Political View makes Others Invisible

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Asra Q. Nomani appear before a senate panel to explain the plight of muslim women in the world and in America.  But there were not heard.  They postulate that they were not seen.   Neither heard nor seen, they left dismayed.

Just as we are invisible to the mullahs at the mosque, we were invisible to the Democratic women in the Senate.

This is the view of Ali and Nomani before female Democratic Senators at a hearing on treatment of Muslim women.

…what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives when it comes to confronting the brutal reality of Islamist extremism and what it means for women in many Muslim communities here at home and around the world. When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation.

Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards.

In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political.

More from Ali and Nomani here.

Bernie Sanders in Violation of the Constitution

I tend to team with Russell Moore of the SBC on Senator Bernie Sanders and the hearing on Russell Vought.  However, I Sen. Bernie Sanders Defends His Attack On Christianshave to say that I see the Senator as one who does not understand even the basics of his religious heritage as a Jew.   He is not a Jew religiously.  He needs to read the Old Testament to understand what Judaism means.

He could also take a look at history and see that Jews and Christians have lived is social harmony in America for hundreds of year, though they’ve, during their harmonious coexistence, had differences in theology.

Christians lived is harmony with many different theologies around the world.  Why does Bernie Sanders think that is impossible for a Christians serving in the Federal Government today?  Christians have serviced for hundreds of years in the USA governments: local, state and federal for hundreds of years.   Why is now do different?

The Federalist has given Senator Sanders space to qualify his stand against devout Christians serving in the Federal Government.

Sanders more exposes his ignorance of Christianity and the law of the land.  May God help him is my prayer for him.

I believe Senator Sanders is willing to deny a citizen of the USA his constitutional rights.  Senator Sanders violated the Constitution in his questioning.  The Hill makes the point succinctly.

The only problem with Sanders’ position is that it flatly contradicts Article VI, which explicitly bans religious tests for office. Sanders wants to disqualify Mr. Vought before the latter has even begun to function as deputy director of OMB, because he—that is, Sanders—does not think Mr. Vought has acceptable religious beliefs.

A weighed human response to the question of individual human destiny is given by Dr. Billy Graham as explained by James Wallis in the Washington Post.

During the question-and-answer session, the first questioner said, “Dr. Graham, Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ Doesn’t that mean that all non-Christians, including the Jews, are going to hell?”

Graham replied, “God will judge us all. This is a God of love and mercy, but also of justice. We will all come before the judgment of God, and I am so glad that God has that job and I don’t.”

The young questioner looked disappointed. “Could you tell us what you think God is going to say?”

Graham answered, “Well, God doesn’t consult with me on things like that.” The despondent questioner walked away.

That wonderful moment speaks of the humility we can have and show, in the place of our deepest beliefs. That humility combined with an absolute commitment to protect each other’s religious freedom is going to be central now, as we move forward in a religiously angry and divided world. God help us.

More from The Hill on this issue. And even more from The Hill.

Related:

Religious Litmus Test

Right Choice for American & the World

Here is Marlo Lewis’ take on one view of the Paris Agreement/Treaty.  It is an interesting one and his thoughts were published before the Trump announcement.

The Paris Agreement was the capstone of President Obama’s climate action plan, the political strategy by which he intended to give the Clean Power Plan and other legally dubious climate policies a treaty-like status, but without going through the constitutional treaty process.

By relabeling his domestic climate agenda as commitments America made to the world, he tried to dictate U.S. energy policy for decades to come regardless of the preferences of future presidents, Congresses, and voters. It was a climate coup of breathtaking ambition, and the treaty’s supporters at home and abroad did all they could to misdirect the debate and pressure Trump to break his campaign promise. President Trump kept an open mind, listened to all sides, and made the right decision for America and the world.

Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement overturns Obama’s end run around the Constitution’s treaty process, safeguards American democracy from foreign interference, dispels the Agreement’s long shadow over the U.S. energy and manufacturing sectors, foils corporate schemes to enrich special interests at consumers and taxpayers’ expense, and helps ensure developing countries will have the access to affordable energy they need to lift people out of poverty.

Read more of Marlo’s thoughts here.

Is Climate Change Data Real?

In recent months I have been all over the spectrum on issues related to climate change.   I was up late last night watching a presentation by Lord Monckton of the UK on climate change data from the IPCC.   Based on Lord Monckton’s analysis, credibility of the IPCC process is called into question.

The IPCC has built into it’s computer modeling weighting which favors the data giving the expected outcome, the “hockey stick” projected temperature outcome.

With the new hockey stick chart and projections the Medieval Warm Period and Little IceMedieval Warm Period1.jpg (548×370) Age disappeared. What caused that?  The scientists and technicians who support the IPCC are not consistent.  I know it is in tiny print but the chart identifies as IPCC 1990.

Some say that Michael Mann was hired by the IPCC to “smooth” the data and get rid of the Medieval warm period and the Little ice age.

Now the IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) is producing old-fashioned “real science.”   “Post-normal science” comes from massaged data.   Can we really trust the IPCC?

Should the USA, or any other country in the world, make laws and change lives based or massaged data?   Not this year.  Not until the data is firmed up and accurate.   The response should not be made on hidden agendas and post-normal science.

There are rational responses to the issues raised by climate.  But please don’t base responses on data built on agendas.

These are only my thoughts in summary form.  There is so much data out supporting these thoughts.

Who Needs Elections–We Got Judges!

From the American Thinker: more here.

Marc O. DeGirolami is a law professor at St. John’s University and the author of The Tragedy of Religious Freedom.

Professor DeGirolami wrote a great post this weekend about judges with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome:

Something ugly is happening to the First Amendment. It is being contorted to enable judges to protest Donald Trump’s presidency.

More

Islamists Won’t Thank Liberals

Hirsi Ali, who was raised Muslim in Somalia but has renounced her former religion, said the Islamist playbook is simple: indoctrination, intimidation, and force.

She said Western efforts to appease Islamism can have the perverse effect of fueling extremism, because many view it as “God’s hand” and evidence their movement is succeeding.

“Islamists want a Sharia compliant society,” she said. “Whoever is in their way is their enemy. And it doesn’t matter how nice the liberals are, how accommodating or obliging they are.” Hirsi Ali added that “if you don’t understand that I don’t think you should be in the business of legislation.”

More here.