values already have…

Read the whole article.

AN INTERESTING NOTE: Culture Campaign usually gets several hits a day on the webpage where we have posted the book excerpts -- from perverts looking for bestiality. That ought to tell us something...

Pace Critics Seem to Believe No One in Public Life Should Dare to Criticize Sodomy

From "Keeping Pace" by Joseph Farah, posted 3/14/07, at WorldNetDaily.com

Am I to understand that no one in public life or authority today is permitted to subscribe to moral codes that have served the Judeo-Christian world for the last 5,000 years?

So, it seems to me there is an effort here to isolate and marginalize one specific moral code from public utterances and public policy. And that would be the Judeo-Christian moral code.

I don't know about you, but I take offense at that kind of witch-hunting.

...Listen to the nonsense being spewed by Sharon Alexander, the deputy policy director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a homosexual activist group: "When you are in a position of authority like chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there's no such thing as an off-the-record comment or a statement of your personal opinion. When General Pace speaks, by virtue of who he is and the position he holds, he is speaking for the military. And for him to use his position to express a personal belief about the immorality of homosexuality is irresponsible, at best."

...Of course she doesn't believe what she is saying. What she actually means to say is that no one in public life should dare be free to criticize sodomy, not long ago a crime in all 50 states and now considered by the John Warners of the world enlightened, civilized leisure activity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chimed in, of course. She said she was "disappointed in the moral judgment" voiced by Pace. "We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don't need a moral judgment from the chairman of Joint Chiefs."

She doesn't mean it, either. What she means is: "We shouldn't permit moral judgments that differ from mine. We shouldn't allow anyone in public life to rely on the Bible as their personal source of morality."

Had Gen. Pace said he thinks it is time for the military's ban on open homosexual activity to go, that it is immoral to keep it in place, I dare suggest Warner and Pelosi and the rest of the thought police would not have been condemning him for speaking from his own moral convictions. In fact, they would have praised him and used what he had to say as evidence for legislation to do just that.

What we have here, then, is clearly an effort to purge from authority anyone who dares represent the most basic tenets of a Judeo-Christian moral code. It's commendable to preach a new morality. It's forbidden even to admit to believing in the old one.

Read the whole commentary.

I'll go Joseph Farah one further. Not only do liberals and gay activists expect us to abandon Biblical values, they expect us to adopt a value system they are 'making up as they go along..."