LGBTQIA+ community?

Mastercard has announced that it will begin allowing transgender people and those who identify as non-binary to use names other than their legal name for credit cards. “What we’re introducing is a card that represents an individual as who they truly are,” Raj Seshadri, the president of U.S. issuers at Mastercard said, according to Time. “This is something that should be accessible to everyone in the way they want it and there shouldn’t be any pain in that.I thought Burger King, a perennial also-ran of the fast food world, coined the slogan “have it your way.” Okay, some challenges to those statements: 1. “as they truly are” peddles the notion that a person isn’t the biological sex they were born as, but rather they are truly whatever sexual variation their confused emotions seem to dictate; 2. “accessible to everyone” ignores the fact that the name on the credit card constitutes a financial, therefore legal, obligation to pay back the loan, but if the name on the card isn’t their legal name…..I think you see the problem; 3. “there shouldn’t be any pain in that”. What is “that”? Paying back the obligation? I labored many years in paying back credit card bills, and can categorically attest there is great pain in being in debt. Guess what? Life will confer all kinds of pain. Raj’s entire sentence is stupid beyond belief.

Not content to be merely stupid, MasterCard doubles down on gobbledygook. “We are allies of the LGBTQIA+ community, which means if we see a need or if this community is not being served in the most inclusive way, we want to be a force for change to help address and alleviate unnecessary pain points,” Randall Tucker, Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer for Mastercard said in the press release. “This translates not only for our Mastercard employee community but for our cardholders and the communities in which we operate more broadly. Our vision is that every card should be for everyone.I am shaking my head in circles so hard I have to take a break before writing. Ah, I’m back. Challenges: 1. “LGBTQIA+ community”. That’s MasterCard’s term, I usually leave off the QIA+, since I don’t even know what they mean (okay, Q is for queer, which is what?). As for the + sign, it reminds me of the question, “how many decimal places do you have to go out to for full value of Pi? Or, as livescience.com says, “Understanding pi is as easy as counting to one, two, 3.1415926535…OK, we’ll be here for a while if we keep that up.” Here’s the nub of my challenge: how does sexual preference and sexual orientation constitute a “community”? All the normal definitions of community revolve around commonalities: location, characteristics, interests, history or ownership. But LGBTQIA+ is a bunch of people in conflict with themselves and each other. “Non-binary-ism” is incompatible with the justifications used for homosexuality and lesbianism; at least the LGB part knows what they are, but what does the TQIA+ part know about themselves? 2. “alleviate unnecessary pain points.” Here we go again! Pain protects us against even greater damage. Pain helps us grow, pain reminds us not to do something stupid again. Pain is consequences. Should we not have those? 3. “every card should be for everyone.” Really? What about those who never pay their debts?

I suppose this kind of marketing was inevitable. First the victim/grievance sweepstakes, now the virtue signaling corporate sweepstakes. So Randall Tucker is Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer. Quite a career so far. Here’s a brief bio: Before joining Mastercard, Randall served as the senior director of inclusion and diversity at Darden Restaurants Inc., where he led the development of a company-wide inclusion strategy to more closely align to the business and support an inclusive environment. Prior to joining Darden, he led the transformation of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide’s diversity and inclusion strategy from a U.S.-focused model to a global model. During his tenure, he led the development of the organization’s first global initiative to enhance career opportunities for women at senior levels. Earlier in his career, he served in various sales and human resource roles at Marriott International. Randall lives in New York City with his husband.” These are big, successful corporations, and he’s a heavy hitter in that D and I field. He also checks off two intersectionality boxes–melanin and sexual preference. But I have to ask, do his patently idiotic statements above really make sense to him, or are they simply marketing-speak for the masses?

Even more important, with this kind of marketing going on at major companies, and the LGBTQIA+ propaganda flooding colleges and newsrooms, how much longer must the rest of us be told that they are an oppressed community? In many ways, they have become the oppressors. Ask Steven Crowder, who was demonetized by YouTube through the agitation of Carlos Maza, the homosexual Vox blogger. Ask Jack Phillips, the baker who keeps getting sued by homosexual, lesbian and trans pseudo-customers because he won’t put messages that violate his Christian beliefs on the cakes he creates. Ask the many teachers, writers and pastors who have been fired, banned or harassed for not approving the LGBTQIA+ agendas.

The 630-Year-Old Reason Eastern Europeans Resist Islam.

The Field of Blackbirds

This brief history of the Muslim relations with the lands that are today Eastern Europe, primarily Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic, is written by Raymond Ibrahim. He is not including the Balkans in “Eastern Europe”.

”Why Eastern Europeans are much more reluctant to accept Muslim migrants than their Western counterparts can be traced back to circumstances surrounding a pivotal battle, that of Kosovo, which took place on June 15, 1389, exactly 630 years ago yesterday. It pitted Muslim invaders against Eastern European defenders—the ancestors of those many Eastern Europeans today who are resistant to Islam.

“Because the jihad is as old as Islam, it has been championed by diverse peoples throughout the centuries (Arabs in the Middle East, Moors (Berbers and Africans) in Spain and Western Europe, etc.). Islam’s successful entry into Eastern Europe was spearheaded by the Turks, specifically that tribe centered in westernmost Anatolia (or Asia Minor) and thus nearest to Europe, the Ottoman Turks, so-named after their founder Osman Bey. As he lay dying in 1323, his parting words to his son and successor, Orhan, were for him ‘to propagate Islam by your arms.’

“This his son certainly did. Christian cities fell like dominos: Smyrna in 1329, Nicaea in 1331, and Nicomedia in 1337. By 1340, the whole of northwest Anatolia was under Turkic control. By now, and to quote a European contemporary, ‘the foes of the cross, and the killers of the Christian people, that is, the Turks, [were] separated from Constantinople by a channel of three or four miles.’ By 1354, the Ottoman Turks, under Orhan’s son, Suleiman, managed to cross over the Dardanelles and into the abandoned fortress town of Gallipoli, thereby establishing their first foothold in Europe.

“Cleansed of all Christian ‘filth,’ Gallipoli became, as a later Ottoman bey boasted, ‘the Muslim throat that gulps down every Christian nation—that chokes and destroys the Christians.’ From this dilapidated but strategically situated fortress town, the Ottomans launched a campaign of terror throughout the countryside, always convinced they were doing God’s work. ‘They live by the bow, the sword, and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil,’ explained Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox metropolitan who was taken captive in Gallipoli, adding, ‘and not only do they commit these crimes, but even—what an aberration—they believe that God approves them!’

“After Orhan’s death in 1360 and under his son Murad I—the first of his line to adopt the title ‘Sultan’—the westward jihad into the Balkans began in earnest and was unstoppable. By 1371 he had annexed portions of Bulgaria and Macedonia to his sultanate, which now so engulfed Constantinople that ‘a citizen could leave the empire simply by walking outside the city gates.’ Unsurprisingly, then, when Prince Lazar of Serbia (b. 1330) defeated Murad’s invading forces in 1387, ‘there was wild rejoicing among the Slavs of the Balkans. Serbians, Bosnians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Wallachians, and Hungarians from the frontier provinces all rallied around Lazar as never before, in a determination to drive the Turks out of Europe.’

“Murad responded to this effrontery on June 15, 1389, in Kosovo. There, a Serbian-majority coalition augmented by Hungarian, Polish, and Romanian contingents—twelve thousand men under the leadership of Lazar—fought thirty thousand Ottomans under the leadership of the sultan himself. Despite the initial downpour of Turkic arrows, the Serbian heavy cavalry plummeted through the Ottoman frontlines and broke the left wing; the Ottoman right, under Murad’s elder son Bayezid, reeled around and engulfed the Christians. The chaotic clash continued for hours. Bayezid brought the battle to a decisive end; he threw everything he had at the enemy, leading to the slaughter of every last Christian—but even more of his own men in the process.

“So many birds flocked to and feasted on the vast field of carrion that posterity remembered Kosovo as the ‘Field of Blackbirds.’ Though essentially a draw—or at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Ottomans—the Serbs, with fewer men and resources to start with in comparison to the ascendant Muslim empire, felt the sting more. In the years following the battle of Kosovo, the Ottoman war machine became unstoppable: the nations of the Balkans were conquered by the Muslims—after withstanding a millennium of jihads, Constantinople itself permanently fell to Islam in 1453—and they remained under Ottoman rule for centuries. The collective memory of Eastern Europeans’ not too distant experiences with and under Islam should never be underestimated when considering why they are significantly more wary of—if not downright hostile to—Islam and its migrants compared to their Western, liberal counterparts.“

Organizations like CAIR, mentioned in my previous post about Raymond Ibrahim, modern apologists of Muslim conquest, Islamist terrorists and the craven capitulators of western nations, including our own, MUST invent words like islamophobia, hide behind lies of white nationalism, and oscillate between the extremes of claiming victimhood and making threats of retaliation. Why? Because the ACTUAL history of Islamic jihad is so horrendously bloody, filled with rape, plunder and destruction, that complacent westerners whose nations have lived in safety all their lives, and who are ignorant of the history of conquest, want to be like the three monkeys: 🙈🙉🙊. ISIS is merely the most recent iteration.

“But what about all the peaceful Muslims in this country and around the world?” I agree that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. I love them, and they deserve to live in peace too. I don’t want to see them persecuted or harassed, but though they are the majority in numbers, they have no influence on their violent brethren. CAIR tries to argue that Mr. Ibrahim must be silenced, as should anyone they brand islamophobic, because telling the history of jihad will foment discrimination and violence on Muslims. Not so for fair-minded people. What does actual experience of today’s world show? Which is greater, violence ON Muslims or violence BY Muslims? You know the answer.



When will craven capitulations cease?

I wrote in my previous post about the importance of being unapologetic. The Islamists understand this. Reuters reports on the war in Syria. “Conflict in Syria kills hundreds of thousands of people and spreads unrest across the Middle East. Iranian forces battle anti-Shi’ite fighters in Damascus, and the region braces for an ultimate showdown. If the scenario sounds familiar to an anxious world watching Syria’s devastating civil war, it resonates even more with Sunni and Shi’ite fighters on the frontlines – who believe it was all foretold in 7th Century prophecies. From the first outbreak of the crisis in the southern city of Deraa to apocalyptic forecasts of a Middle East soaked in blood, many combatants on both sides of the conflict say its path was set 1,400 years ago in the sayings of the Prophet Mohammad and his followers.” Sound familiar? See previous post.

Terrorism-Linked CAIR Forces U.S. Army War College to Capitulate on my Islam Lecture, by Raymond Ibrahim.

The U.S. Army War College (USAWC) has just surrendered to the demands of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—an “unindicted co-conspirator,” to quote the U.S. Dept. of Justice, in the largest terror funding case in American history, and a designated “terrorist organization” for nations such as the UAE. The June 19 planned lecture on my book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, was canceled due to a CAIR-induced hysteria that focused on presenting me—a native Arabic speaker of Egyptian/Middle Eastern descent—as a “racist” and “white nationalist” who is out to incite American soldiers to murder Muslims.

Although the USAWC claims that the event has been “postponed”—and that CAIR’s smear campaign has nothing to do with its decision—what really happened, along with the troubling lessons learned along the way, follow: On January 4, 2019, I received an email, portions of which follow: Mr. Ibrahim: “On behalf of the Director and Staff of the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC), I am honored to invite you to speak as part of the USAHEC’s 2019 Perspectives in Military History Lecture Series. We would like you to speak about your new book, “Sword and Scimitar.” The Perspectives series attracts a wide audience including the U.S. Army War College students, faculty, and staff, ROTC cadets, Soldiers from regional military bases, university students and faculty, and the general public.On a personal note,” the author of the email added, “I think your new book, and a lecture based on it, will resound very well with the primary audience of our lecture programs—the students and faculty of the U.S. Army War College.

After I accepted the invitation, my USAWC contact reiterated: “I am excited to book you, I think your topic will be perfect for my audience.” Aside from a few more exchanges on dates and logistics, that was that—until CAIR got wind of the event. I’ve already discussed what initially happened: how the leadership of CAIR’s Pennsylvania chapter sent a letter on May 28, 2019, to USAWC Commandant Gen. John Kem and Provost Dr. James Breckenridge, urging them to cancel my event because “Raymond Ibrahim’s book … advances a simplistic, inaccurate and often prejudicial view of the long history of Muslim-West relations which we find deeply troubling”; and how CAIR did not once cite a single sentence from my 352-page book to support their accusation that it “is based on poor research.”

After media outlets began reporting on CAIR’s displeasure with the USAWC, the latter called and assured me that the event was still on.  I also received a June 5 email from my USAWC contact saying, “We are good to go for the lecture.” Then CAIR and allies took off their gloves and got nasty.  If a formal, ostensibly rational sounding letter of “concern” would not suffice, then hysteria would have to do.

On the very next day, June 6, CAIR issued a number of screeds, including a press release and a petition addressed to the USAWC by Linda Sarsour’s Islamist group, MPower Change. The overall theme is that, if the USAWC goes ahead with my planned lecture, the “racist” military will get so riled that American soldiers will randomly begin to massacre Muslims at home and abroad. The following excerpts from the MPower petition are typical; note especially the last paragraph (bold and underlining in the original): The U.S. Army War College invited Raymond Ibrahim—a well-known Islamophobe and disseminator of inaccurate, ahistorical, anti-Muslim rhetoric—to speak at their upcoming 50th Annual Lecture Series on June 19th. In a time of rising white nationalism, Islamophobia, and horrific violence stemming from these ideologies, the College is endorsing and fostering anti-Muslim hate within the military by inviting Ibrahim….Ibrahim’s rhetoric … normalizes and justifies violence against Muslims, which is already a burgeoning problem for the military….. Let’s tell the U.S. Army War College: If you don’t rescind Ibrahim’s invitation and denounce his Islamophobic rhetoric, you’re not only endorsing anti-Muslim hate, but dangerously nurturing Islamophobia and white nationalism within the military.

In the midst of their lies, CAIR and MPower repeatedly present me—an Arab-American whose parents immigrated from Egypt to evade Islamic oppression—as a “racist” associated with “white nationalism.” But as the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which maintains a comprehensive dossier on CAIR’s shady and terrorist links, observes: Being a “white nationalist” doesn’t mean having European ancestry in Linda Sarsour’s world. Her group, MPower Change, joined the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Philadelphia chapter in charging that Raymond Ibrahim, an American Copt of Egyptian ancestry, whose people have been severely discriminated against under Islamic rule for centuries, is a “white nationalist.”…. To classify Ibrahim in the same category as white supremacists who hate Muslims for being non-white is to show ignorance of the severe persecution and discrimination faced by the Coptic people under nearly 14 centuries of Islamic rule. Copts face constant discrimination and persecution at the hands of their Muslim neighbors … [including] Jim Crow-style conditions in their homeland.

On June 10, the U.S. Army War College caved in to their demands and canceled the event. In my last phone call with the USAWC on that same day, I suggested a compromise: turn my lecture into a debate, and pit me against any academic of CAIR’s choosing. Even though I was under no obligation to make such a concession, it still wasn’t good enough for the USAWC. Perhaps the most dishonorable aspect of this entire fiasco is that, in a vain effort to save face and pretend that the prestigious United States Army War College is not surrendering to the demands of a notorious Islamist organization—whose deceptive tactics and terroristic ties are well documented (here, here, here, and here)—the USAWC’s official story is that my lecture has only been “postponed,” and not because of CAIR’s demands. As a June 10 report notes, the USAWC’s decision to “postpone” the event “comes in the wake of strong opposition from the Muslim community to the previously scheduled appearance of author Raymond Ibrahim.

Reality is clear enough: for the USAWC suddenly to postpone a long-planned event only nine days before scheduled—and just a handful of days after CAIR’s smear campaign—is not a “coincidence”; it is a clear message for all. Incidentally, the USAWC is now learning that once you give CAIR an inch, like all bullies it will demand a mile. Consider: in CAIR’s original letter, Jacob Bender, its Philadelphia executive director, actually conceded to my lecture, with one caveat, which he requested in all politeness: “We would ask that if Mr. Ibrahim delivers his talk that we be allowed the same format to put forth counterpoints to his arguments.” Even though the USAWC completely acquiesced by canceling the event altogether, CAIR—having smelled blood—has since become more aggressive and abusive to the military. After gloating over the USAWC’s capitulation, the same Jacob Bender who would’ve been grateful just to have the opportunity to “put forth counterpoints” to me (though only after I was gone and no longer there to respond), is now asserting: The statement [to “postpone” the lecture] by the College spokeswoman falls short of repudiating Mr. Ibrahim’s racist views. A postponement is not enough—the college should reject hate. We will continue to advocate for … [the] exclusion of anti-Muslim racist theories in the college’s programming…. [W]e are ready to provide an alternative viewpoint and suggest a pool of academic analysts who can provide an objective assessment of military and historical perspectives to the US Army War College community.

In other words, if the USAWC really wants CAIR to stop verbally terrorizing it, canceling my lecture is only the first step; the USAWC must next invite a Muslim apologist to come and present a history opposite to the one I was going to present—that is, the usual pseudo-history of an “evil” West that has long victimized a “progressive” Islam, hence “why they hate us,” and why we—in this case, the USAWC—have to appease them, etc., etc.

The grand lesson of this entire debacle should be disheartening for all who care about this nation.  If an ethnic Egyptian and native speaker of Arabic, with verifiable credentials, whose extended relatives continue to be persecuted because they are Christian, can be characterized by Islamist groups with terror links as a “racist” and “white nationalist”; and if, of all places, the U.S. Army War College, as opposed to the average “liberal” college, can so easily capitulate to such patently deceptive tactics—the true motives of which are to keep the actual and troubling history between Islam and the West concealed from the military—know that the hour is late indeed.

I say not everyone is as craven as we are, or rather know they can’t afford to be. Eastern Europe has not been very welcoming to Islamic invaders immigrants. As Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán once explained: “We don’t want to criticize France, Belgium, any other country, but we think all countries have a right to decide whether they want to have a large number of Muslims in their countries. If they want to live together with them, they can. We don’t want to and I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see…. I have to say that when it comes to living together with Muslim communities, we are the only ones who have experience because we had the possibility to go through that experience for 150 years.” And those years—1541 to 1699, when the Islamic Ottoman Empire occupied Hungary—are replete with the massacre, enslavement, and rape of Hungarians. My next post will continue this theme and deal with the question, “what about all the peaceful Muslims?”