Featured Post


  First, here is a link to the audio that I listened to, which is free to download: https://librivox.org/old-time-makers-of-medicine-by-jame...

Monday, November 30, 2015


Whether it’s The Current, Cross-Country Check-Up, or The Sunday Edition—whether it’s this host, that host, or a substitute host, CBC Radio’s focus on Islamic terrorism is always distorted in the same way. When CBC Radio hosts look at the Islamic Crusade that’s going on, they see evil where they should see good, and good where they should see evil. 

On The Current, for example, the massacre in Paris is called a ‘tragedy,’ as if a no-fault plane crash had occurred. The concern then turns to a bomb that landed in Aleppo, Syria, wounding six and killing one. It is not stated that the casualties were innocent bystanders; therefore we may assume that they must have been terrorists. So dozens and dozens of people are mowed down in Paris by Muslims, and The Current’s concern is that a few terrorists were in the way of a bomb in Syria! 

Then when the subject of drones is delved into, they speak as if a drone that mistakenly kills a Syrian bystander, is parallel with a terrorist targeting a Parisian civilian! This is said, even though it is admitted that there is no data to support the notion that a Western drone ever killed anyone in Syria! Some guy who used to operate drones has PTSD and second thoughts, and where does he turn up? On CBC Radio, of course. Drones are the most cowardly weapon, he sniffles. Mark that: not suicide vests targeting casual citizens, but drones that aim for diabolical terrorists! And drones are ‘causally’ related to what happened in Paris, he whines. What is causally related to Muslim terrorism in Paris? What is the cause, really? The cause is not drone strikes, but hatred—hatred taken right from the Koran and unleashed by an Imam to devout, practicing Muslims. 

Listen to the Koran’s call for murder: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners” (Surah 3.151.) What is this about? It’s about terrorizing those who believe that God has ‘Partners.’ Who are these partners? These partners are Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. So the meaning is that followers of the Koran, in the names of Allah and Muhammad, will terrorize Christians because Christians believe in the trinity. 

To Muslims, Europe and North America are Christian parts of the world. They do not care about, nor do they know about, the enlightenment, deism, humanism, atheism, agnosticism, or postmodernism; they do not care for such distinctions; they do not differentiate between secular humanists and Baptist Christians. To the uninformed, ignorant, backward Muslim, whatever Western country is industrialized, that nation is Christian, that nation is the enemy, that nation must have its head chopped off. 

To be honest, you can hardly tell a Christian from a secular Joe nowadays anyway. So it’s becoming hard to blame the Muslim for treating them as one.  

CBC Radio is farther from being Christian than the meanest Muslim. But to the Muslim, CBC is part of the Christian problem that Islamists want to eradicate; to the Muslim, CBC is so Christian that it might as well be baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost after each broadcast. Do not think that Muslim terrorists will spare the progressives who defend Islam. They did not spare the progressives in Lebanon in the ‘70s and ‘80s. They did not spare the progressives in New York on 9/11. They did not spare the progressives in Madrid in 2004. They did not spare the progressives in London in 2005. They did not spare the progressives in Paris in 2015. They will not refrain from bombing, shooting, and head-chopping the CBC. Whoever happens to be in the way of a Muslim terrorist, that person is not spared. That’s Allah’s way; that’s Muhammad’s way; that’s the way of the Koran; that’s the practicing Muslims’ way.

Thursday, November 26, 2015


Cross-country Check-Up pretends to be a call-in show that is representative of what Canadians ‘from coast to coast to coast’ think on whatever subject it chooses to talk about each weekend. It does not represent the Canadian mindset any more than a few species of fish represent what’s in the ocean, for only certain kinds of people follow what CBC Radio is up to; moreover, while many liberal Marxist types follow CBC Radio religiously, the few social conservatives who follow it are often screened out when they call in. Still, what can we glean from Cross-Country Check-Up’s call-in show about the massacre in Paris?

The show ended up being about two things: our reactions to the slaughter in Paris, and our reactions to the prospect of taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the New Year.

The host was the visible minority woman called Piya; she’s about as pro-socialism as anyone I’ve ever heard in my whole life. You could easily tell that she was not happy when doubts were raised about the screening of these 25,000 refugees that Trudeau has promised to welcome by the New Year. Piya had two guests on to help her steer the show. Thankfully, only one of the guests expressed the willfully blind opinion that, in spite of what just happened in Paris, we have little cause to fear the refugees that are about to pour into our country. The other guest just stuck to the facts. 

About these oncoming refugees, several callers stated that they want them to come over very badly and as soon as possible; basically, these ‘rose-tinted glasses’ types want whatever Trudeau wants. The quintessential caller on the refugee question was an immigrant from Egypt. She informed the listeners that it took three years for the officials to screen her before they were satisfied that she was not a threat. Obviously, this woman understood the problem and burden of screening 25,000 people from Syria in just a few weeks. Ezra Levant says that it takes about ten months to screen a prospective citizen. That may be the norm, which means that the woman’s case from Egypt is an exception to the rule. That there are exceptions to the rule leads us to believe, does it not, that at least some of these 25,000 ought to be held back for three years as well? But even the most concerning characters will not be held back for the usual ten months! The truth is, most of the screening will have nothing to do with official documents and background checks; the screening will be reduced to verbal statements and maybe promises. That is the only way we’ll get so many refugees through the door by 2016.   
About the attacks in Paris, now, what were the reactions? Some phoned in to express revulsion at the massacre and to declare sympathy for the victims; two were eye-witnesses to the horror; another one admitted that all the bloodshed going on in the world had desensitized him; three called for war; and about as many called for status quo passivism. 

The rest of the callers, about half a dozen, wanted status quo passivism as well, even though they did not say so. You can tell by their comments. Two callers virtually justified the attacks by Isis, based on the foolish notion that Muslim terrorists lash out on account of poverty; one of these callers spoke on the authority of her service to outcast folks on the Downtown East Side in Vancouver, if you can believe it! At least one caller had to remind us that Islam is peaceful. Another did not like us calling the killers ‘Muslim terrorists.’ And another caller did not like us calling the killers ‘barbarians.’ 
What do we conclude from these gleanings? The best part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that even among listeners to socialist, pacifist CBC, opposition to the refugee plan may be heard, as well as shouts for war against Isis. The worst part of the conclusion that may be drawn is that Isis sympathizers are walking amongst us, for who else would object to mass murderers being called ‘terrorists’ or ‘barbarians’? We are so tolerant and inoffensive in Canada that Isis sympathizers feel comfortable defending the name of Isis on a public, coast to coast broadcast! A nation as sinfully tolerant as we are will get its collective head chopped off by zealous followers of Allah. It’s good that some sympathizers are out of the closet enough to speak so boldly in favor of Isis barbarians, for such people can be easily traced and profiled; the bad news is that profiling, to us, is ‘impolite.’ Better to be slaughtered than to be impolite to Isis cheerleaders—that’s the Canadian way.    

Few of us follow the Bible anymore. But most Canadians would agree that we should love our neighbors, foreigners, and even our enemies. How can we do these three things at once? Well, we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we welcome foreigners who will put our neighbors at risk. Our neighbors will indeed be at risk if this refugee plan is pushed through ‘as is.’ Some of our neighbors will be killed if Trudeau follows through on his risky campaign promise. But if we alter the refugee plan in order to protect and love our neighbors, how may we love the foreigners? We may love them by taking time to screen them properly; then the ones we let in will have a safer place to live than they could by the sham screening that is taking place. We may love them by adopting the right ones: the ones who do not follow a book that calls for jihad. We may love them by providing them safe harbor in their homeland. We may love them by killing their enemies and ours. And how may we love our enemies? We may love our enemies by dropping leaflets to them from the sky—leaflets wherein is written what they must do to avoid being overrun by a strong coalition of air force, navy, and ground troops. We may love them by dropping tracts that deconstruct the falsehoods of the Koran and that point Muslims to a better way of worship. If we end up killing our enemies, can it be said that we loved them? Yes, we can say that we loved them when we gave them a space of time to repent before we killed them. Yes, we can say that we loved them even when we killed them, because by killing them we prevent them from killing others and from suffering more anguish in hell for doing so. 

When you follow the Bible, you can love everybody and there are answers to the toughest questions. When you go by liberal philosophy, you cannot even love your loved ones in a good measure. Indeed, if you go by liberal philosophy, you end up hating your enemies by allowing them to sin more and be punished more hereafter; you end up hating your foreign neighbors by not making proper distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys among them; and, as I said, you cannot love your closest neighbors as you ought when you welcome Muslims into your country without due distinction, for obvious reasons. 

There is a good kind of discrimination: which simply means to distinguish between two things or two persons. We are foolish to the point of hazarding our lives when we refuse to discriminate between extremely dangerous Muslims and moderately dangerous Muslims and between savage, violent Islam and all other religions.

Monday, November 23, 2015


Over 100 people were murdered and hundreds more were injured this November in Paris by Islamic Fundamentalists. I’ve been listening to CBC Radio’s take on the terror that Muslims have unleashed in Paris, usually via the morning program called The Current. I inform myself regularly on what the Left is thinking and saying because our country seems always to be veering to the Left, more or less, depending on what political party is governing the country from Ottawa. 

Many Parisian Muslims were interviewed by The Current about the recent events and situation in Paris. One of them communicated that Islam has nothing to do with these attacks. It’s a government problem, he said, by which he meant: the government is to blame. Another Muslim agreed with this statement, but added some information on the attacks being a government problem. He said that these attacks have something to do with Muslims in France having no opportunity to access information and cinemas. It is one thing to hope that we will believe that Muslims have no opportunity to access information, but quite another to hope that we will swallow the lie that they are not allowed access to cinemas! And as if this forbidden access ought to convince us that the attacks were therefore justified! It is a well-known fact that Muslims are not big readers. This is why they use such laughable arguments. They do not improve their intelligence by the acquisition of knowledge. The second Muslim even admitted that his brethren hang out at Macdonald’s, not libraries. European countries bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. We adopt the same posture in North America. The attacks had nothing to do with Muslims being shut out or shunned in any way. 

These comments by two Muslims are a fair representation of what Muslims communicate when asked about Islamic terrorism in Europe. The staff at The Current just accepts what the Muslims say because what they say is what the CBC wants to hear; why press for facts when you deny them as well? The Current put a quote from one of these Muslims up on its page for all to see because his line of thought is exactly the same as the CBC’s. “In France it is very, very difficult,” he said, “to be Muslim because there are so many people that have bad information about Islam.” The CBC and the Muslims contend that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Both the CBC and the Muslims have no doubt heard that the Koran commands violence, though; and they must be intelligent enough to make a simple deduction. Just google ‘calls to violence in the Koran’ or a similar phrase and the proof will cover your screen in a millisecond. Take this verse: “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find hardness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)” (Surah 9.123.) What is the deduction? It is this: Islam commands violence, and so it is not, by definition, a religion of peace. So-called moderate Muslims and liberal media like the CBC assert that Islam is not violent, only peaceful. Strangely, only orthodox Muslims and conservative Westerners admit that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the ‘infidels.’

The CBC is always careful to bolster its propaganda with guests who toe the Multicultural-Marxist line. One such guest is Michael Privot, Director of European Network Against Racism. He does admit that some radicals are not poor, but university educated. But he falls in line with the lie about terrorism being caused by discrimination and ethnic profiling. The man’s job description is to ‘focus on radicalization within Muslim communities.’ His ‘focus,’ though, seems eerily similar to that of Islamic radicals, you know, the Muslims who actually practice their violent faith. From what he says, it is easy to believe, and not wrong to suppose, that Islamic terrorism, to him, is not so bad. If austerity continues, he says pugnaciously, let casualties continue. He says it as if a continuation of terrorism would be a decent outcome. If the word ‘austerity’ is being used by him as it is commonly used in Europe nowadays, his meaning is that if more money does not flow to the Muslims, let casualties continue, which means: let massacres continue. This is the same attitude, if not hope, that a Muslim expressed a day later on the same program.   

The next guest was Ratna Omidvar, Chair of Lifeline in Syria. She urges us to trust the government concerning the screening of these refugees that are coming to Canada based on what the government has done before. If you follow politics, however, you will have learned that you should never trust the government based on what it has done before. You should always mistrust it. And do not trust a pundit when she tells you that you should receive refugees just because you have lots of room. Who has lots of room for refugees who are mostly Muslims of fighting age during an Islamic Crusade? We should have no room except for those whose religion is peaceful. Why shouldn’t the liberals use their gun control reasoning when it comes to refugees? Why not be consistent? If denying all refugees saves just one life, would it not be worth it? Canada is not assimilationist, Ratna says. Who does she speak for? She does not speak for all of us. Many of us think that those who come here should assimilate and adopt Canadian customs. Many of us think that if your religion calls for murder, you should not be granted access to our country, our people, and our generosity. Multiculturalism is not the great idea that we were told it was; it is especially bad when one culture out of the many has a book to follow that commands the other cultures to be annihilated.

The next guest was Gar Pardy, a former Canadian ambassador. He should be considered infamous for being an apologist for Omar Khadr and Maher Arar, Arabic media darlings of dubious virtue. Gar Pardy says this about the present problems with Islam: “Getting refugees to Canada, I think, is part of that larger fight of trying to do away with this scourge in the Middle-East and the problems that Europe is having as a result.” Gar is about as dubious for problem-solving as his two Muslim darlings are dubious for virtue. So inviting Muslim refugees to Canada who cannot be properly screened will help to do away with the scourge of terrorism that is going on overseas? All it will do is transfer some of the terrorism to Canada. Well, Canada’s a large country. We can absorb some terrorism, can’t we? We have treated the Sikhs well even though Sikhs were responsible for the Air India bombing in 1985, he argues. And that has worked out for us, he continues, for we have sixteen Sikhs in parliament now. Several things need to be said about this remark of his. (1) The file on this bombing is still open. (2) Having Sikhs in parliament should not be spoken of as a positive thing until these new parliamentarians prove their merit. (3) The Sikhs are not engaged in a worldwide jihad against ‘infidels.’

Both the host (Anna Maria Tremonti) and Gar Pardy put forward the same argument during the same broadcast, which leads me to believe that it is an official Leftist talking point. Reasonable people want the prime minister to never mind adopting 25,000 Syrian refugees; at the very least they want him to postpone the plan. Bringing that many refugees in by the New Year is extremely dangerous because they cannot all be screened by then. And how do you screen the refugees who have no documents? Tremonti and Pardy make the following point to those who fear Trudeau’s insane refugee plan: citizens of France and Belgium were involved in the attacks in Paris. The deduction they want us to make from this is that French or Belgian citizens are just as risky for us to receive as people from Syria. We would not refuse someone on the basis of being French or Belgian, so why should we refuse Syrians? That’s their point. They do not mention that the French and Belgian terrorists were Muslim, though. They were French and Belgian citizens, but they also were Muslims. We should refuse Muslims, no matter what country they come from or what country they are harbored in, for the terrorists of our day are Muslims, and the Muslim book is a book that calls for the mass murder of anyone who is not Muslim. Here is a prudent syllabus for screening refugees: let’s receive people who are not Muslim, and let’s focus on the most vulnerable and weak among them: babies, toddlers, kids, women, and the aged. 

When a Saskatchewan premier and a mayor of a city as liberal as Quebec warn us to oppose the present refugee plan that Trudeau is shoving through, we best pay attention and put the pressure on. I usually don’t make predictions, but this one is easy and foolproof: if we receive 25,000 Syrian refugees by 2016, we will have acts of terrorism done to us by some of these refugees by 2017. Tremonti thought it strange to see a goat’s head in that part of Paris where she was interviewing Muslims. It is not strange to see a variety of heads where Muslims congregate. Some of these cut-off-heads might soon be Canadian heads. Tremonti’s head is so thick that she would find that hard to believe even if the first heads to roll were talking heads from her own studio.

I will summarize the CBC’s interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; the Muslims who lash out do so because they are hard done by and discriminated against; if casualties continue, it is our fault for not giving Muslims more benefits and money; we should just trust the liberal government to screen everyone properly and safely; we should not expect immigrants to assimilate; Syrian-Islamic refugees are no more dangerous to make citizens out of than French or Belgian people; and receiving Muslims from Syria will go a long way to dissolving the present scourge of terrorism going on overseas. And here is the common sense interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism must have a lot to do with Islam, for the Islamic book commands the very terrorism that is presently being waged by Islamists; Muslims do not lash out because of discrimination or poverty, but because they have a mandate to kill ‘infidels’ in the book they worship by, and Muslim terrorists even testify that this is the case; we would continue to be casualties even if we gave the Muslims more money because their mandate to murder is the issue, not poverty; we should not trust the liberal government to give 25,000 Syrian Muslims a proper screening that will ensure our safety, especially since they have to do a rush job in order to meet their deadline; every immigrant should assimilate, not segregate; Muslims are more dangerous to our welfare than French people or Belgian people, unless these French or Belgian citizens happen to be Muslim. Most importantly, receiving Muslims from Syria will not contribute to solving the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalism; instead it will spread terrorism around, and it will cost Canadian lives.    
In the event that Trudeau will not relent, my prayer is that those who voted Trudeau in will be the ones who are victimized and traumatized the most, if not exclusively, by the Muslim murderers. It is a righteous prayer to ask God to punish those who are most guilty for the harmful policies that our administration puts into practice. It is God’s way, too, to ordain people to die by their own devices, especially when they have scorned and rejected the gospel of God that has been available to them all their lives. 

Psalm 119.119: “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.” The wicked of the earth are like dross. What is dross? The dross that Albertans will be familiar with is the stuff that tailings ponds are made of. Just as the oilman separates the impurities that cling to oil and sweeps them into a tailings pond, God separates the wicked from the righteous and brushes these wicked persons off the face of the earth and into hell. He does this on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not, because the Bible says so. God’s justice on display is one reason why Christians love the testimonies of God. That is what this verse teaches. Most Christians today are just pretend Christians, ignorant hypocrites who think that God is love and nothing else; they don’t love God’s word when God judges wicked people. When God judges wicked people, hypocritical churchgoers are quick to assert that the Bible has nothing to say about this and that God has nothing to do with it. But what about real Christians who love all of God’s word and every one of God’s attributes? They, like David, love God’s testimonies when wicked persons are taken away because the punishment validates the word of God that they trust. They have a right to love God’s word when it is vindicated. They have a duty to love God’s word when it is vindicated. It is a good thing when wicked people are swept aside like dross, no matter how sad it is. It is good for the word of God. It is good for the world. Yes, it is good for the world to see some of its wicked characters dispatched into hell, for the judgment makes at least some of the remaining sinners examine what they are about and what they believe. Being rid of persons of iniquity is especially relieving to members of the true Church. “In these evil days,” said Spurgeon when commenting on this verse over a century ago, “when God’s punishment of sinners has become the butt of proud skeptical contentions, we may regard as a mark of the true man of God that he loves the Lord none the less, but a great deal more because of his condign [appropriate] judgment of the ungodly.” 

So if the terrorists must strike, Christians may pray that some wicked persons will be treated like dross when that happens, for the event will cause the testimonies of God to be more loved than they already are by the real Christians among us. We should pray for Prime Minister Trudeau to be humbled at the possibility of being the agency by which Muslim terrorists murder citizens that he is responsible to keep safe. Since Trudeau is a Roman Catholic, he probably calls himself a Christian. We should pray that he will begin to yearn for refugees who call themselves Christian and who, unlike the Muslims, have virtually nowhere in the Middle-East to flee for refuge. We should pray for the Muslims to repent, of course; we may also pray, in the meantime, in case they don’t repent, that they will be divided amongst themselves and that they will keep themselves busy by engaging in mutually destructive warfare in their old countries far away.   

Canada needs to be punished, and it will be punished for its many sins. It must be punished for its ongoing mass murder of babies in the act of abortion and it must be punished for its continual blasphemies. In imitation of David (2 Samuel 24) when God asked him to choose what kind of judgment to receive for his act of disobedience, we should ask God to punish us by plagues instead of swords. We should pray like so: “If we must be punished, O God, give us breast cancer and prostate cancer for our sins of abortion; send a new strain of Aids for the increase of LGBT sins; give us new strains of VD for our sins of adultery and fornication; send throat cancer for all the blasphemies we spew; but whatever you do, spare us the gory sword of Muhammad’s false god, Amen.”

Monday, November 16, 2015


France woke up on November 14th, 2015 to a new state of things. The night of November 13th was their 9/11. On that night the City of Lights was obscured and eclipsed by an evil entity called Muslim Terror. France must now wake up to face what full-blown multiculturalism looks like and feels like. It must wake up to realize that importing thousands of Muslims who follow a book that calls for the death of ‘infidels’ is an invitation to violence, bloodshed, and war. France must now acquaint itself with what the Islamic mandate is and it must no longer pretend that Islam is a religion of peace. The Koran calls for war; Muslims call for war; Muslims are bringing war; war is on French soil now. How much deadly proof will be needed before France will decisively deal with the Muslimization of its country? My guess is that it will take much more than this one night of grisly terror. Every Muslim must be regarded as suspicious. Every Muslim must be profiled. For this to be effectively done, political correctness must be discarded and the Muslim population must be reduced. Muslims endorse, either ignorantly or informedly, an ideological book that commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims and to replace civilization with a caliphate. You are just as naïve as an empty-headed liberal socialite if you believe that there are no Muslim citizens of France who are cheering this Muslim reign of terror. You are naïve to your own hurt if you believe that no Muslim citizens of France have helped to pull this deed of terror off. It is time for France to export, not import. It is time for France to go to war, not be terrorized. Importing Muslims is an invitation to terrorism.  

France is not the only nation that invites terrorism. Most nations in Europe are doing it; the USA is doing it; Canada is doing it. How do we invite terrorism? We invite terrorism by our political principles. We invite terrorism by our personal behavior. In other words, we invite terrorism by our public vote; and we invite terrorism by our lifestyle.  

Canada lost 158 soldiers in the war in Afghanistan. Paris just lost almost as many civilians in one night of terror. The terrorists are, of course, Koran-loving Muslims. Read the Koran and see for yourself whether or not the Muslim murderers are obeying the Koran when they kill. Or, you may learn this the easy way by ordering a little book called ‘A Peek at the Koran’ from Amazon. I can thoughtfully endorse the book because I wrote it. 

We invite terrorism in two ways. Here is the first way that we do it. We do it by voting for politicians who are politically correct and weak in the face of arrogant, disdainful, warring Islam. These politicians are protected from danger by armed agents and they are whisked away at the first sign of danger. They don’t want their citizens to have the same privilege, however. So when you’re at a public event and the Muslims come to mow you down, the politicians are surrounded by defense and taken care of, while you are left standing there hoping that the cops will get to the Muslims before the Muslims get to you. That’s what just happened in France. The president was protected right away; the civilians, not so fast. 

We invite terrorism when we vote for politicians who wave in more and more Muslims in spite of all the mayhem that the Muslims have caused in our country already. Muslim brutes have been terrorizing France for years, for instance, like when they were burning hundreds of cars a few years ago; pretty much with impunity, the Muslims did this. We in Canada find what’s happening in France so exciting and glamorous that we have just voted in a socialist teenage-like prime minister who has pledged to invite thousands of Muslims who will no doubt bless us with the same kind of Islamic pandemonium that France is enduring. You are not allowed to bear arms in France or Canada, though, not in public, and not even on your property without legal fallout. When a government decides (no matter what stripe that government is) that you are not allowed to defend yourself—that is socialism at work. Socialism says this: don’t worry about anything; government will take care of it all; leave it up to government. Yes, leave it up to government; that is the political paradigm that just facilitated the barbaric deaths of over 120 defenseless French citizens. 

President Barack Hussein Islam-loving Obama assured the public that Isis is contained. He said this on the morning of the attacks in France, not even one whole day before Isis waged war on the streets of Paris. You have heard of a hero and an anti-hero, or of prophets true and false. Obama is an anti-prophet. Whatever he promises, you can count on getting the opposite. One of the terrorists responsible for the attacks in France has informed authorities that the carnage just inflicted upon French citizens was done in the name of Allah, courtesy of Isis. Obama needs to believe and convince that Isis is contained in order to appear like a successful peacemaker. He needs to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in order to seal his legacy with a facade of peace. We invite terrorism by voting for politicians who deny facts and reality in order to further their political dreams.  

We invite terrorism in another way. We invite it by our conduct generally. This is well illustrated by the event where the main brunt of the terror was borne in these coordinated Muslim attacks in Paris. Most of the people who were killed were killed in the Bataclan Theater. They had gone there to listen to an obscene rock band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal.’ In a decent society, a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ would be so unpopular that it would not be given a hearing. Our societies are not decent, though. We like obscenities; we like playing with death. We like dancing obscenely; we like dancing before a band called death. Every so often, God calls us on what we like. He patiently puts up with our celebration of obscenity and death, and he adds something to it. He gives us actual death at the hands of obscene people. Going out on the town to whoop it up with a band called ‘Eagles of Death Metal’ resulted in death by metal guns for many. This is not only eerie, but synchronicities like this are ordained by God to make us notice and to reconsider our ways of life.   

I had never heard of this band before this mass murder by Muslims took place. It turns out that it is very popular. The views that their songs have accumulated on YouTube are considerable. In a song called ‘Complexity’ the band members are holding a skull in order to show us what the band is about. In a song called ‘Save a Prayer’ (originally by ‘Duran Duran’) the message goes like this: “don’t say a prayer for me now/save it till the morning after…some call it a one night stand/but we can call it paradise.” In a song called ‘I want you so hard’ we are secretly warned against the band and their message by the song’s own lyrics. “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again as if to mesmerize us into being cautious about what we’re getting into. But this phrase will only mesmerize folks in a good way if these folks are already on their guard against evil—it will only warn folks who have eyes to see and ears to hear, as the Bible says. I repeat: “Just leave him alone ‘cause the boy’s bad news”—this phrase is repeated over and over again by this band as if to mesmerize us into being cautious. Those who are in the habit of grooving to unclean songs and extolling death will be mesmerized in a bad way by those words, though, because to them, boys that are bad news are not to be left alone, but to be listened to, followed, idolized, and fawned over. Those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to discern will have been thunderstruck at the sight of the first responders climbing the ladders where the ‘Eagles’ billboard appeared as a backdrop. The image was like a bright white presentation of the darkness that the victims were engaged in when they were gunned down. In the Bible bad is bad and good is good. Those who treat good as if it were bad and bad as if it were good are given this warning: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5.20.) To sing about a one night stand, and to declare that sin to be paradise, is to call evil good. To adopt the moniker of death or to wear a t-shirt in praise of death is to put a bitter thing forward as if it were a sweet thing. What can the consequence of this sort of behavior be but a bad one? If you hold to these delusions you will reap the whirlwind. You might reap it on your death bed at an old age. You might reap it by an accident. Or you might reap it by a terrorist strike while you are in the very act of enjoying the praises of sin and death. And you might reap it while you are in the bloom of youth. The Bible says this: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Galatians 6.7, 8.) 

It is noteworthy that this calculated series of terrorist strikes was aimed at places where French youth congregate on a weekend night. Who votes for socialism more than brainwashed youth? It matters who and what you vote for. What and who you vote for can have deadly repercussions. Young immoral citizens are the ones who flock to rock concerts. Young immoral citizens are the ones who vote for socialist policies. Politicians are to blame for letting Muslim invaders have their way; they have paved the multicultural road that the Muslims are now painting with blood. They are the guiltiest ones of all. French youth have to be told that it is time to inform themselves; the alternative is brainwashing by teachers, media, and politicians, and moral corruption by the culture; brainwashing and corruption have no good end. Whooping it up in a brainwashed state may be fun for some time—maybe a long time. But then come the consequences. The consequence of treating evil as if it were good is the reaping of evil. You reap what you sow. To sow evil is to plant something that will grow up to consume what you hold dear. What is dearer to you than your own life or the lives of your loved ones? True, some decent people and some Christians may have died in these attacks. True, some citizens who hate socialist policies may have died in these attacks. But what I have said here applies to most of the victims, without a doubt. Even God allows for collateral damage; he may take a Christian to heaven through socialist policies that led to terrorism, even if the Christian opposed with all of his might, both terrorism and the socialism that invited it. Conversely, he may send souls to hell through their political views and moral corruption. You have no reason to hope for a peaceful night-out if you go out with the intention to make merry about solemn matters like sin and death. And you have less chance of getting away with it if you are responsible for the political decisions that have led to Muslim murderers skulking around town with AK-47s in the name of Allah.   

This monologue might seem harsh. But study the Bible, learn your theology, and know your history, especially your biblical history, and with God’s blessing of illumination, it will begin to dawn on you that sin is what’s harsh and that death is so harsh that it should never be treated as a theme to get down and jiggy with. Before you plan to rock ‘n roll with death, beware of the possibility that God might give you exactly what you rock ‘n roll about. 

I will paraphrase what Jesus said to a crowd concerning the mass murder of some of their brethren and I will apply it to this terrorist strike in France: “Do you suppose that these French citizens were bigger sinners than other French citizens just because they suffered such horrible deaths? No, they were not bigger sinners than average; you must repent before something just as bad happens to you.” No one who dies without first repenting of his sins is prepared to die. A new way of life is needed before death brings a sentence of hell upon your soul. Voting barbarians into your country and using your weekends to participate in the glorifying of sin and death are acts that testify to how ignorant you are, how unregenerate you are, how in need of salvation you are, how perilously close you are to tripping out of this world into an everlasting world of woe. Press for the peace of your people by righteous policies; and press into the kingdom of heaven through repentance toward God and faith in Christ.

This has been a Puritanical opinion on the Muslim reign of terror that was just waged in France in the name of Allah.