Revelations about ‘fake doctor’ involved in NY City mass shooting

Diversity is beautiful alert!

I thought I was done this morning, until three separate readers sent me Ann Coulter’s jaw-dropping report on the New York Times shameful miss reporting (and that is putting it kindly!) on the NYC hospital shooting last week.

This needs mentioning because it is the same concept we see over and over again about the media’s treatment of refugee criminals and terrorists—mainstream media rarely mentions the ‘R’ word and one is left guessing (by his name) where the perp is from and how he got here. And, we have noted repeatedly that refugees often have grandiose expectations of streets paved with gold in America.

(Still unreported, I think, is through which legal or illegal means Obotetukudo got in to the US.)

From Townhall:

Last Friday, Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo, aka Henry Bello, opened fire with an AM-15 rifle at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, killing one [female] doctor and injuring a half-dozen others. I would prefer to leap right in and offer my ideas for stopping these immigrant shooting rampages, but first I’ll have to tell you the facts the media won’t.

Henry Williams Obotetukudo

The New York Times, still unaware there’s an internet, is trying to pass off the Nigerian as a Californian, the non-doctor as a doctor, and Mr. Obotetukudo as “Dr. Bello.”

[….]

Close observers will notice the same basic pattern over and over again. Immigrants from backward cultures develop extravagant expectations about their lives in America, fail to master the most rudimentary civic habits, and then erupt in shooting rampages when their lives aren’t turning out as planned.

[….]

Liberals have a mystical idea that we can pluck people from the most discordant cultures, put them in middle-class houses in the suburbs and then, magically, primitive tribesmen will be imbued with the core beliefs of our republic and civilization, developed over centuries.

The magical melting pot fails again!

Much more here, I only gave you the bare bones so you will read the rest of it.

Afterthought: You could tell Donald Trump he could require immigration status be released in all news reports on crime/terror cases.  Would go a long way to identify where problems are with our immigration system.

George Soros Behind Funding of Trump Travel Ban Protests

Once again, peel back the layers of a leftist-inspired backlash against President Donald Trump — and it’s George Soros you’ll see.

The group behind a New York City protest against Trump’s travel ban is funded by none other than Soros. Which group? The New York Immigration Coalition, Breitbart found.

The protest gathered about 200 anti-Trumpers in Union Square in New York City.

Breitbart has more:

The well-orchestrated protest drew about 200 anti-Trump activists like Sharia Linda Sarsour, along with social justice advocate Letitia James, as NY1 reported. Protesters held glossy signs, reading “No ban, no walls, no raids,” demanding an open borders approach to national security issues.

Many local media reports did not question the organized nature of the action, nor its primary funders.

For example, Policy Director of the Impact Center for Public Interest Law at New York Law School Andrew Scherer, who has also worked closely with Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Another funder of the New York Immigration Coalition is Kay Murray, a New York City lawyer who has also deep ties to the Soros organization.

Trump’s travel ban was partially reinstated for 90 days while the Supreme Court awaits a final ruling on the executive order, which shuts down refugee resettlement and travel from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

The travel ban was previously shot down by lower courts, with judges using Trump’s campaign trail statements to block the measure.

The travel ban was billed by leftists and lower courts as a ban on Muslims, based on Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail.

But that characterization has little to do with the actual text of the order, which simply states that those from six different nations — all of which are tied to terror — cannot enter the United States for a period of 90 days, unless they meet certain exemptions tied to family reasons. Similarly, refugees are banned from coming into the United States, for a period of 120 days.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

The Erosion of Jewish Identity in America

The compulsion to secularize Jewish identity or correlate it with progressivism has produced a generation that is hostile to traditional observance and tolerant of assimilation.

American non-Orthodox Jews today are less religiously and ethnically grounded than their grandparents and more likely to define Jewishness in secular or political terms.  They are also more likely to assimilate and intermarry and to view those who do both as positive role models.  Not surprisingly, they tend to validate their cultural detachment by denigrating classical standards of Jewish identity and deprecating traditional observance and devotion to Israel.

They often claim that unbalanced criticism of Israel is consistent with Judaic values and rationalize anti-Semitism as a reaction to Israeli provocations or Jewish tribalism.  The more extreme among them characterize progressive anti-Semitism as political speech, and in their zeal to delegitimize Israel, affirm revisionist propaganda and validate Islamist front organizations posing as moderate.

The Jewish left condemns Israel – often using slurs and stereotypes – and professes to speak with an authentic Jewish voice.  This claim is nonsense, however, and instead raises the question of whether those espousing it really understand Jewish tradition, or simply use their heritage to justify political agendas that sanction or tolerate anti-Semitism.

Progressives who promote Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) or organizations like J Street which endorses labelling products made in Judea and Samria, are endorsing positions detrimental to Israel and Jewish continuity.  Most seem to discount history and observance and to equate Judaism with liberalism and the Democratic Party, despite evidence indicating that bigotry against Jews and Israel today is more common on the left than the right.

A Gallup poll two years ago showed that only 48% of all Democrats supported Israel compared to 80% of Republicans; and survey data from Europe suggest anti-Semitism is far more prevalent among progressives than conservatives.  Rather than address the troubling implications of such trends, however, progressives deny them or disparage those who question their claims of Jewish authenticity.

Willful assimilation is not a modern phenomenon, it has been a threat in every generation – often, but not always, in response to external pressures and persecution.  After achieving civil enfranchisement in Europe, many Jews gravitated to movements that sought to create a modern identity based on secular principles instead of normative halakha or concern for communal preservation.  They often embraced ideologies that were hostile to religion and nationality, and which therefore maligned Jews for adhering to the beliefs and dedication to homeland that had kept them intact as a people in exile.

Attempts to reconceive Jewish identity proliferated after the ghetto walls came down.  Proponents of Haskalah (“Enlightenment”), for example, rejected ritual identification and favored synthesis with European culture.  They portrayed rabbinic authority as backward, emulated gentile intellectual society, and aspired to ethical culture rooted in modernity, albeit informed by a sense of Jewish heritage and history.  The result for many was ethnicity without purpose.

Jewish assimilationists differed in believing they could improve their lot by becoming part of the cultural mainstream.  But persistent anti-Semitism indicated they would never be permitted to blend in as equals, leading many to embrace secular Jewish nationalism instead.  Indeed, Leon Pinsker was an ardent assimilationist until the pogroms of the late 1800s convinced him that Jewish self-governance was the key to survival, prompting him to write “Auto-Emancipation” and help found Hovevei Zion.  For many, however, the reawakening of national consciousness was simply a reaction to the external.  Though underlying religious belief and historical self-awareness certainly formed the core of Jewish national identity, it was anti-Semitism that motivated many to seek social change through political action.

Political Zionism, in contrast, was not solely reactive to oppression and discrimination.  Although Herzl was acutely aware of the anti-Semitic threat, he also viewed the Jews’ return to their homeland as a matter of historical and prophetic destiny.  Though many of Herzl’s followers were secular, religious factions were active from the early Zionist Congresses onward; and even many nonreligious Zionists believed a modern state should be founded on Jewish principles.  The most fervent secularists, however, believed nationality superseded religion and that being Jewish was no different than being French, Italian, or German.  Thus, it should not be surprising that secular Zionists like Max Nordau, cofounder of the World Zionist Organization, were often intermarried.

Most attempts to redefine Jewishness aspired to secularity, but the early Reform movement advocated religious identity, though in a deracinated form that deviated significantly from classical Jewish thought and practice.  Whereas traditional Judaism defined the Jews as a people with unique obligations flowing from a divine covenant passed down through ancestry and heritage, the early reformers rejected the concept of peoplehood, identified as Europeans or Americans of “the Mosaic persuasion” to suggest common roots with their gentile neighbors, and reconceived Judaism’s mission in secular political terms.  Though the Reform movement reembraced the concept of peoplehood in the 1930s (largely in response to Nazism), it continued to equate Jewish character with progressive values and social ideals.

Reform leaders and congregants today champion and elevate “social action” over traditional observance, holding that liberal ideals represent the fulfillment of the Jews’ spiritual mission.  Ironically, Reform activists engage in little that can be called religious, but instead promote secular social causes and agendas.  Today’s Conservative movement also considers social action an essential imperative – one that provides a façade of religiosity to secular congregants who identify as “social warriors” but do not keep kosher, observe Shabbat, or maintain any semblance of traditional practice.

The compulsion to secularize Jewish identity or correlate it with progressivism has produced a generation that is hostile to traditional observance and tolerant of assimilation.  Clearly, the question is not whether Jews can withstand external threats, but whether they can survive willful abandonment of the faith, values and common history that had sustained their forebears through generations of exile and persecution.  It seems the further removed they become from their heritage, the more likely they are to forget their worth as a people and to pursue cultural homogeneity.

And the more likely they are to disregard historical Jewish rights and claims in the name of a sacralized political agenda that has been mischaracterized as tikkun olam.

Elevating the rights of the “other” over one’s own priorities can have absurd consequences – as when clergy from the nontraditional movements validate a Palestinian narrative that denies Jewish history or commune with Islamists who support BDS and oppose Israel’s right to exist.  Or when liberal leaders worry more about the largely theoretical threat of Islamophobia than the very real problem of anti-Semitism, much of which emanates from the Muslim communities with whom they seek dialogue.  Or when Jewish establishment organizations defend the rights of bigots to spread their views.

Many Jews were outraged recently when Linda Sarsour – a proponent of BDS and detractor of Israel – was invited to speak at the commencement of the City University of New York School of Public Health.  Despite being lauded as a human rights advocate by some (e.g., progressives), she has been accused of anti-Semitism by others.  The Anti-Defamation League rightly criticized her, stating: “[w]e profoundly reject [Sarsour’s] positions that delegitimize Israel.”

However, it refrained from labeling those positions anti-Semitic, although it did make a point of condemning the “anti-Muslim bigotry” of some who came out to protest her CUNY appearance.  It also defended her right to speak, stating: “[d]espite our deep opposition to Sarsour’s views on Israel, we believe that she has a First Amendment right to offer those views.”  (The ADL’s full press release can be found here.)

It might seem incongruous that an organization established to combat anti-Semitism would defend the rights of such people, or that it would appear to equate anti-Semitism with bigotry against Muslims. Any analogy between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia suggests moral equivalence where there is no real parallel.  Whereas anti-Semitism has fueled persecution, dehumanization, and genocide for thousands of years, Islamophobia has not; and while all hatreds may be evil, they are not necessarily equal.

Progressives who define Jewishness by political affiliation tend to marginalize anti-Semitism by comparing it to other forms of bigotry, and to support anti-Israel political candidates so long as they advocate liberal causes.  Still, their blind allegiance to a Democratic Party that has grown increasingly hostile to Israel and tolerant of anti-Semites over the years is quite disturbing.  They would do well to emulate England’s Jews, the majority of whom refused to support Jeremy Corbyn and Labour in the recent Parliamentary election because of his and the party’s statements and views regarding Jews and Israel.  Though English Jews have long supported Labour the way American Jews have endorsed the Democrats, they could not ignore their party’s descent into prejudice; and unlike their American counterparts, many of them expressed their disapproval at the ballot box.

American Jews are rejecting their ancestral values and abandoning tradition at an alarming pace – as evidenced by a rising 72% intermarriage rate among the non-orthodox since the year 2000.  The attempt to secularize Jewishness and conflate it with progressivism has clearly eroded traditional values and the instinct for self-preservation.

If anything, this failed social experiment shows beyond any doubt that Jewish identity suffers greatly when Torah values and Jewish literacy are shunted aside, and that equating identity with secular ideologies leads to self-rejection and assimilation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.

The Alternative Secret History of the World

Excuse me while I question your patriotism, progressive comrades. The Fourth of July is coming and you will not be celebrating it — not with the same thoughts and emotions as the rest of your countrymen. If you have been undermining this country for most of the year, why should this day be different?

A critical look at history always helps if it is based on objective reality and an understanding that our age, just like any historical age, is only a flight of stairs in an endless stairwell leading us up, away from barbarism, towards civilization. Trying to cut corners will only bring you down.

Another sure thing to bring you down is the multiculturalist idea that “up” and “down” are morally equal. If that were true, nobody would have risen above his surroundings, because going down is easier and more natural. But humans are different from the rest of the physical world in that in a free state we tend to go up. Moving upwards is in our nature. Leave us to our own devices and watch. “Up” is where we go to pursue happiness – in more ways than one. That brings us back to the Fourth of July and the different ways to look at it.

The history that we know does not corroborate anti-American talking points. Could there perhaps be some hidden version of history that we don’t know? An alternative secret history of the world from which the “progressive” activists, journalists, and politicians draw their talking points? Social criticism implies the existence of an alternative. We never hear much about the alternative to American history or, for that matter, a hypothetical world history without the United States.

The Alternative Secret History of the World According to the Liberal Left

“Prior to July 4, 1776, not a single person in the world starved, got sick, worked hard for a living, or experienced any pain nor anxiety.”With so many zealots simmering in the anti-American melting pot of “progress,” one might think they had already cooked some shared historical narrative in which anti-Americanism actually makes sense and the entire Leftist agenda doesn’t appear so absurd. What is it?

Most “progressive” critics either don’t think that far, or they don’t have the guts to give their views a full exposure. So let’s do it for them. Let’s connect the dots with logical lines and reconstruct a historical narrative that would validate all the liberal bumper stickers.

Prior to July 4, 1776, not a single person in the world starved, got sick, worked hard for a living, or experienced any pain and anxiety. No one had ever been oppressed or unfairly exploited because the oppressive and unfair American system had not yet been created.

Since the beginning of time employment had been equally guaranteed to anyone who cared to work, along with an equal pay of exactly $1,000 a week regardless of outcome, occupation, or the geographical area. All work was equally pleasant and enjoyable. Those who chose not to work also received $1,000 a week in unemployment compensation and Union benefits. Other guaranteed people’s rights included the right to housing and free universal health care, as well as the right to 100% literacy through federally funded public education.

People never heard of wars, crime, corruption, slavery, torture, murder, cannibalism, and man-made hurricanes. Peace and harmony reigned supreme because the concepts of greed, selfishness, and private property had not yet been invented by the American corporate interests and maliciously spread around the world as part of the American cultural hegemony.

Each person in that ideal world practiced his or her own peaceful spirituality, worshipping Earth, Nature, and the Sacred Feminine, while honoring the spiritual traditions of everyone else. Benevolent chieftains dispensed benefits to their subjects to each according to their needs, making sure that ethnic and sexual minorities were equally and proportionally represented in all spheres of public life. Habeas Corpus was the law of the land, along with Exit Strategy and Geneva Conventions.

Family planning, effective birth control, and early sex education ensured that every family had exactly 2.2 children per household, which prevented overpopulation and famine. Commerce, travel, and international trade were uncommon; everyone lived and died within not more than a five-mile distance from their birthplace. People didn’t feel the need to migrate, set up colonies, take over other countries, create empires, settle in uninhabited areas, or fight one another over a creek in the desert.

All farming was organic and for subsistence purposes only. The environment was clean due to reliance on alternative fuels and invigorating manual labor. As a result, everybody lived in comfortable, carbon-neutral houses, eating plenty of good food on a regular basis, and driving fuel-efficient automobiles when they weren’t riding their 18-speed urban cruiser bicycles.

This was an amazing achievement of indigenous cultures considering that there had been no division of labor and most people lived on farms. In the free time that remained after toiling the soil and tending to the animals, the indigenous farmers discerned the laws of nature, developed vaccines for deadly illnesses, stretched out the average lifespan prodigiously, and fed the starving in far away places.

This Golden Age lasted from about 20,000 BC up until the American Revolution. After 1776 everything just went downhill.

Immediately upon declaring their Independence, the Americans began the theft of native Indian lands, industries, highways, and communications infrastructure. The Americans used Black slave labor to invent things that would give them an unfair edge over other cultures: cotton gin, bifocals, steam power pumps, self propelled amphibious vehicles, coffee pot, sewing machine, power tools, ether anesthesia, mechanical refrigerator, cylinder printing press, passenger elevator, burglar alarm, oil well drilling, repeating rifle, pin tumbler lock, roller skates, offset printing, barbed wire, dental drill, mimeograph, telephone, light bulb, hearing aid, electric fan, skyscraper, disposable camera, escalator, motion picture camera, safety razor, air conditioner, airplane, assembly line, frozen food, radio astronomy, television, chair lift, nylon, defibrillator, microwave oven, atomic bomb, carbon dating, Polaroid camera, polio vaccine, integrated circuit, oral contraceptive, laser, computer, operating system, optical fiber, calculator, product barcode, space shuttle, artificial heart, internet, and graphic user interface.

Once they stole enough wealth and power, the Yankees moved on to exploit the rest of the world, setting up corporations on every street corner in order to oppress and humiliate people of other cultures, races, and religions. The corporations launched wars and endemic diseases to create economic need and political chaos from which, like Venus from the sea foam, the greedy bourgeois class was born. With the help of the local bourgeoisie, the Americans overthrew all of the free world’s honest and caring chieftains, replacing them with corrupt democratic regimes in order to steal their oil and destroy local ecosystems.

American preachers and missionaries confiscated all means of birth control from the aboriginal tribes, causing disastrous demographic explosions, followed by famine and more wars. Once the world was subdued and demoralized, Americans lowered indigenous people’s salaries to ten cents a day, at the same time forcing them to buy American goods by way of boldfaced advertising.

The American TV commercials insulted the refined tastes of subsistence farmers so much that they often threw organic eggs and vegan burgers at their plasma screens, destroying them and unwittingly creating a demand for even more TVs. With all the commotion they missed the advance of Global Warming, a clandestine project executed from the secret climate change centers paid for by American imperialists.

This alternative history may never be officially acknowledged, yet it is being implied in news radio and TV programming, film documentaries, Hollywood movies, UN resolutions, comedy shows, and political speeches — including those delivered by Democrats running for President — let alone millions of stickers, placards, T-shirts, and buttons sold at “progressive” junkets.

If I didn’t know the real history and was a little more gullible, as many public school graduates are today, such a narrative might also become a part of my perspective. I might conclude, along with such “progressive” minds as Sean Penn and Ben Affleck, that the United States is a force of evil. I might agree with Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill that the world’s oppressed would be damned fools if they didn’t hate America and yearn for the destruction of this unspeakable beast. As a fair-minded person I might even give them a hand – as Ramsey Clark and Lynn Stewart have done, making the support of America’s enemies their full-time job and a life-long commitment.

I’d probably share a utopian belief that once America as it exists today is eradicated, peace and harmony will be restored worldwide, and people will finally have a chance to live as one happy family without wars, greed, corruption, and evil corporations pursuing their racist agenda of climate change. Minority subsistence farmers will hurl their remote controls into the jungle, and everyone’s pay will go back to $1,000 a week plus union benefits.

I would certainly decide that the Fourth of July should not be celebrated. Why should we honor the greatest setback in the history of world progress? Rather than watch air-polluting fireworks, we must instead grieve with the rest of progressive humanity over the dark day that gave birth to the evil entity that is the United States of America.

But then again, if I were an intellectually honest public school graduate I might read a few books besides A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present by Howard Zinn, an anti-American volume that had impressed Ben Affleck and Matt Damon so much that they featured it in “Good Will Hunting” (“That book will blow your hair back”), and even considered turning it into a TV mini-series starring Winona Ryder.

If I were to read about real history I might find out to my great astonishment that for many thousands of years the world’s wonderful cultures had been at each other’s throat, engrossed in feuds, rape, pillaging, slavery, theft of the neighbors’ resources, torture, murder, treachery, corruption, assassinations, and cannibalism. I’d learn that from the beginning of time, human history was a never-ending string of wars, famines, diseases, exploitation, poor hygiene, high infant mortality, and an average life expectancy of about 30 years. I’d gather that the world was mostly run by either ignorant witch doctors or ruthless tyrants who went to war for personal enjoyment, constructing pyramids out of the skulls of slain enemies.

“Turks conquered cradles of ancient civilizations with turn-key cities and pre-existing infrastructure.”I’d also discover that people had been migrating all the time, moving to other lands and continents, setting up colonies and empires without asking permission from the natives, who often assimilated into one nation with the conquerors. The latest example is the Turkish Ottoman Empire whose conquest of heavily populated countries in Europe and the Middle East was happening simultaneously with the colonization of the sparsely populated Americas by the Europeans.

The Turks had come from far-away lands, stole the entire Asia Minor from the Christian natives, renamed their cities, and settled on their land for good. As the Americans fought a war against slavery, the Ottoman Empire continued to grow and expand its slave trade, bordering simultaneously on Austria, Morocco, Poland, Sudan, and Persia. The number of people killed, enslaved, converted, and driven from their land was much greater in the Ottoman Empire than in the entire Western hemisphere. Where is the outcry and demands of reparations?

If I were an inquisitive public school graduate I’d ask a question: if land theft and slave labor is what had made America so rich, why isn’t Turkey the richest country in the world? As opposed to the bare lands and deserts of the New World, the Turks conquered cradles of ancient civilizations with turn-key cities and pre-existing infrastructure. However, apart from oil deposits, the formerly Ottoman lands remain dirt-poor, with Turkey itself not far away in the lead.

But let’s not single out the Turks. Before them were the Mongols, who made no distinction between the civilians and the army, and whose conquest had lead to the creation of the world’s largest empire ruled by fear and iron discipline. How many millionaires does Mongolia have today? And before that were the Arabs who came as conquerors from the Arabian Peninsula, stole all of North Africa and Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) from the Christian natives, forcibly converted them to Islam, and settled on their land for good. And before them there had been conquests by the Huns, the Chinese, the Celts, the Greeks, the Romans, the Goths, the Persians, the Slavs, and many others who settled on other people’s lands simply because they could.

All cultures practiced slavery in one way or another. It stopped in Europe around the Middle Ages but continued to thrive in Africa, Asia, and in the Middle East. Through the contacts between the Arabs and the Portuguese it was reintroduced to Europe and the Americas. Although the European and American abolitionists eventually brought an end to slavery and slave trade on their territories, it still exists in various ugly forms in other parts of the world.

To get a glimpse of the thousand-year-old dark historical reality, look no further than Sudan where even today Arabs are practicing a racist form of slavery. Black African villages of Darfur are being ransacked, men and women killed and raped, their children taken away as slaves (and also raped repeatedly). Nothing can be done now to change old history, but something can and should be done to change the fate of black slaves today. Only the activists and “community leaders” who usually initiate such actions are so busy fuming over the suffering of black slaves in America seven generations ago that they have no time for the suffering of black slaves in today’s Sudan. Could it be because their real concern has never been the suffering of black slaves – but rather finding an excuse to trash the United States?

Another huge slaving outpost waiting to be freed is, of course, North Korea. Why aren’t there any calls from the “progressive” camp to abolish a form of neo-slavery called socialism? Why did the “progressives” call the USSR a “workers’ paradise” when it was being built by slave labor in concentration camps? If slavery is a certified path to prosperity, why didn’t half a century of suffering and millions of lives wasted in the gulag make the Soviet Union richer — but the new economic freedom did, despite the botched reforms and the ubiquitous government corruption? China had emulated the Soviet slave-labor economy with an even bigger army of political prisoners – and with an equally disastrous outcome. But when the Communist rulers abandoned slave labor in favor of capitalist reforms, the economy started to grow — and so did the standard of living.

If putting an end to slavery and giving people a small amount of freedom can bring forth such sizeable growth within only two decades in Russia and China, how much economic growth and prosperity can be achieved by a nation whose people have had two centuries of full economic and political freedom? “Have all cultures already arrived at the final point in their development?”To find the answer, look at a country that starts with “United” and ends with “States.” And that’s the end of the silly argument about America owing its prosperity to slave labor.

The continent of North America was settled in several waves by Siberian hunters, each wave accompanied by the theft of land and conquest. In what bank is that stolen wealth kept today? The arriving Europeans discovered a collection of half-naked warrior tribes killing one another for land, water, game, wives, and simply as a sport – just like anywhere else in the world thousands of years ago. Only some cultures had grown out of it, others had never risen, yet others had gone over the hill and slid back into barbarism. This begs a question: by what measure do we determine which stage of cultural development is the correct one and deserving of being frozen in time?

The multiculturalist dogma of the equality of all cultures raises even more questions. Have all cultures already arrived at the final point in their development? Is cultural achievement meaningless? Is the history of arts and sciences irrelevant? Is the complexity of social structure inconsequential? Is the respect for human dignity and individual rights an empty sound? Is there no difference between “up” and “down” on the stairwell of human progress? And if you believe all of that, can you still call yourself a “progressive” and maintain a straight face?

History answers negatively to all those questions. World cultures aren’t equal and never have been. Humanity is a living, breathing, and evolving organism that thrives on cultural interaction and development, in which cultures compete for survival — and yes, fight with each other — but also learn from the best.

Today we are witnessing a major fight between two of the world’s cultures, one of which — the Islamic fundamentalists — got stuck at the lower steps of societal evolution and would like to drag the rest of the world down to their level, so that there would be nothing left above their heads to distract true believers from focusing on their toenails and pondering existential issues such as the foot hygiene of airline passengers.

If you listen to the “progressives” and believe that all cultures are equal, you might as well not resist and descend to their level as John Walker Lindh did. “If we want answers we shouldn’t be stopping the pioneers.By the time you discover that the difference between “up” and “down” is not a fancy post-modernist notion, but a reality as essential as the difference between life and death, it may be too late. Not just for you but to those around you as well, within the kill radius of the shrapnel in your explosive belt.

Equating our two cultures is not just unnatural – it’s suicidal. We should consider ourselves lucky that a few generations ago Western nations managed to lift themselves out of the sewer in which humanity lived for thousands of years. These nations have mastered science, arts, medicine, increased life expectancy, and developed a legal system that grants more rights and freedoms to individual citizens than any other culture in history. The advancement is reciprocal: the more freedoms the individuals have, the better off the nation is economically. At the head of this upward movement is the United States, the first nation to put individual freedoms above the government’s interests. Placing the government in the service of the people at an age when the rest of the world viewed the people as mere servants to their governments.

The vertical map of the world’s cultures is never a still picture; they are moving along the entire visible length of the stairwell of progress. The invisible flights of stairs are still ahead of us – a terra incognita. How far up does the stairwell go? Is there an end to it? How soon will humanity get there, and how much has already been covered? If we want answers we shouldn’t be stopping the pioneers. We must celebrate them.

As for the losers still down at the bottom, empathize with them all you want – but remember that you can afford this emotional luxury only because at least one part of humanity has found the ability to clean up their act and show the way to other nations – and a hope that one day, with the right attitude, the others may also climb out of the sewer.

And that is what the Fourth of July means to this author. Fireworks, barbecues, and department store sales are optional.

UPDATE:

NOW AVAILABLE ON A T-SHIRT:


buy this T-shirt

This was published in PJMedia on July 3, 2007.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Red Square originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Tweet On, Mr President

President Trump is criticized from all sides for sparing with fake news media via tweets. Some say Trump’s tweets are a distraction from getting out his message. The truth is fake news media are relentlessly 24/7 distorting and misrepresenting Trump’s agenda and message. Tweeting is Trump’s direct line to the American people which is the reason his tweets infuriate and frustrate fake news media.

Some say Trump responding to attacks and lies from media hacks is unworthy of his time and below his office. I disagree. How many times must we witness the accumulative toxic effect of allowing absurd lies on Republicans to go unchallenged? Such lies take root and grow. Leftists know if they attack a Republican with a big enough lie long enough, people will come to believe it. Leftists’ unchallenged huge lie, “Bush lied and people died” eventually tanked Bush’s approval numbers.

When Mitt Romney ran for president, I laughed at fake news media’s lies launched to destroy him. Fake news media said Romney caused the death of an employee’s wife; Romney abused his dog by hauling it on the roof of his car and Romney bullied a fellow student in school. I thought these attacks were too absurd to be believed or too trivial to care about. Little did I realize these seemingly unworthy-of-a-response attacks on Romney were building a false image of this genuinely decent and kind human being in the minds of low-info voters.

I chuckled hearing Michael Jackson say in his classic “Thriller” music video, “I’m not like other guys.” When will Washington DC and fake news media realize Trump is not like other Republicans? It is not in Trump’s DNA to sit back and allow himself to be attacked and lied about without pushing back harder. Frankly, I love that about our new sheriff in town.

Trump confronting fake news media’s lies in tweets is driving Leftists crazy because they do not know how to deal with it. Leftists are accustom to Republicans cowering in fear, rolling over and taking fake news media assassinating their character.

Fake news media has a proven track record of 24/7 negative nitpicking a Republican to death. This is why fake news media made a huge deal about Trump supposedly getting two scoops of ice cream while everyone else only gets one. What appeared to be much ado about nothing was really a strategically planned attempt to further fake news media’s branding of Trump; an ego maniac mean bully.

Still, there are folks on our side who want Trump to stop tweeting and play by traditional Washington DC establishment and fake news media rules for Republicans. Why should Trump allow his unhinged morally bankrupt enemies to dictate the rules of engagement. Tweeting is a technological powerful weapon available to president Trump. I say tweet on Mr President. Tweet on.

Political experts advising Republicans to walk-on-eggshells when dealing with the first black president, Democrats and fake news media have brought us patriotic Americans nothing but frustration and the furtherance of the extreme radical left’s agenda.

I will not bore you with the long list of Obama’s unconstitutional overreaches to which the GOP response was, “That’s not legal, but we dare not oppose him.” Real regime change in DC was birthed out of the Tea Party pushing Republicans to behave outside of expert’s advised timidity. This resulted in the GOP winning the house, senate and White House.

Hypocritically, fake news media lectures Republicans about how to behave while supporting Democrats doing whatever necessary, including breaking laws, to implement their extreme liberal agenda. For example. Fake news media supports Democrats’ proven bogus narrative that allowing illegals to invade our homeland makes Americans safer. The fact that sanctuary cities are arrogantly breaking the law is of no concern to fake news media.

On a recent retreat, MSNBC was one of the few news channels I could get on TV. Folks, watching the totally propaganda network was astounding. MSNBC lies, distorts and spins against Trump practically 24/7; clearly laser focused and obsessed with taking down our president.

Not only is Trump not like other Republicans, he is not like other presidents. I am confident that I speak for millions of Americans when I say that is just fine with us as long as he constitutionally fulfills his campaign promises.

EDITORS NOTE: Lloyd Marcus is the author of “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

How Brexit Could Break the Cycle of Global Poverty by Joe Ware

In the run-up to the Brexit negotiations, there were numerous calls for the Government to confirm that the rights of EU citizens living and working in the UK would be secure. With talks now officially underway the Government has moved to address this with a “big and generous” offer according to Number 10 – or something “vague and pathetic” according to some of those on the EU side.

Less widely reported, but just as important, was another announcement last week that the UK will maintain EU free trade deals with the 48 nations of the Least Developed Countries Index, ensuring that poor producers will not have to pay import tariffs in the UK after Brexit.

This is good news for British consumers; the £19.2 billion of goods from these 48 countries includes 79  percent of the tea consumed in Britain, 45 percent of our textile imports and 22 percent of our coffee.Millions of producers who rely on trade with the UK have also been left in limbo.

Like the EU citizens who have been left with uncertain futures while their status remains up in the air, millions of producers who rely on trade with the UK have also been left in limbo worrying that a slew of new taxes could imperil their livelihoods.  Thankfully, for those in the very poorest countries at least, they shouldn’t be left worse off by Brexit.

But we should be setting our sights far higher than just ensuring no harm is done; we have an opportunity to improve the EU and make the case for the transformational, poverty-busting power of trade.

For starters, why limit the tariff-free arrangements to just these 48?  There are plenty of countries, such as Kenya, that sit outside the least developed countries category but still suffer from deprivation while also playing an important role in the economic development of the surrounding region.

Secondly, Liam Fox should use his post-Brexit trade powers to end the harmful EU tariffs on higher value processed products; these effectively work to keep poor countries poor and actively stunts their development.
For example, in 2014 the entire continent of Africa earned $2.4 billion from its abundant supply of coffee, while Germany, not known for its coffee plantations, raked in $3.8 billion by processing raw coffee and re-exporting it.

Imagine the potential benefit to African farmers if they could get a piece of the action and compete with the German processors. But the EU imposes a 7.5 percent tariff on imported roasted coffee, yet nothing on the less valuable, raw green coffee.  No wonder the vast amount of African coffee imported into the EU is the cheaper unroasted variety.

This colonial approach, which treats poorer nations as sources of raw material, disincentivises the development of greater profit-making industries which would be a powerful driver of prosperity.UK now has the power to expose the cruel treatment

It suppresses technological innovation, deters outside investment, hurts employment and prevents business knowledge and skills from spreading into other sectors of the national economy.

But the UK now has the power to expose this cruel treatment by scrapping these regressive taxes and allowing enterprising producers in poor countries to compete on a level playing field. Not only would it liberate those currently under the jackboot of EU tariffs, it would also lead to greater choice for UK consumers as new products from around the world found their way to market and cheaper prices through both the freedom from import duties and greater competition.

The EU likes to burnish its progressive credentials, but if we take back control of our trade laws Britain can become a world leader in the emancipation of the world’s poor and use Brexit as a force for global good.

Originally published on CAPX

Joe Ware

Joe Ware

Joe Ware is a writer at Christian Aid.

Celebrating the Fourth Through an Unshakable Faith in God

On July 3, 1776, John Adams sat down to write his wife, Abigail. In ending the second page and spilling onto the third, he wrote:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

Two hundred forty one years later we can only marvel at the prophetic nature of his prescience.

And what of the state of affairs of his nation today?

Well, it is no less tumultuous than it was back in 1776. The fodder, the anger, the vitriol; it’s all there. But these things should never cast upon us any fears.

So many of us feel the gloom that weighed so heavily upon Adams on July 3, 1776.  But he gave us the solution to conquering those fears. First, he kept his eyes on the ravishing light and glory that would befall his nation once the goals the Creator placed upon it were achieved. And second, he maintained a steady and unshakable faith in the utility of his “solemn Act of Devotion to God Almighty.”

Americans are truly an exceptional people, and their country no less so. We are the product of people who believed in the concept of natural law, or God’s law. Indeed, our forefathers so strongly believed in the existence of a set of divinely created rules, founded on the presumption that every man has a direct and immutable relationship with God, that they were willing to devote their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to see that system of government respecting such a divine relationship become a reality.

Today, we hear so much talk casting aspersions upon our nation’s most hallowed institutions — we focus our attentions so firmly on the various players of our present plight, be they persons or things — that we fail to focus on the foundation that strengthened Adams during his time of gloom; an unshakable longing for the ravishing light and glory that will gently bathe America when she finally becomes a nation at peace with the Creator.

Today, two days later than Adams predicted, there will be Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other.  And thank God there will be!

But tomorrow, we must steady ourselves and refocus our energies towards achieving that glorious society that can only exist when we are in compliance with the precepts of Natural Laws and when we abide by the dictum that demands we love God with all our might and love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

This July 4th, I hope many wonderful things for your family and you, and I pray, despite our persistent shortcomings, that God continues to bless these United States of America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

CNN: King of Fake News and Queen of Leftist Indoctrination

CNN is already King of Fake News and now has crowned itself Queen of Leftist Indoctrination.

In a stunning exploitation of American children CNN partnered with PBS and IRC to bring Sesame Street’s Elmo on screen to “educate” the youngest American children on refugees.
Clearly American pre-schoolers are not watching CNN but this shocking interview exposed what they will be watching when they tune into Sesame Street.

Early childhood education is arguably the most powerful influencer and indicator of the direction of society. Palestinian children are being indoctrinated to hate Jews and to destroy Israel. Muslim children are being taught Islamic supremacism and hatred of infidels (all non-Muslims). The purpose of propagandizing Palestinian children is to produce Palestinian adults who will fight to achieve the destruction of Israel. The purpose of propagandizing Muslim children with Islamic hate education is to produce Muslim adults who will fight for re-establishment of the caliphate and imposition of sharia law worldwide.

So what are American children being taught and what is the purpose of their education?

Since the end of WWII American children have been indoctrinated in left-wing liberal tenets of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism courtesy of Tavistock Institute and its principles of mass psychology for social engineering. The purpose is to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. Socialism, the necessary condition for cradle-to-grave control by the government will be replaced by an internationalized globalist elite dream of one-world government.

American children are being tutored in passivity and collectivism while Middle Eastern children are being tutored to be warriors. In The Suicide of Reason, Lee Harris’ stunning analysis of the existential threat of Islam to the West, Harris describes the conflict between the tribal mind and the enlightened mind. The book jacket provides a concise summary:

“The Suicide of Reason shows how modern liberal societies, whose political theories are born of the Enlightenment are unfamiliar with the nature of mass fanaticism. The West, so accustomed to thinking of history as an inevitable progress toward enlightenment, can only think of fanaticism as a social pathology, a failure to modernize, rather than what it is: a variety of social order that is not only fully viable in the modern world but that possesses weapons to which the West is uniquely vulnerable. A governing philosophy based on reason, tolerance, consensus and deliberation cannot defend itself against a strategy of ruthless violence without being radically transformed – or worse, destroyed.”

Lee Harris posits a binary conflict between societies with tribal minds and societies with enlightened minds. What Harris overlooked is that there has been a seismic shift in the definition of the enlightened mind. The enlightened mind, born in the Age of Enlightenment was the child of 18th century Europe that focused on individualism and individual rights instead of subservience to the monarchy. Reason, not religion, was the primary source of authority and the principles of scientific inquiry, individual freedom, equality, tolerance, constitutional government, and the separation of church and state were its tenets. Individual liberty and religious tolerance, core principles of the enlightenment, were foundational in the founding of the United States, American democracy, and the U.S. Constitution.

The enlightened mind that created America believed in individualism, exceptionalism and the meritocracy which eventually created the most powerful nation on earth. After WWII the education of American children shifted from the tenets of American exceptionalism and individualism toward collectivism, passivity, and socialism. The success of American democracy being challenged by globalist elite (monarchs, aristocrats, royalty, world bankers, and industrialists) seeking to destroy America and impose a New World Order of one-world government with open borders and an internationalized market that they would rule themselves.

The radical left-wing liberals worldwide are the useful idiots being financed and exploited by the globalist elite. In a pathetic drama of deceit, the Leftist puppets promise social justice, income equality, and humanitarian outreach to the masses to lure democratic societies into socialism. Societies that resist the soft-pedal seduction are exposed to hard core anarchists who are paid to create social chaos. Socialism is the prerequisite condition for America to be internationalized and then merged into one-world government.

America’s enemies are following Sun Tzu’s approach to warfare:

Sun Tzu’s conviction is force is not central to warfare – victory and defeat are fundamentally psychological states. He sees war, therefore, not so much as a matter of destroying the enemy materially and physically (although that may play a role), but of unsettling the enemy psychologically; his goal is to force the enemy’s leadership and society from a condition of harmony, in which they can resist effectively, toward one of chaos (luan), which is tantamount to defeat.

The globalist initiative is designed to destabilize America and create world wide chaos through early childhood education, television programming, and through mass immigration of populations with hostile cultural norms that challenge the stability of host countries. CNN crowned itself Queen of Leftist Indoctrination when it broadcast the interview of Elmo “educating” children on refugees. In a shocking display of the globalist shell game, the media moguls who own CNN focus Western attention on the displaced children suffering from war so that the hijrah (jihad through immigration) that they deliberately fomented and financed will be ignored.

Lee Harris’ strategy for confronting and defeating the tribal mind that threatens us is a return to our original enlightened mind that unapologetically fought and defended our American traditions of freedom, individualism, exceptionalism, and the meritocracy. Harris’ book was written before Obama was elected and imposed eight years of anti-American pro-Muslim policies to weaken America. Harris could not have imagined President Donald Trump and his unwavering support of American sovereignty, strength, and commitment to oppose the globalists, the Leftists, the colluding mainstream media, and the tribal minds seeking our destruction. That is what it means to “Make America Great Again.”

We are standing for what is right against what is wrong

The title of my op-ed is taken from Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue. It is a dialogue between the Melians and Athenians on liberty versus the imposing of slavery by force by one culture upon another culture. I am writing this on the eve of the celebration of Independence Day 2017. A day when our Founding Fathers found themselves in the same predicament as the Melians, liberty or death.

There is a lesson to be learned: Give war a chance!

According to the Melian Dialogue:

The Athenians also made an expedition against the island of Melos. They had thirty of their own ships, six from Chios, and two from Lesbos; 1,200 hoplites, 300 archers, and twenty mounted archers, all from Athens; and about 1,500 hoplites from the allies and the islanders.

The Melians are a colony from Sparta. They had refused to join the Athenian empire like the other islanders, and at first had remained neutral without helping either side; but afterwards, when the Athenians had brought force to bear on them by laying waste their land, they had become open enemies of Athens.

In the end “the Melians surrendered unconditionally to the Athenians, who put to death all the men of military age whom they took, and sold the women and children as slaves.”

In 1776 American patriots faced an armada of British ships and the choice of liberty versus the imposing of slavery by force by one culture upon another culture.

The Founding Fathers chose liberty, which led to war, the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers gave war a chance to change the course of human history. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, put it succinctly when he wrote, and the Founding Fathers signed, on July 4, 1776:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Many remember this special day by its date rather than by the declaration signed on July 4, 1776. Our Founding Fathers understood that war was the only way to liberty. They understood that God is a man of war in the never ending battle between good and evil.  As Ezekiel 7:25 reads:

Destruction cometh; and they shall seek peace, and there shall be none.

Today is Independence Day. Let none forget the document which was signed on that faithful day in 1776.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah BartlettWilliam WhippleMatthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John HancockSamuel AdamsJohn AdamsRobert Treat PaineElbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen HopkinsWilliam Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger ShermanSamuel HuntingtonWilliam WilliamsOliver Wolcott

New York:
William FloydPhilip LivingstonFrancis LewisLewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard StocktonJohn WitherspoonFrancis HopkinsonJohn HartAbraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert MorrisBenjamin RushBenjamin FranklinJohn MortonGeorge ClymerJames SmithGeorge TaylorJames WilsonGeorge Ross

Delaware:
Caesar RodneyGeorge ReadThomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel ChaseWilliam PacaThomas StoneCharles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George WytheRichard Henry LeeThomas JeffersonBenjamin HarrisonThomas Nelson, Jr.Francis Lightfoot LeeCarter Braxton

North Carolina:
William HooperJoseph HewesJohn Penn

South Carolina:
Edward RutledgeThomas Heyward, Jr.Thomas Lynch, Jr.Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button GwinnettLyman HallGeorge Walton

 

Camp Concentration

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky on the totalitarian liberal nature of seminary formation in the 1980s that has led to such absurdities as liturgical dance.

In the 1980s, I attended a Midwest seminary that was schizophrenic with respect to the Faith.  The moral theology department was very orthodox. But Scripture studies were essentially liberal Protestant. And the formation team was hopelessly dissident and liberal. One of the Scripture professors, Father Otto, was a Hungarian refugee. He was friendly, kindly, fiercely anti-Communist – and a disciple of Rudolf Bultmann, the famous (or, as I prefer, the infamous) liberal Protestant theologian whose scholarly technique of “demythologizing” Scriptures corrupted generations of students.

Since our Scripture studies were essentially divorced from the Catholic faith, it was only natural that we allowed Protestant seminarians to attend classes. I sat next to a rather charming African-American young lady who aspired to become a Methodist minister. She was also an advocate of multiculturalism. We had friendly chats.

During the semester, Father Otto asked each student to make a class presentation, usually a book report. On the day of her assignment, the young lady showed up with a slinky body suit. She placed a record player in the front of the class. After reading a passage from Saint Paul, she proceeded with an interpretative dance accompanied by a modern version of a Negro spiritual.

Her prancing was self-serious, shockingly absurd, maybe even intentionally campy (as they say in the movie biz), and very, very funny.  The seminarians sat in stunned silence.  Keith, a young guy from Pittsburgh, who looked like a steelworker, sat stiffly, with jaw dropped. Others were wide-eyed, equally startled.

For my part, I was horrified to feel laughter rising. Every passing second seemed an eternity. Our attention to the young lady arose from either horror or fascination.  So perhaps “horrified fascination” describes the effect of her camp act. And I was in mortal combat with an impulse towards uncontrolled laughter.

Click here to read the rest of Father Pokorsky’s column . . .

ABOUT REVEREND JERRY J. POKORSKY

Rev. Jerry J. Pokorsky

Father Jerry J. Pokorsky is a priest of the Diocese of Arlington. He is pastor of St. Catherine of Siena parish in Great Falls, Virginia.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a “Mass,” at St. Patrick’s Church, Seattle, WA,

Infant Sentenced To Death By European Human Rights Court

How is this any different from Hitler’s early “euthanasia” policies? It always starts the same way. The sick, the dying, the elderly, and of course the Jews are targeted first. Nazi Germany’s “euthanasia” program represented in many ways a rehearsal for Nazi Germany’s subsequent genocidal policies.

A European court has ruled that the parents of a critically ill baby cannot privately pay for him to go to the United States for “experimental treatment”, and the child must stay in a British hospital to “die with dignity”.The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son. (here….)

After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued that the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity.”

INFANT SENTENCED TO DEATH BY EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT

Daily Caller, June 30, 2017:

Ten-month-old Charlie Gard was sentenced to die by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Tuesday, who ruled against potentially life-saving treatment for him.

The ECHR ordered that Gard’s life support be shut off and blocked him from travel to the U.S. for an experimental treatment for which Gard’s parents raised over $1.7 million. Doctors diagnosed the infant boy with a rare mitochondrial disease, according to a report from Daily Mail. The court labeled the Gard’s appeal case “inadmissible” and upheld the previous decision of the U.K. High Court, saying their decision in Gard’s case was “final.”

“Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory — it has never even been tested on mouse models — but it may, or may not, subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations,” wrote Justice Francis in the High Court’s judgment. “But if Charlie’s damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all seem to agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is in a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?”

Francis then concluded that the hospital “may lawfully withdraw all treatment, save for palliative care, to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”

Gard was born with encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), which causes gradual muscle weakening and brain damage. Doctors at Ormond counseled Gard’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, to remove Gard’s ventilator in March and said it would be best for Gard to “die with dignity.” Gard’s parents refused on the grounds that they wanted to take Gard to the U.S. for a treatment known as nucleoside, which a doctor from the U.S. said he would be willing to perform.

Dr. Brian Callister of Nevada, who has spoken out against assisted suicide and euthanasia, said the court’s decision was contemptible.

“To withdraw life support against somebody’s will when they have hope of a treatment that either could extend their life or, who knows how long it could extend it, who knows what kind of quality of life may or may not be available — to take away that hope and say ‘you’re life is worth nothing’ I think is wrong on every level,” Callister told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s wrong on a human level. It’s wrong on any basic level of medical ethics, and there are medical ethicists out there in Europe and the United States who think that’s just fine. I think they’ve got a screw loose.”

The courts cited reports from expert counsel, which said that Gard was likely in pain and was suffering. However, Callister said that while it was possible that Gard was in pain, pain and suffering are subjective terms and typically are not the reasons that people legally end their lives, according to data from the state of Oregon.

“Pain is not even in the top five — doesn’t even make the top five of reasons listed in Oregon of people that commit assisted suicide,” Callister said. “It doesn’t make the top five. Burden to family, loss of autonomy —those are the top reasons people kill themselves legally.”

Callister was careful to differentiate between euthanasia and ending life support, which he said were two different matters. While euthanasia constitutes actively killing a person, ending the artificial prolonging of life via machines when a patient no longer wants to live via machine is simply “letting nature take its course” and is not morally reprehensible in Callister’s eyes. In Gard’s case, however, Callister said it was wrong of the court to deny his family the opportunity to seek treatment, whether or not it would have prolonged or saved Gard’s life, and the ruling could have “indirectly contributed to his death.”

Given the ECHR’s geographical range of jurisdiction, Callister also said he was suspicious of their stance on human rights, citing euthanasia practices in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“Keep in mind those are places where it’s legal to euthanize people now,” Callister said. “So, I’m going to be real suspect of any group that talks about human rights in places where euthanasia is legal, and I’m not talking about assisted suicide. I’m talking about actively killing people — often involuntarily or without their knowledge.”

The ECHR has made questionable calls concerning human rights in the past, such as when the court pressured Ireland to legalize abortion, saying that Ireland’s ban on abortion violated human rights and put mothers at risk of harm and death. Ireland, however, had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in Europe at the time and still does.

Gard’s parents were heartbroken over the ECHR’s decision, and though they cannot use the money they raised to save their son, they said they will donate the money for treatment of other children suffering from the same mitochondrial disease. Gard will be taken off life support Friday.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

John McEnroe is Right: Serena Williams Couldn’t Beat Eggs on Men’s Tour

It’s a sad time when simple truths cause serious trouble. But that time is now, and a good example is how former number-one tennis player John McEnroe is being excoriated for stating that Serena Williams, widely regarded as history’s best women’s player, would be “like number 700 in the world” on the men’s tour. The story is also further proof of how the media are infested with arrogant, ignorant fake-news fetishists.

I do place a premium on honesty, however, and thus should confess my title’s inaccuracy. McEnroe is wrong.

I don’t think Williams would crack the top 1000 men.

By the way, unlike the two-brain-cell media wonders bloviating about things they know nothing about, I’m not just a journalist: I once was a tennis professional who played the satellite circuit (tantamount to baseball’s minor leagues) and competed against world-ranked players — this included being a sparring partner for a highly ranked woman.

Williams tweeted to McEnroe to “please keep me out of your statements….” But she should have sent the message to NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro, who broached the matter — posing what could win the Stupid Question of the Month Award — while interviewing McEnroe about his new book. Here was the exchange:

Garcia-Navarro: …Let’s talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book.

McEnroe: Best female player ever — no question.

Garcia-Navarro: Some wouldn’t qualify it, some would say she’s the best player in the world. Why qualify it? [Uh, maybe because the women and men don’t compete together and that there’s a reason for this? Just a thought]

…McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men’s circuit she’d be like 700 in the world.

For not lying while answering a dumb question, McEnroe’s reward was to be labeled guilty of “sexism” and misogyny. Question: Is it sexism to say the top female track stars couldn’t beat the best 15-year-old boys?

Because the mile record for 15-year-old lads is in fact better than the women’s world record. My, those darn misogynistic stopwatches.

For the record, Williams has essentially acknowledged the reality here. As NY’s Daily News reported Thursday, in 2013 “Williams said she considered men’s tennis and women’s tennis to be two different sports. ‘If I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0 in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes,’ she said. …I only want to play girls because I don’t want to be embarrassed.”

For the record, while the 1973 “Battle of the Sexes” match in which Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs was thrown in McEnroe’s face, Riggs was a 55-year-old “jerk who dyes his hair, waddles like a duck and has trouble seeing,” as King put it at the time. King was 29 and the world’s number-two female player — and Riggs had beaten the number-one woman player, Margaret Court, earlier in the year, 6-1, 6-2.

For the record, Williams also tweeted, “I’ve never played anyone ranked ‘there’ [700] nor do I have time.” This may be true if she means a player exactly 700. But who do you think the women practice against? Highly ranked junior boys, male college players and male teaching pros — and they lose to the good ones.

I ought to know. I never lost a set to the woman, who’d been ranked 20 in the world, I sparred with (and I never had any kind of men’s world ranking).

Yet the media wouldn’t know any of this, partially because they couldn’t care less. It’s comical: In McEnroe they have a tennis legend. Yet instead of trying to learn while interviewing him — and informing their audience — they busy themselves attempting to extract an apology. I would ask them: I know you’re professional agitators, but for how many years did you play the tennis circuit? Is it at all possible McEnroe knows something you don’t?

This reflects a wider issue, though: It’s the exact same contempt for truth that brought us the CNN (Counterfeit News Network) scandal and reflects the sick, twisted world view informing that entity. The truth is considered out of bounds if it contradicts the leftist agenda, and those uttering it must be brought to heel.

Speaking of which, McEnroe did finally capitulate, not apologizing but saying he “regrets” his comments (between the lines: “because they elicited bad press”). And this is how fake-news fetishists guarantee fake answers.

By the by, on Tuesday’s “CBS This Morning,” McEnroe responded to some members of the ignorati with one of my ideas. Said he, “Why don’t you combine [the tours]…. I’m sure the men would be all for this: The men and women play together. And then we don’t have to guess.” The answer?

Because that would reveal an inconvenient truth and, again, the truth is not the media’s business.

In the final analysis, McEnroe served an ace, the media couldn’t touch it, but they’re also the linesmen and just called it out.  You see, they cannot be serious — but they sure know how to cheat.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

VIDEO: The Vortex—Destroying Innocents

Matthew 18:6

“If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a large millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned at the bottom of the sea.” – International Standard Version

To listen to the interview with Steven Crowder and Michael Voris click here.

EDITORS NOTE: Sign up for a Premium Membership: http://www.churchmilitant.com/user/su…

TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT: The Tipping Point of Multiculturalism

It is often necessary to look backward to move forward.

The United States of America was founded upon the democratic principles of freedom, equality, justice, and upward mobility – the opportunity to assert power over oneself and determine one’s own destiny. “Only in America” describes the wonder of upward mobility where success is determined by the individual not by the State. Unlike its English predecessor, American democracy guaranteed that in America it was not necessary to be born into wealth or born into the ruling aristocracy to achieve financial success or political power. The United States guarantees religious freedom to its citizens and further guarantees the separation of Church and State.

The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom ever created anywhere in the world. It has existed as the dream and beacon for freedom of oppressed people everywhere seeking refuge and safety from the tyranny of their own despotic governments. Since its inception the United States has welcomed freedom lovers who assimilate and embrace the United States Constitution, laws, traditions, and cultural norms through the process of legal immigration. We have been enriched by the contributions of legal immigrants in science, art, literature, music, medicine and every other sphere of American life. The combination of upward mobility and individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and incentivized by the opportunity for success produced the most powerful nation on Earth.

The history of immigration in America is the story of immigrants seeking refuge through legal immigration into the United States who assimilate and become part of the American dream – until now. America is currently under siege by immigrants with hostile cultural norms hoping to change American life rather than assimilate into it. Islam is on the march and hijrah, immigration jihad, is part of the plan.

Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Thomas Jefferson. Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Harry Truman. Islam is an issue for America now in the time of President Donald Trump because former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush rebranded Islam as a religion of peace.

Islam is not a religion of peace like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Islam is a unified socio-political system with a militarized wing, an educational wing, a religious wing, and enormous oil wealth. Islam is governed exclusively by religious sharia law. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is the transformation of the world into an Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. Islam is intolerant and recognizes sharia law exclusively. Islam is a supremacist socio-political movement seeking world dominion not a religion of peace. Islam is a threat to American democracy.

Historically the multiple cultures and people of the world were separated by physical and/or national boundaries. Wars were fought and boundaries changed but cultures and people with shared values shared their space. Immigration challenges societies with multiculturalism because immigration imports people with values and cultural norms unlike the host country. As long as the differences in cultural norms and values are secondary like foods, dress, holiday celebrations multiculturalism works. The difficulty arises when cultures with primary conflicting cultural norms and values attempt to occupy the same space in a country.

A society’s primary values and cultural norms are reflected in definitions of mental health and mental illness specific to that culture. The definitions identify what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and those values and norms are codified into laws that govern that society. Muslim societies governed by sharia law revere a father murdering his disobedient daughter as an “honor” killing. In Western society governed by secular Constitutional law a father murdering his disobedient daughter is an intolerable criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or death. Murdering an infidel, an apostate, a homosexual, or a disobedient wife are endorsed and rewarded by Islam. In Western societies all four are intolerable criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment or death.

The left-wing liberal apologists for Islam deny that irreconcilable differences exist among cultures and they are trying to persuade America that Islam, a supremacist socio-political movement is not a threat to democracy. The Leftists, using their politically correct moral relativism to justify tolerating the intolerable in America have reached the tipping point of multiculturalism by redefining treason as mental illness. Rebranding the threat does not make it any less threatening.

When definitions of mental health shift to accommodate political correctness and moral relativity society is pressured to tolerate the intolerable which threatens existing social norms and the laws that reflect them. In this circumstance mental health becomes politicized and can be used to defend the indefensible. When North Carolina psychologist tried to assert that an American jihadi was mentally ill the question becomes, “Mentally ill by whose standards?” The jihadi is considered a hero in Islam and a criminal in America. Western men and women who reject their Western cultural norms and embrace Islam and sharia law cannot be considered mentally ill if they embrace Islam. Their choices have consequences. They may renounce their Western cultural norms but must still be judged by them.

Apologist for Islam have curtailed their indefensible defense of Islam as a religion of peace and have launched a new campaign to present Islamic jihadi recruits as mentally ill. This new strategy was applied recently to defend jihadist Justin Sullivan in North Carolina. Reported by JihadWatch on June 28, 2017:

“Sison, a veteran federal public defender from Asheville, called one witness – a Durham psychologist who testified that Sullivan suffers from psychological problems that could spiral into full-fledged schizophrenia if does not receive adequate prison treatment or is housed with hardened inmates. Under questioning by Savage, Dr. Jim Hilkey said that during his 15 visits with Sullivan, his patient remained ardent in his Islamic beliefs and had not expressed remorse.”

Cultural relativity whether accepted as normative or defined as mental illness is problematic because both create social chaos.

Consider a society of cannibals for whom eating human flesh is normative. If an American travels to parts of tropical Africa where cannibalism is the cultural norm or learns of cannibalism on the Internet and decides to cannibalize his neighbor should he be considered mentally ill and absolved of his crime? Should he be free to cannibalize people because he has embraced cannibalism and it is normative in tropical Africa? The problem with cultural relativity is that it only works in subjective reality. In the real world of objective reality cannibals cannot be tolerated in non-cannibal societies because accepting the hostile norms of the cannibals is an existential threat to the non-cannibals. Perhaps the Leftists will defend cannibalism on the grounds of moral relativity or cultural relativity. Perhaps they will set up cannibal courts and establish a two-tier system of justice one for cannibals and one for non-cannibals.

Cultural and religious freedom guarantees cultural and religious tolerance but when tolerating the intolerable become an existential threat to society the tipping point of multiculturalism has been reached. Cultural relativity that posits all cultures are equal in value is diametrically opposed to civilized society, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Religious freedom does not require American society to import or support those who wish to transform American social norms rather than assimilate into American society.

There must be limits of tolerance in a tolerant society because tolerating the intolerable is the tipping point of multiculturalism. It is cultural suicide to tolerate the intolerable.

Steve Wonder Dragged Back To Liberal Plantation

Stevie Wonder’s call to say I love you to black Americans was rejected by black and white Leftists.

Leftists were outraged over Wonder’s compassionate message to his fellow blacks,

“It is in your hands to stop all the killing and shooting wherever it might be. Because you cannot say ‘Black Lives Matter’ and then kill yourselves.” 

Leftists view Mr Wonder as an uppity n***** who wandered off their Liberal plantation. Yes, Leftists do freely use the n word. Repeatedly, Leftists have called me a stupid n word for refusing their chains on my brain. My singing performance at the 2010 rally opposing Obamacare in DC was broadcast on C-span. Leftists across America called me the n word and worse; including death threats.

Black overlords were immediately dispatched to drag back their musical-icon run-a-way slave. After a high-tech whipping in the media public square, emotionally bloody and repentant, Mr Wonder dialed back his truthful comments.

As a black conservative activist, my frustration is getting fellow black Americans to see the light of how Leftists and Democrats are using them. My black daddy raised me to believe Democrat is the party of the little guy/working man. Republicans are for the rich. Most blacks do not realize the Democrat party leadership has been hijacked by extreme liberal radicals (Leftists). At their core is a hatred for America as founded, traditional values of hard-work, individuality, self-reliance, independence and faith in the God of Christianity.

In simple language, liberals believe in spreading mediocrity equally. Liberals believe no one should have more than someone else. Beginning in kindergarten, liberals teach their hatred for achievers disguised as “social justice” and the evils of “white privilege”

Most blacks do not realize that Leftists believe implementing their extreme liberal agenda trumps everything, including black lives. Leftists deem blacks, women, homosexuals and all minorities useful idiots to be used to implement their anti-American and godless agenda. Speaking of godless, if you list Leftists sacred cow issues, they are all against biblical teachings.

Stevie Wonder stating the obvious that blacks should stop killing each other was not good for furthering Leftists’ agenda. Leftists want blacks to believe America is a hell-hole of racism where cops murder them on sight. This lie helps Leftists sell their lie that the only way to save black lives is for the federal government to takeover police departments. This would further Leftists’ agenda of government repealing our freedoms and controlling every aspect of our lives. Most blacks do not realize that Obama’s government controlled health-care gave them power to decide who lives and who dies.

You may be scratching your head wondering why black leaders were outraged over Mr Wonder’s attempt to save black lives. The truth is black Democrat leaders are Leftists first and black second. Most black so-called civil rights groups want to keep blacks down, dependent on big daddy government. They want blacks engaged in poverty producing behaviors; dropping out of school, having babies out of wedlock and killing each other.

If this was not true, how would you explain black Leftists’ anger over real common sense solutions offered by successful blacks; Stevie Wonder, Herman Cain, Justice Clarence Thomas and Dr Ben Carson to name a few?

Civil rights icon, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr is rolling over in his grave over the betrayal of black leaders. Dr King made the ultimate sacrifice for blacks to strive for excellence and have a fair shot at achieving their American dream. Dr King did not die for blacks to be eternally enslaved by the federal government; monolithic voting for Democrats to get just enough free-stuff to get by.

Dr King had no idea his movement would be transformed into a grievance industry which keeps Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and the Obamas fat, happy and rich. Meanwhile, urban blacks continue in a downward spiral of black-on-black crime and generational poverty. Stats prove that blacks actually moved backwards during the 8 year reign of the first black president. Why aren’t most blacks questioning why? Or, will blacks stay stuck on stupid, believing Leftists’ lie that all their problems are the fault of white American racism, Republicans and now Donald Trump?

I was disappointed when Mr Wonder walked back his statement of truth. However, I understand the pressure on Mr Wonder must have been tremendous. Leftists attack with furious anger, seeking to destroy anyone who dares to speak truth contradicting their narrative.

Hey boy, sing your pretty songs. But, don’t you never ever again speak out against the family!