"Insanity Is North Korea Threatening A War It Would Instantly Lose" published by The Huffington Post

In light of all the bluster about a potential war between North Korea and the United States, my latest article was just published in The Huffington Post and assesses this very topic: "Insanity Is North Korea Threatening A War It Would Instantly Lose"

Thanks for reading. - R.O.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-d-onley/insanity-is-north-korea-threatening-a-war-it-would-instantly-lose_a_23223356/

"The World's Only Hope this Christmas" published by The Huffington Post

Pleased to share that my most recent work, entitled, "The World's Only Hope this Christmas" was published today by The Huffington Post. After a bleak 2016, Jesus Christ offers resounding hope for 2017 and beyond. As I put it in the article:

"In the spirit of tolerance, here is an idea for you to tolerate over the holidays: there is indeed hope for humanity, and there are answers to these questions, and both can be found through belief in Jesus Christ alone. For those who consider themselves 'spiritual, but not religious', the next logical question is: so who is Jesus Christ? This question is about far more than whether or not you 'go to church', and the answer cuts to the philosophical core of modern society."

At a time with so much uncertainty, the hope of Christ provides total hope.

Click here to read the article, which has also been reproduced in full below.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The World's Only Hope this Christmas
The Huffington Post - December 22, 2016
By: Robert D. Onley
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-d-onley/the-worlds-only-hope-this-christmas_b_13780136.html

News headlines throughout 2016 were unrelentingly mortifying, bleak and despairing. Just this week - a Russian ambassador assassinated live on camera in Turkey, shoppers run down at a Christmas market in Berlin, a shooting at a mosque in Switzerland, and the endless bombing of Syria. It is easy to conclude from these headlines that evil has triumphed emphatically over the forces of love, peace and hope, and it is no surprise that one of the trending hashtags to close out the year is simply "#f_ck2016" (you fill in the missing vowel).

Beyond the wishfully dismissive hashtag, the real problem is that no one actually thinks that 2017 will be any better. And why would it be? As families unite this week to celebrate Christmas hoping to bury the headlines under glad tidings of comfort and joy, many others are simply wondering aloud: Where does our hope come from? How will humanity ever find peace? And why are humans dead-set on killing each other no matter what? Is anyone realistically looking to Donald Trump for hope, peace, or greater global stability?

Amid the search for answers, it is no secret that "being religious" has gone out of style. But somehow, "being spiritual" is considered socially acceptable, so long as you do not push your particular interpretations on others. In Western society, the result is a mish-mash of relativist spiritual theories, and a deference to the Goddess of Blind Tolerance, whose belief system offers zero hard answers to the complex questions above.

In the spirit of tolerance, here is an idea for you to tolerate over the holidays: there is indeed hope for humanity, and there are answers to these questions, and both can be found through belief in Jesus Christ alone. For those who consider themselves 'spiritual, but not religious', the next logical question is: so who is Jesus Christ? This question is about far more than whether or not you 'go to church', and the answer cuts to the philosophical core of modern society.

Over 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem, a baby boy, Jesus of Nazareth, was born. Jesus' existence is a historical fact, one that is as well documented as that of the life of Julius Caesar. The Islamic and Hindu traditions respect and revere Jesus, the former even regarding him as a prophet. Today, it is not a question of whether Jesus existed, but rather: do you believe what Jesus said?

What Jesus said about himself and about life is simple, as found in the Gospel of John, chapter 14:6:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

Jesus' absolutist statement offends most people today, in an era of limitless knowledge that is somehow dominated by fake news. We have been left chasing an unquenchable thirst for truth, while ignoring the one who said, "I am the truth."

When Jesus declared who He is, He offered a stark choice for all humanity, and this is particularly relevant during the Christmas season when Christians celebrate the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ. The fateful choice is whether or not Jesus was in fact who He claimed to be: the saviour of all mankind through His death on the cross for our sins, and His resurrection from the dead three days later.

It matters greatly what we think about the historical person of Jesus Christ. Author C.S. Lewis put it this way:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice."

But if in fact Jesus is the Son of God, as He claims to be, then you, the reader, must seriously ask yourself what it means for your life. His claims do not leave room for merely "respecting" Him as a teacher. To over a billion Christians around the world - approximately one in every seventh person - Jesus means many things: He is hope, joy, love, peace, tender-heartedness, kindness, humility, and courage. These values and virtues are sorely missing from so much of the world today.

In fact the opposite of these virtues appear to be on the march. The forces of darkness are strong, vicious, and advancing with murderous intent; the prospect of greater global conflict practically feels inevitable, and of course, we all must work to avoid that. But at this point in human history, there is no room for fence-sitting on issues of the heart and soul. Indeed, Jesus made this clear in Matthew 10:34-39 when He said:

"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword. [...] If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worthy of being mine. If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it."

While we celebrate the joy of the Christmas season, represented by the birth of the Christ child, the verse above cannot simply be dismissed. We face a tremendously uncertain future and the persistent reminder of the existence of evil, manifest by the demonic spiritual force known as the Islamic State.

The headlines of 2017 are practically bound to be worse. Deep at its collective core, humanity is being forced to make a decision about the overarching and fundamental worldview that every human embraces. We either live in a universe that is ruled by God, whose plan and hope for humanity is found in the salvation Gospel of Jesus Christ; or, we live in a world that is ruled by the strongmen of the day, by selfish ambition and materialist pursuits, and is governed by failing international institutions - a world without hope. For where could hope ever come from if the majority of humanity rejects the one man - Jesus Christ - whose message was pure hope? Such a hopeless world is one that is destined for the destruction that we continue to witness.

But we are not without options. For Jesus said at John 14:27:

"I am leaving you with a gift--peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don't be troubled or afraid."

The Christmas story is God's bold, annual reminder, one which many of us celebrate but fail to commit to, that God did and does have a plan for salvation and hope for every human. We are so easily distracted by the wonders of this life that we ignore at our peril, and to our despair, the deep spiritual hunger inside every human soul.

It has been said that there is a God-shaped void inside every human heart. We long to know truth, to know hope, and to understand our purpose in this brief life. Jesus said at John 10:10:

"The thief's purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life."

Jesus knows that every human longs for complete satisfaction of the heart and soul, and for genuine hope. God offers that through the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Mercifully, God made this free gift available to all. As Romans 10:9 says:

"If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

May you find Jesus Christ and His free gift of hope, love and peace this Christmas season.

"Embracing 'Radical' Christianity Can Defeat Islamic State" published by The Huffington Post

My latest article, "Embracing 'Radical' Christianity Can Defeat Islamic State", was published by The Huffington Post. My central argument is this:

"The world body should be willing to try anything, even a solution which employs core spiritual ideas from a faith which finds itself peculiarly (and some say prophetically) targeted for annihilation by the Islamic State."

This is the essential issue of our era. Thanks for reading and sharing. - R.O.
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Embracing 'Radical' Christianity Can Defeat Islamic State"
The Huffington Post - January 25, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-d-onley/love-your-enemies_b_9066214.html

As this article is being written, men and women are choosing to leave the modern comforts of Western civilization to join an apocalyptic death cult in the most war-torn region on Earth.

Their decision -- to exit the stability, prosperity and security afforded by the wealthiest nations to instead become a soldier in the genocidal army of the Islamic State -- betrays the unsettling truth of our present era: that secular, materialist, hyper-connected modern life offers no meaningful, coherent counter-narrative against the preachers of hate, destruction and messianic end-of-the-world fantasies.

Because if there were a counter-narrative that worked, it would have been employed by now.

Unfortunately, perhaps to the chagrin of the prevailing progressive, mainstream Western opinion, the only counter-ideology capable of ultimately defeating the evil of the Islamic State is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in a radically genuine application of Jesus' teachings.

One need only witness the American presidential primaries, the rising nationalist parties across Europe and the general xenophobia surrounding refugees to realize that fear of the "other" is on the march globally, lockstep with the unchecked evil espoused by the Islamic State.

Compounding the West's failure to grapple with this problem of evil, persecution and violence directed at all communities continues unabated. Random stabbing and ramming attacks continue across Israel; Sunni-Shia sectarian bombings in Syria, Iraq, Indonesia, Burkina Faso and Yemen; and Western-born ISIS terrorists are beheading journalists and aid workers alike.

Philosophically and practically, an ideology which both promotes total hatred of others and cherishes death -- such as that of the Islamic State -- can only be comprehensively countered by one which promotes total unconditional love, even of enemies, and which values life.

To defeat an ideology which trumpets as its maxim death itself, it is imperative to foremost promote individual-level reconciliation, that is, to make a personal decision to irrefutably change, as is capable inside every human heart and soul. This type of internal, personal healing is only truly offered through the salvation gospel message of Jesus Christ.

This is not a call for new a Crusade, or the deployment of Bible-thumping Marines, or merely wishful Evangelical thinking. Rather it is a call for the considered application of the words of Jesus Christ, who imparted on humanity this eternal, relevant order: "This is my command: Love each other." (John 15:17 NLT)

"The world body should be willing to try anything, even a solution which employs core spiritual ideas from a faith which finds itself peculiarly (and some say prophetically) targeted for annihilation by the Islamic State."

Love each other: on what other foundational, elemental basis can lasting peace find footing in the world today? Consider that despite nearly 70 years of attempts to "negotiate" a peace treaty in Israel and Palestine through traditional, secular, political diplomatic channels, the international community is absolutely no closer to finding peace there in 2016 than it was in May 1948 at the outbreak of war over Israel's independence.

Similarly, in Iraq and Syria, attempts to engage in any manner of shared intellectual dialogue with extremist Islamist fighters are utterly fruitless, driven as they are by visions of an end of the world battle in the Middle East.

In turn, endless killing has become the West's only effective policy tool.

Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke 6:27-28, "But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you."

This verse, objectively radical given its relevance today, is particularly applicable in the context of terrorist violence, where strangers are willing to viciously stab, shoot and murder total strangers. One need only think back to the Paris attacks and ask: how can such hatred be justified? How has humanity sunk to such an extremely dim view of existence?

At John 15:12-13, Jesus counters this depravity once again, saying, "This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."

Jesus implores us that the highest love is found in saving lives, rather than ending them. And if indeed there is a God above us all, Jesus reminds humanity in this verse that He, God, first loved us.

Consider the potential impact if the above verses were to be recognized, promoted and encouraged by the United Nations. For the sake of argument, imagine these messages were stripped of their biblical origin and promoted purely on the basis of their conceptual ideals.

If there were a better alternative -- politically, diplomatically, philosophically or intellectually -- would it not have been comprehensively tested, attempted and enforced by now? In the pursuit of global peace, the world body should be willing to try anything, even a solution which employs core spiritual ideas from a faith which finds itself peculiarly (and some say prophetically) targeted for annihilation by the Islamic State.

Generations of young men have grown up being taught nothing but extremist hatred and enmity, and now desperately need the redeeming messages of love, salvation and hope found in Christianity.

These equally radical messages are the most powerful forces on Earth, and must be shared widely if the West wants to win the fight against an enemy so hell bent on its defeat.

Published by International Journal for Religious Freedom

At a time when the world is wrangling with the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State and the resulting refugee crisis bringing an influx of Muslims into Europe, I am pleased to share that my most recent legal journal article was published this month by the International Journal for Religious Freedom (Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2014). The article is entitled, "Defending the freedom of expression: The danger and failure of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation’s campaign for global anti-blasphemy laws" (article starts at page 31).

There is no question that when it comes to an open discussion about religion, and more particularly, Islam, many in the Western world either hesitate or pause before sharing their legitimate questions, comments or concerns. However, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation ("OIC"), an international body representing the world's Muslim nations, has made a concerted effort to attempt to legally stifle any and all legitimate criticism of Islam, which it deems "blasphemy".

My article critically examines the OIC's campaign for global anti-blasphemy laws and argues that  these laws once more represent a dangerous legislative proposition that must be defeated by Western and allied democracies. Take the time to read this carefully, and feel free to Tweet at me to discuss. I hope you enjoy reading my work.

Special thanks to Dr. Sauer and the editorial team at the IJRF for assisting with this publication.

To read my other Published Work, click here.

"Obama's Gamble with Iran's Theocratic Regime" published by the Gatestone Institute

Pleased to share my latest article which was published today by the Gatestone Institute, a New York-based think tank. I am honoured to be published by the Gatestone Institute for the first time, alongside many distinguished writers, thinkers and political leaders.

The Iran deal represents a disconcerting transaction between the West and the radical Shi'a Islamist regime in Tehran. Please read and share widely. Special thank you to Nina Rosenwald for her assistance on the final draft. - R.O.

-----------

"Obama's Gamble with Iran's Theocratic Regime"
Gatestone Institute - July 28, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6237/obama-iran-gamble

• Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.

• Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make. By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, Obama has bound the U.S. under international law without Senate consent.

• The gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Shi'a Islamism.

• A total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. An end to Iran's financial and material support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.

• There is still time for a better deal that can be had.

As President Obama and Secretary Kerry dominated the airwaves with rounds of media interviews to defend the Iran deal last week, German Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister Sigmar Gabriel flew straight to Tehran for the first of what are certain to be countless meetings by P5+1 leaders to capitalize on new business opportunities in Iran.

In Europe, it seems, there is no debate to be had over the Iran deal; rather, it is a fait accompli.

But in the United States, the domestic debate is heating up, fueled by a Presidential primary campaign and increasingly justified bipartisan anxiety over the bill.

Independent of these political realities, however, the immediacy and tenacity of the White House's defense of the Iran deal (which now has its own @TheIranDeal Twitter account, no less), betrays an acute unspoken discomfort by many Democrats with the practical flaws and global security dangers that the deal presents.

Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.

Haunted by his electorally-motivated premature withdrawal from Iraq in 2011; his refusal in 2013 to confront Syria's Bashar Assad when he used chemical weapons on his own people; his betrayal by Russia's Vladimir Putin to whom he had offered a reset button, and his impotence in failing to respond to the aggressive expansionist moves of Russia, ISIS, Iran and China, the President and Democrat Party, in signing the Iran deal, seem to be trying to absolve the United States of its role at the forefront of the global fight against Islamic radicalism and other threats.

Citing the failed EU-led negotiations with Iran in 2005, which resulted in Iran's massive expansion of centrifuge production, defenders of the deal, such as Fareed Zakaria, have painted a bleak and zero-sum counterfactual argument. It is claimed that the result of Congress's opposition will be an international community that forges ahead on renewed trade relations with Iran, while leaving the United States outside the prevailing global reconciliation and supposed love-in with the Islamic Republic.

There are several serious problems with this defense, and similarly with the White House's blitzkrieg public relations campaign to fend off detractors of the Iran deal, with Secretary of State John Kerry commanding the preemptive, and often totally inaccurate, strikes against Congress. In consideration of the colossal failure represented by the North Korea nuclear precedent, let us consider the issues unique to Iran.

Foremost, opponents of the Iran deal are not universally suggesting the Iran deal be killed outright or immediately resort to "war." This is simply disingenuous. Instead, the opponents' fundamental premise is that a better deal was left on the table, and thus remains available. The very fact that the Iranian regime was at the negotiating table was indeed a sign of Iran's weakness; any timelines for the P5+1 to "close" the deal were artificial constraints that surely erased further achievable concessions.

Second, much ink has already been spilled about the technical weaknesses of the Iran deal. Namely: that Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place; that the most important restrictions expire in 10 years (a mere blip for humanity); that Iran's uncivilized domestic and regional behavior was a naughty unmentionable; and finally, that the deal undoubtedly initiated a regional nuclear arms race while supercharging the Iranian regime's finances.

Third, the gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal, and the most damning of its continued defense, is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Twelver Shi'a Islamism.

This capitulation occurred precisely at a time when the West and the broader Middle East are facing off against the Islamic State -- a terrorist force which, when stripped of its social media allure, is ultimately a Sunni-branded spin-off of the extremist Shi'a Islamism that has ruled in Iran since 1979.

The Iranians may be convenient allies as enemies of our enemies today, but not for one second have Iran's rulers suggested their ultimate intent is anything other than the all too familiar "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" propaganda seen for the past 36 years. In what is objectively and wholly a strange deadly obsession, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has been rousing crowds with calls for the destruction of two nation-states both during and after nuclear negotiations.

In spite of this public malice, defenders of the deal suggest that "the [Obama] administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure." Why exactly then is Khamenei making clear the opposite?



President Obama's willingness to concede Iran's new-found normalized membership in the community of nations on the basis of this nuclear deal is an affront to the liberal, free, democratic principles that have stood against the forces of tyranny throughout American history.

It is also an affront the American political system and to the members of both parties who are now being cornered by the President into supporting, or not supporting, such an intrinsically dangerous and needlessly flawed bargain with an avowed enemy.

Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a number of critics have pointed out, the Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make.

By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, President Obama has bound the United States under international law without Senate consent.

If the United States is to remain the vanguard of human liberty, President Obama must distinguish between the vain pursuit of his legacy, and the civilized world's deepest need at this consequential hour for the American President to defend comprehensively the fundamental principles that underpin the modern order. Unless his desired legacy is actually to destroy it.

As opponents of the Iran deal have noted, there is still time for a better deal that can be had.

To start, a total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. Congress can lobby for this change, and should maintain American sanctions and applicable provisions in the U.S. Treasury Department's SWIFT terrorist tracking finance program.

Next, while Iran's regional malignancy may run deep in the regime's veins (through the many twisted arms of Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), an end to Iran's financial and material support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.

Third, those who argue that Iran's human rights record was not "on the table" in Geneva have needlessly abdicated the West's moral and intellectual high ground to the forces of barbarism and hate that are now waging war across the region. Respect for international humanitarian norms should never be discarded in such negotiations.

At the end of the day, the deeper questions for Obama and the entire P5+1 are this: By whose standards were negotiations conducted? And whose worldview will rule the 21st century?

In defense of Obama's approach, the deal's supporters point out that the Iranians are a "proud, nationalistic people," which is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant, just as it was for the leadership of Germany's Third Reich.

The Iranian regime, by virtue of its radical religious nature, weak economy and political experiment with theocracy, should have borne the burden of coming to the negotiating table with the most to lose. Instead, President Obama, on behalf of the free world, is allowing this pariah state to guarantee its place among the nations, lavishly rewarded for having violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in all its about-to-be-well-funded lethality.

• Robert D. Onley is a lawyer in Ottawa, Co-Founder of the Young Diplomats of Canada and a "Global Shaper" in the World Economic Forum.
• Follow Robert D. Onley on Twitter