Jew Murdered in Miami Beach not a Hate Crime?

On the anniversary of my dear Mother’s passing, I beg you to pray deeply for the safety of the Jewish People and the State of Israel that she adored and to dedicate an hour of precious time to reading the world’s best seller, our Holy Bible, written by the world’s most popular Author.

Last week, I heatedly debated a successful Jewish entrepreneur in Sarasota, Florida, and community leader, whose solution to the rabid global anti-Semitism and relentless Hamas missile attacks against Israel, was to sell “the strip” of Israel to the Arabs and move the Jews to the United States, where they will be safe…. These proved to be very ominous words ….

Our safety as Jews in America is symbolized by our latest tragedy. A 60-year-old Orthodox Rabbi on vacation from New York, on a picturesque placid North Miami Beach street, at 9:00 AM, in bright daylight, on his way to Shul in his daughter’s Jewish community, a neighborhood where there are nearly a dozen synagogues, was murdered by two young men, one clad in yellow and one in orange, one on foot and one on a bicycle, who simply left the surreal scene, and remain at large.

Our safety can be summarized by the assurances from law enforcement in the area that there is no indication of a hate crime when a bearded Orthodox grandfather, looking distinctively Jewish and distinguishly dressed for Shabbat, walking ahead of his grandchildren on a street in a Jewish neighborhood, is repeatedly shot by two young Black men, minus an altercation, minus any money on the Jew, without any clues as to the murderers’ identities, and minus an encompassing investigation.

Without an investigation, the determination had already been made, hours after the crime scene was viewed, that the youths’ heinous acts were not designed to murder a Jew on a Jewish street in a Jewish community on the Jewish Sabbath as the Jew walked to a nearby Jewish house of worship. After all, who does not carry loaded guns on sunny Saturday mornings that might just accidentally shoot down a Jew multiple times, without malice, of course?

Our safety can be shown by the swastikas and word “Hamas” painted hugely upon a nearby Shul days before the Rabbi’s murder and by the Jewish cars that were covered on a recent Jewish Sabbath with eggs and cream cheese in the same Jewish neighborhood with the words “Hamas” and “Jew” written on their windows.

In answer to the safety of American Jews and Jews worldwide, somehow I cannot buy the offer that selling that little strip of land coincidentally called the Holy Land in the Holy Bible will suffice the insatiable lust for hate against a tiny strip of People coincidentally called “the apple of His eye.” Whether in the Big Apple or the pineapple state or the State of Israel, crimes against Jews are real in real-time.

Charity Begins at Home

Americans have lost their minds. Forgive me for not expending any of my emotional energy or shedding any tears for those illegals coming into America. No, I can’t get all wrapped up in the plight of all the illegal children whose derelict parents are sending them thousands of miles on a dangerous journey alone.

I can’t help but to invest my emotion into citizens who have lost family members because someone in the country illegally was involved in a drunken driving incident; or whose daughter was raped by an illegal; or whose home was broken into by an illegal. I can’t feel sorry for kids in Central America or worry about their plight when you have American kids who are homeless and no one seems to care about them.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the number of children in the United States is 74.2 million, this at an all-time high. However, the share of the national population who are children (24 percent) is at an all-time low. Based on this data, 54 percent of these children are White, 23 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are Black, and 4 percent are Asian. Furthermore, though Black children are only 14 percent of the population, they are 27 percent of all children in the foster care system, according to the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. Disturbingly, they stay in the system longer than any other demographic.

There is a record 1.16 million students in the United States who were homeless last year, according to U.S. Department of Education. That’s just 100,000 shy of matching the population of Dallas. Were the homeless a city, they would be larger than San Francisco, San Jose, Indianapolis or Charlotte. They would be larger than St. Louis, New Orleans and Pittsburgh combined.

The states with the largest increases of homeless students were: California, New York, Texas, and Florida. That should come as no surprise because these are the same states with the largest population of people in the U.S. illegally.

The Obama administration has encouraged a flood of illegal children to trek across Central America through Mexico into the U.S. because they have made it perfectly clear that they will not enforce our immigration laws. This public declaration has put our own kids at dire risk. According to Reuters, “An estimated 60,000 such children will pour into the United States this year, according to the [Obama] administration, up from about 6,000 in 2011. Now, Obama is trying to figure out how to pay for their food, housing, schooling and transportation.

So, with this backdrop, can someone tell me again why I am supposed to feel sorry for these illegals?

I am sick and tired of hearing all the sad sob stories. It’s not America’s fault that other countries have high levels of crime. We have our own problems. Have you been to Chicago lately? It’s not America’s fault that other countries have few jobs. Have you seen the Black unemployment rate? It’s not America’s fault that families have made the decision to enter into the U.S. illegally and be separated from their family. Have you seen our foster care system lately?

You want to hear about sad stories? Let’s try this one. In June of 2013, Arizona policeman, Daryl Raetz, was killed in a DUI crash by an illegal who was drunk and on cocaine. He left the scene, but the police later caught him and found he had been deported earlier but reentered the country.

Here’s another one: In August 2012, an illegal drunk driver killed Sister Denise Mosier on a Virginia highway. The illegal driver was a repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings. He had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities. At the time, he was in the deportation process and released on his own recognizance.

One final story: Last year, an illegal raped a preteen girl and forced her to have an abortion. He was sentenced to less than seven years in jail and permanently barred from the U.S. after completing his sentence. And the Pope is the last person I want addressing a moral or humanitarian crises after the silence of his church while little boys were being raped.

We are a compassionate country. However, our compassion is being misdirected in this case. Charity begins at home, not on the order side of the border.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama Administration Released Over 600 Illegal Immigrants With Criminal Convictions

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Patriotic Pictures and Patriotic Flag Shirts.

The Guardian of the Guilty

Despite England’s experiences during World War II and her current informal “occupation” by her own brand of deadly Islamists, The Guardian’s views are neither civilized nor rational. In his column, Gaza: this shameful injustice will only end if the cost of it rises, Seurnas Milne has a willful misinterpretation of the events in the Middle East.  His column is laden with stark hatred and lies, and he clearly champions a policy that supports the Hamas Covenant, a Charter that calls for the eventual creation of the 58th Islamic state in “Palestine,” and the obliteration or dissolution of the only homeland for the Jewish people – as well as the annihilation of the Jewish people worldwide.

The Guardian is often factually inaccurate, as its writers insist on their own type of equity for what amounts to a verbal pogrom against the Jewish state – but not against tyrannical regimes.  However, even ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), Syrian American Medical Society, Syrian Relief and Development, Muslim Public Affairs Council and Islamic Relief USA recently condemned Syria’s chemical weapons attack of her people (including women and children).  When it was revealed that at least 108 people, including 49 children under age 10, were slaughtered in the 15-month Houla massacre, it was explained as acceptable that tyrants kill children to intimidate the opposition!

There was no demand for equal justice when Mahmoud Abbas’s terrorists slaughtered the 11 Israeli athletes in 1972 Munich, and no demand for vengeance for the beheading of Jewish-American journalist, Daniel Pearl. They expressed no shock at the injustice of Israel’s exchange of 1027 terrorist prisoners for the life of one kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, or when terrorists slaughtered the Fogel family or the three Israel teenagers. They maintained their silence throughout the firing of thousands of rockets into Israel from Gaza, never demanding balance with an equal number of rockets from Israel to Gaza.

To define this further, Israel follows the rules of war and targets military combatants (after warning Palestinian citizens to escape Israel’s retaliation), whereas Hamas intentionally targets civilians, deliberately focusing on children, thereby breaking two rules of war – killing their own and Israel’s children.  The media cry that there weren’t enough Jewish children killed to match the number of Muslim children, and they want to blame only Israel for the death of Muslim children even when Hamas is entirely responsible.  All the wars were begun with Islamic attacks and, by international law, Israel has every right to defend herself – her boundaries and her citizens.

The media offer little coverage when the Islamic culture encourages children to detonate themselves among Israelis, and when parents celebrate the occasions with candy, enjoying Hamas’s gifts, and naming town squares after their expendable offspring.  And although sharia law denounces music and dance, it appears to be acceptable to revel in the streets for their martyred sons and daughters.

The hostile Guardian and similar news sources raise their voices only for the number of Palestinian children killed, although the BBC has been awakened to new evidence that numbers received from Gaza are quite skewed.  Israel provides shelters for their children; Gazans provide shelter for their rockets, and endanger children for an increased body count for public sympathy. And while Israel’s hypocritical enemies, including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, call Hamas a humanitarian organization, the West continues its funding for inhumane reasons – such as for the extensive system of tunnels dug for access to Israeli children’s schools and kibbutzim for an impending hands-on carnage.

Land acquisition is a major priority for the Islamic agenda, and the Qur’an allows deception, lies, and human sacrifice for the cause.  Islam also relies on the humanity and basic decency of Judeo-Christian people and nations to disbelieve what we find unfathomable.  Jihad exists in many ways, from Israel to Africa, Scandinavia, Spain, Germany, China, America and England. Few journalists are fit to report accurately or are willing to accept the truth for themselves.  None of these host countries, including Israel, is an “occupier,” yet each is an invaded land, and we should be defending our homeland NOW, or be prepared to relinquish our identity and culture to Islamic oppression.

As in the greater Middle East, where previous peoples have been annihilated or Islamized, they could not adequately defend themselves and were conquered by Islam.  Israel can, will, and has every right to do so under international law.

Jihad training begins with treating children as chattel and indoctrinating them at an early age to hate the kaffir (the “rejecter” of Allah). Pedophilia, demoralizing and frightening to the children, is legalized, and “thighing” infants to raping young children” will continue in the Muslim world as long as “Allah” encourages men to be owners instead of husbands and fathers. Sodomizing a baby is halal (permitted under Sharia law).

Pre-adolescent marriage is codified in Qur’an 65:4, and women are held hostage under law, subject to severe punishment, and it is under these circumstances that children are raised to be fearful and subservient to their master. Polygamy also affects children, immersing them in a self-pitying, resentful, victim mentality.  If the reader would like to delve further into this depraved culture, please read Nonie Darwish’s Cruel and Usual Punishment.

The primarily unschooled, illiterate majority, who foresee no self-fulfillment or escape, become hair-trigger-angry young men who hate their lot in life, are brainwashed and compelled to do as bidden, and prepared to die for the cause.  In so doing, they see a way out – an escape to tranquility and the promise of sexual pleasures in Paradise.

These are but a few of the reasons that create an unfeeling underclass of warriors who have no sympathy for children, but will use them for their purpose. Keeping children near explosives and bombs will ultimately lead to an increased body count, just as using child labor for tunnel excavation resulted in the loss of more than 160.  Not only are women and children placed on rooftops of targeted buildings (those from which rockets are fired into Israel) and used as human shields, but a recent video showed jihadists hanging small, terrified, crying boys from a targeted building’s fence. And if these children do survive their childhood, they will become the next generation of damaged, robotic killers who feel no compassion and are inured to pain and bloodshed.

This is a horrific example of child abuse to which the media turn a blind eye, and the U.N. fails to address. Rather, the immoral go out of their way to blame the Israel Defense Forces for harming women and children who are forced into such circumstances. The media fail us, just as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) predicted.  Journalists like Milne, whether cowardly or deceptive, would become an acquiescent, obedient djimmi, a “useful idiot” that represents the Islamic-fascist mentality, willing to accept caliphate domination in the interest of hate or “peace.”

A recently discovered Hamas manual verifies its method of urban warfare.  “Introduction to the City War” extols the benefits of civilian deaths and admits that Israel tries to avoid them. This is not a Hamas war against ”occupiers,” but an Islamic war to annihilate the entire state of Israel, against which Israel must continue to defend until there is unconditional surrender.  It is also a reminder that this is WAR – a global war – against all who will not accept Islamic Sharia law.  And, if the media continue its stance against Israel, and continue to look away from Islam’s slaughter of Christians, they may well be designing a future for themselves under the very cruel and severe Sword of Allah, from which no conquered nation has ever recovered.

RELATED ARTICLE: Horror – Anglican Vicar of Baghdad: “Child I Baptized Cut in Half by ISIS”

Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics — was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is. Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.

But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.

Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.

Moreover, you have to add to this the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s creation of a status quo in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. This is significant because, like it or not and whatever the causes, there is an ironclad correlation between racial/ethnic identification and voting patterns. The GOP derives 90 percent of its votes from approximately 63 percent of the population: whites. In contrast, there is no major non-white group (note that I’m including Hispanics in this even though most are anthropologically classified as Caucasian) that doesn’t break Democrat by wide margins. Blacks cast approximately 94 percent of their votes for Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians come in at about 75 percent.

So if you’re a Machiavellian leftist who values power above all else, what do you do?

You increase the non-white segment of the population while decreasing the white segment percentagewise — as much and as fast as possible.

Call this demographic warfare. The idea is that if the people won’t change the government to your liking, you change the people.

This places our current border crisis in perspective. It explains why Barack Obama will not enforce immigration law. It explains why we’ve had seven amnesties during the last few decades, all accompanied by unfulfilled promises to secure the border. And it explains why a promoter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hard-core leftist Ted Kennedy. Expecting power-hungry Democrats to seal the border and not facilitate the invasion of our nation is like supposing they will cancel their get-out-the-vote drives. Migration — illegal and legal — is one of the main ways in which they grow their constituencies.

Yet while we, again, face a largely statist world, Democrats would still prefer non-white migrants. There could be many reasons for this, but I will mention three. First, many such migrants are especially socialist, which is why south-of-the-border peoples have elected demagogues such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Second, they’re poor. This means that, unlike some European immigrants, they have no reason to be concerned about higher income tax rates. It also means that in a prosperous land in which they see wealth surrounding them, their socialist tendencies will be stoked all the more. Envy is a dangerous and easily exploited sin, and why shouldn’t they get a piece of that American pie?

Lastly there is the divide-and-conquer factor. Even if European immigrants are left-leaning, they will nonetheless associate with and more quickly assimilate into the more conservative white majority. In contrast, consider Hispanic immigrants. They generally will circulate within a left-leaning group — the wider Hispanic community — which places them in an echo chamber in which their socialist tendencies are reinforced, nurtured and where deviation from them could make one a pariah. It also makes them ripe for racial/ethnic demagoguery. You don’t want to vote like the gringos, do you? And I think here about how Obama told Hispanics in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections to “punish” their “enemies.” To whom do you think he was referring?

In fact, assimilation of many of these newcomers isn’t just unlikely, it’s impossible. This is because we have in our midst more than just an ethnic echo chamber — we have a burgeoning nation within our nation.

Consider: approximately 50 percent of our legal immigrants come from Mexico, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. This translates into a legal and illegal Mexican-heritage population of 20 to 30 million — perhaps 20 percent of Mexico’s population. The consequences of such an unbalanced and suicidal immigration policy are severe, and they were explained well by University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.

So liberals are seeking to overwhelm what they call white America through demographic change. In the name of power, of a get-in-the-vote drive, they happily commit cultural genocide, the fear of which, Professor Tierney goes on to write, “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. … For example, in the Mexican-United States case….”

This is why our handwringing over the current border crisis is a little ironic. Yes, the situation is outrageous, but taking exception to illegal migration while blithely accepting our legal-immigration regime is like thinking that government death squads are preferable to roving gangs of murderous miscreants. Demographically, politically and culturally the two types of migration have precisely the same effect. All the illegal variety does is accelerate the process, giving the left more votes now and authentic Americanism a quicker, and perhaps more merciful, death.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is of President Johnson signing the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 bill taken by Yoichi Okamoto, White House Photo Office.

Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: Would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will “never” be accepted in the U.S. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term “gay marriage”) would “never” be accepted in America. Sometimes “never” lasts only a decade or two.

Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received “unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are “born that way” and have a “deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”  A film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as “the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is “normative” and those acting on it are unjustly “demonized.” Why, one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, “These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”

My, where have we heard that before?

So, modern Millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among “these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why “social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.

I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head, using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.

Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.

After all, what are “social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.

Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.

There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.

Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed “war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.

Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.

So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all “judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would “impose morality.” But what we call “social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern Millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment.

But rest assured that, one day, the moment and “never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.

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

A Remarkable 37th President

Forty years ago, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the office of President; the first and only President to do so.

I was just into my thirties in 1968, the year Richard Nixon was elected the 37th President of the United States. What I recall most of that year was the way the Chicago police, after enduring an onslaught of name-calling and insults from anti-war protesters aggressively drove them away from their effort to disrupt the Democratic Party convention that would nominate Hubert Humphrey.

His opponent would be Nixon. George Wallace, a segregationalist, ran as an independent that year as well. I wasn’t particularly interested in politics at the time. My focus was on my career where I had transitioned from having been a journalist to positions with the New York State Housing Finance Agency and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Looking back, I now know I should have been paying more attention because, in the end, whoever is President affects the lives of not just Americans, but others throughout the world.

Like millions of Americans I had turned against the Vietnam War and, in a seminal way, it would influence my movement toward conservatism. For many people Nixon was instrumental, not just in rejuvenating the Republican Party, but for giving a voice to the “silent majority” who didn’t like the war in general and Lyndon Baines Johnson in particular. In 1968, LBJ announced he would not seek reelection.

Cover - Greatest ComebackIn the years since the Watergate scandal whose cover-up forced Nixon to resign in 1974, subsequent generations know him only for that historic event. Patrick J. Buchanan has done us all a favor by writing “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority.” and it is a special treat for anyone who loves history in general and politics in particular.

As much as today’s media may have loved Obama when he was nominated the Democratic Party’s candidate, in Nixon’s day he was loathed by them for his strong anti-communist stance when he served in the House of Representatives and Senate, and thereafter throughout the Cold War. After having been Eisenhower’s Vice President for two terms, Nixon would lose to John F. Kennedy in 1960 and in a race to become the Governor of California in 1962. Few would have ever imagined that he would be elected President in 1968. In 1972 he was reelected in a landslide.

Labeled by his political enemies “Tricky Dick”, Nixon was a politician of prodigious talent, but mostly he was a man who, through sheer determination overcame defeat, revived the Republican Party, and, while devoted to conservative principles, was also pragmatic enough to be open to new ideas and events. His circle of advisors shared his principles, but diverged among each other as to tactics and issues. Nixon wanted that. He would choose what advice he thought best.

Buchanan was a member of Nixon’s inner circle, a writer of superb talent and one with a keen eye for the political times in which he lived and which Nixon would shape. As he notes in his book, “The years that followed that 1969 inaugural would be a time of extraordinary accomplishment. By the spring of 1973, all U.S. troops were out of Vietnam, the POWs were home, every provincial capital was in Saigon’s (South Vietnam) hands.”

“Nixon had negotiated SALT I and the ABM treaty, the greatest arms-limitation treaties since the Washington Naval Agreement” in 1922. Significantly, “he had ended decades of hostility between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, dating to Mao’s revolution and the Korean War. He had put an end to the draft, signed into law the eighteen-year-old vote, put four justices on the Supreme Court including Chief Justice Warren Burger and future chief justice William Rehnquist.”

Those of us who lament Big Government must acknowledge that Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the plus side the National Cancer Institute. He would “rescue Israel from defeat in the Yom Kippur War (and) end Soviet domination of Egypt.”

What I recall about the 1960s was how volatile and violent that decade was. There were riots in many of our largest cities which engendered Nixon’s “law and order” message that was widely embraced. There were anti-war protests and there were assassinations that took the lives of JFK, his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The greatest contrast between now and then is a general feeling of apathy that does not manifest itself in marches on Washington, D.C. anymore and a very distinct breakdown in social mores that includes the embrace of same-sex marriage and the push to legalize marijuana in some states.

The al Qaeda attack on 9/11 generated a massive intelligence program and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It made Americans angry enough at first to endorse the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq.

Later Americans would watch the chaos the “Arab Spring” and these days the threat of the Islamic State, a self-declared caliphate that intends to control the whole of the Middle East and then destroy Israel and the U.S. The greatest threat of our times is Iran’s intention to build its own nuclear weapons.

Nixon brought about change on the basis of his vast knowledge of history, foreign affairs, and his judgment regarding the American people. By contrast, President Obama does not seem to like the American people or America.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

The True Face of Evil

On Sunday, July 17, Barack and Michelle Obama released a statement officially recognizing Eid-al-Fitr, a Muslim celebration marking the end of the month-long fast of Ramadan.

In his statement, Obama said, “As Muslims throughout the United States and around the world celebrate Eid-al-Fitr, Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to them and their families… While Eid marks the completion of Ramadan, it also celebrates the common values that unite us in our humanity and reinforces the obligations that people of all faiths have to each other, especially those impacted by poverty, conflict, and disease.”

He concluded by saying, “In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy…”

No one in the mainstream media has found the courage to ask, “Mr. President, exactly what achievements and contributions have Muslims made toward building the very fabric of American society and strengthening the core of our democracy?”

From the very birth of our nation, Islam has been a thorn in the side of those patriots who actually created our system of government and who cherished our unique American values and traditions.  According to a WorldNetDaily (WND) editorial titled, “Founding Fathers Rip Obama’s Muslim ‘Fabric,’ ” WND tells us that, in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Navy to the Barbary Coast in North Africa to put an end to the Muslim practice of boarding U.S. ships, plundering their cargos, and selling crew members into slavery.

Then, in 1814, when Tripoli broke the Jeffersonian truce and began attacking U.S. ships once again, President John Adams described Islam’s founder, Mohammed, as “a military fanatic,” and referred to Islamic law as “contemptible.”

Following his term in the White House (1825-29), President John Quincy Adams was even more brutal in his assessment of Mohammed and the “religion” he founded.  He wrote, “(Mohammed) poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.  The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”

Adams continued, “The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that (Mohammed) is the prophet of God.  The vanquished may purchase their lives by the payment of tribute, the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace, and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat.  But the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

Sorry, Obama, but it doesn’t sound as if our Founding Fathers shared your generous opinion of the peace-loving nature of Islam.  To the contrary, they would not be surprised at the actions of radical Islamists today.

News reports tell us that some 40,000 members of the Yazidi Zoroastrian sect, one of Iraq’s oldest minorities, are now stranded on Mount Sinjar, reputed to be the place where Noah’s ark came to rest.  Mount Sinjar is a rugged mile-high peak in northwest Iraq, an area surrounded by a bloodthirsty horde of Islamic State in Syria (ISIS) thugs.  The Yazidis face almost certain slaughter if they descend the mountain and certain death from starvation and dehydration if they remain where they are.  Although they have been hiding out on the mountain for weeks, short of food and water, it was not until August 7 that Obama acted to prevent a horrific genocide.

Elsewhere in Iraq, grisly photographs show untold numbers of Iraqi soldiers lying in a ditch, covered in blood, their hands behind their heads.  Iraqi Lt. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi confirmed the authenticity of the photos, saying that he is aware of mass executions of captured Iraqi soldiers in areas controlled by ISIS.  In just one such photograph, analysts were able to count approximately 170 dead soldiers in a single mass grave.

In an even more grisly video, an ISIS soldier takes a cameraman on a tour of a block-long section of steel fence made of long vertical pikes, approximately twelve inches apart and pointed at the top like spears.  Strewn along the sidewalk in that block-long tour were eight bodies, all without heads, while sixteen of the steel pikes were adorned with the severed heads of Iraqis who were apparently on the wrong side in the war.  Some of the heads were mounted through the severed neck, some through the mouth, and still others through an eye socket.

As if these ghastly horrors are not enough, it has also been reported that Sunni ISIS militants have ordered that all women and girls in the conquered areas of Syria and Iraq, up to age forty-nine, must undergo female genital mutilation (female circumcision).  This “fatwa” would require some four million women and girls in the Mosul area, alone, to undergo the hideous procedure.

Wikipedia tells us that, while it is not made mandated by the Koran, female genital mutilation has been practiced throughout the Islamic world for centuries.  In the most gruesome form of FGM, known as Type III, or “infibulation,” all of the inner and outer portions of the genitalia are cut away, the wound is closed either with surgical thread, with agave or acacia thorns, or with a poultice made of raw egg, herbs, and sugar.  A 2-5 mm twig or a lump of rock salt is inserted to create an opening for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid.

The girl’s legs are then bound together so that opposing tissues will bond.  The bindings are loosened after a week and totally removed after two weeks.  In some Muslim cultures the severed parts are placed in a pouch that the girl can wear around her neck as a badge of honor.

Wikipedia reference sources indicate that female genital mutilation is practiced in Africa, the

Middle East, Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as among some immigrants in Europe, the U.S., in Australia, and South Asia.  The greatest prevalence of the practice is found in African countries, in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Ethiopia in the east, and from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south.  Best estimates are that 125 million women and girls have been subjected to the procedure in twenty-seven African nations, Yemen, and Iraqi Kurdistan.

In spite of all this, Barack Obama and other Muslim apologists would have us believe that only five percent (7,000,000) of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are radicalized and that ninety-five percent are so-called “moderates.”  Islamic “moderates” can be judged as guiltless bystanders only in the sense that German citizens of Dachau were guiltless in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Jews only a stone’s throw from their homes.  Anyone who has ever visited the Dachau concentration camp and spent a night in a Dachau hotel understands that it was literally impossible to live just outside the walls of Dachau and not know what was going on inside.

Why did they remain silent?  For the same reason that “moderate” Muslims remain silent in the face of a worldwide holocaust executed by their Muslim brethren… a holocaust that promises to make the Nazi holocaust of the 1930s and ‘40s pale by comparison.  They are afraid to say or do anything that will upset radicalized Muslims who not only do not fear death… they welcome it.

At the close of World War II it was clear that the Soviet Union was intent upon territorial expansion in eastern Europe and the spread of world communism to western Europe and the U.S.  But communism was a danger only to the freedom of conquered peoples; its primary motivation was not universal genocide, as is the case with radical Islam.  Rather, its primary interest was in establishing political and economic dominion throughout the world.

In response to the unfettered spread of the communist ideology, the U.S. Congress passed the Security Act of 1950 (the McCarran Act) and the Communist Control Act of 1954.  These were in addition to the Smith Act of 1940 which provided criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment for up to twenty years for anyone who:

“…with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or…organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.”

The Smith Act of 1940, the wording of which describes all of the potential anti-American activities of radical Islam, as well as the Communist Control Act of 1954, remain in force today and the Congress should be urged to amend both acts to include participation in radical Islamist activities in mosques or elsewhere.

Lest anyone be concerned about potential violations of constitutional rights, Islam cannot be seen as a religion protected by the First Amendment.  Instead, it is a complete political, economic, military, and cultural movement with a religious component.  It is the true face of evil and must be excised from all nations of the civilized world.

RELATED ARTICLE: Horror – Anglican Vicar of Baghdad: “Child I Baptized Cut in Half by ISIS”

Thanks, Russia, but We’ll Mock Obama Without Your Help

Both the Washington Post and Huffington Post have recently condemned the anti-Obama street art display near the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, which taunted Barack Obama on his birthday with racist references.

Interestingly enough, the same media organs, notorious for their unwavering support of this president, had neglected to cover a series of recent better-executed and more tasteful anti-Obama displays by American street artists in AugustaSanta MonicaLos Angeles, and Silicon Valley.

Granted, the American anti-Obama artists didn’t give the media an opportunity to cry “racism.” Is that why the U.S.-based artists weren’t deemed worthy of a story? In defense of the pro-Obama journalists, it’s a lot harder to defend their protégé when the charges are not race-related. The prank in Moscow, however, was a smorgasbord of monkeys, bananas, and dog whistles — everything the left-wing media requires to reinforce its own narrative: all criticism of Obama is based in racism. “They just hate him because he’s black.”

As usual, their anti-racist sanctimony has once again blinded the media to the real story.

To describe the Moscow display as merely “racist” would be just as parochial and myopic as to describe the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq as a threat to gender equality in the workplace. Both statements would be somewhat true, but they would also reveal the superficiality of an obsessive-compulsive mind focused exclusively on pet-peeve issues. They might have just as effectively scorned the unhip cut of the Nazi uniforms as the Germans advanced across Europe.

Of all the problems with the Obama-mocking display, racism is probably the least disturbing. Trust me as someone who comes from the former USSR: those “patriots” don’t hate Obama “just because he’s black.” They hate him because in their minds he represents the “vile” America — including its “stupid” people, its “horrible” history, its “materialistic” values, and its “unfair” economy.

Make no mistake, the insult was directed at the United States — a country they love to hate for a whole lot of reasons — outlandish reasons without a doubt, but among which racism won’t even make to the top hundred. More precisely, the actual object of their hatred is not as much the America we know, but an ugly, far-fetched and perverted depiction of it — something that Putin’s jingoistic propaganda has been creating and planting in people’s heads for quite some time. If this attack on Obama was indeed an act of citizen activism, that would be the best evidence of how successful Russia’s state-run media machine has been.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PJ Media’s Tatler.

“All We Need Is the Right People to Run the Government” by Melvin D. Barger

It’s been a time-honored practice in America to “throw the rascals out” when things go wrong in government. This supposedly is merely the political version of what happens when the manager of a losing baseball team is replaced, or the chief executive officer of a failing corporation gets the axe.

Nobody should dispute the fact that government operations require capable, experienced people who know how to do their jobs. We’ve all probably had unpleasant bouts with incompetent public officials and clerks, and we wish they could be replaced.

But when government expands beyond its rightful limits, problems arise that have little to do with the competence and abilities of its officials and employees. The delusion that these problems can be solved by replacing officials only delays the day when people face the hard questions about what government should do and should not do.

Thanks to the relentless expansion of government, however, these questions are being asked the world over, with surprising solutions in some cases. There is growing criticism of government operations and regulations. There is also a rush to “privatize” many services. Though privatization moves are being made for economic reasons rather than to restore liberty, they still appear as hopeful signs.

The most important reason for limiting government to its rightful peacekeeping functions is to preserve and promote liberty. If this is done, people working singly or in groups will eventually find wonderful ways of dealing with the many human problems that government promises to solve, and meeting the human needs that government promises to meet. But as we now know, problems and needs continue to grow while the government colossus has created dangers, such as mountainous public debt and group conflicts that threaten us all and seem beyond solution. These problems worsen no matter who seems to be running things in government. Even people who used to have almost religious faith in the powers of government are becoming disillusioned as its clay feet become more exposed.

A second dilemma with excessive government is that it must always be run bureaucratically. Bureaucracy can be a maddening thing for people who have been accustomed to the speed and efficiency of market-driven services. When confronted with bureaucratic actions that displease us we tend to blame the officials in charge and call for their replacement.

But unless the officials we want replaced are completely incompetent, rooting them out is usually a waste of time and effort. As Ludwig von Mises explained many years ago, bureaucracy is neither good nor bad. Bureaucratic management is the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs, the result of which has no cash value on the market, though it may have other values to society. It is management bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by an authoritative body. “The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do,” Mises explained. “His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.”

Thus bureaucracy is good (and inevitable, but easily excessive, and even ridiculous and unresponsive much of the time) when it is applied in public operations such as police departments, military forces, and records bureaus. But it becomes oppressive and deadly when it is imposed on business enterprises and other human activities. As Mises shrewdly saw, the evil in bureaucracy was not in the method itself. “What many people nowadays consider an evil is not bureaucracy as such,” he pointed out, “but the expansion of the sphere in which bureaucratic management is applied.”

Mises then contrasted this bureaucratic system with business management or profit management, which is management directed by the profit motive. Managers, driven by the need to stay profitable (which is to say, to keep costs below income), can be given wide discretion with a minimum amount of rules and regulations. And customers will quickly let them know whether the business is providing proper goods and services and prices which customers consider favorable.

This profit-driven system has its opponents, of course, and this creates problems and frictions for entrepreneurs who want to compete for our business. Some opponents fear the new competition, while others deplore the entrepreneurs’ use of resources. And one of the most effective ways of hampering entrepreneurs is to put them under either limited or total government regulation and control—that is, replacing profit-driven management with at least some degree of bureaucratic management.

So what we have in today’s world is a great deal of government with additional regulation and control of private business. There is lots of grumbling about the fact that “the system doesn’t seem to be working,” but nobody is likely to fix it. At election time, glib office-seekers promise to reform the system and “get the country moving again.” This doesn’t happen, and general dissatisfaction is growing.

And there still seems to be a persistent delusion that “putting the right person in charge” will fix the problem. One favorite government response, when conditions worsen in an area, is to appoint a “czar” with special powers to bring everything together with businesslike efficiency. We have had numerous “czars” to control energy and prices, and one was recently named to deal with health reform. However highly touted, these czars soon turn out to be no more effective than the Russian rulers who gave rise to the term.

Another common fallacy, a favorite idea with pro-business political administrations, is that government operations will work better if capable business executives are found to head them. But as Mises perceptively noted, “A former entrepreneur who is given charge of a government bureau is in this capacity no longer a businessman but a bureaucrat. His objective can no longer be profit (generating more value than cost), but compliance with the rules and regulations. As head of a bureau he may have the power to alter some minor rules and some matters of internal procedure. But the setting of the bureau’s activities is determined by rules and regulations which are beyond his reach.”

Some people thrive in this sort of work and turn out to be excellent bureaucrats. They are the right people to run government operations when government is limited to its rightful peacekeeping functions. But if our purpose is to preserve and promote liberty while seeking the benefits of a market-driven economy, we’ll look in vain for reasonable answers and solutions from government—no matter who runs it. We are slowly learning this lesson, though at great cost. We should, of course, continue to follow the time-honored American practice of “throwing the rascals out” when elected officials are performing badly. But in today’s world, the officials we’re criticizing might not be rascals at all, but just conscientious people trying to do jobs that shouldn’t have been created in the first place.

Melvin D. Barger

Summary

  • As government grows, it creates more and more systemic and intractable problems.
  • Profit management and bureaucratic management are two very different things. The former seeks to generate more value than cost while the top priority of the latter is the promulgation and implementation of rules and regulations.
  • The bigger government becomes, the more calls you hear for “reform,” which may suggest there’s something inherently defective about the political system that prevents its practitioners from ever getting things right from the start.
  • Running government “like a business” is a popular rhetorical point but essentially an illusion that fails to recognize the deep differences between profit-driven business and rule-driven government.

For further information, see:

“No More Czars, Please” by Lawrence W. Reed
“What’s So Bad About Big Government Anyway?” by George C. Leef
“Hayek Was Right: The Worst Do Get to the Top” by Lawrence W. Reed
“The Economy Needs More Planning—Central Planning, That Is” by Lawrence W. Reed
“Can Government Manage the Economy?” by James L. Payne

EDITORS NOTE: This essay by Ohio businessman and writer Melvin D. Barger appeared in the 1994 edition of FEE’s book, Clichés of Politics, edited by former FEE trustee Mark Spangler. His citations of Ludwig von Mises all come from Mises’s 1945 book, Bureaucracy. The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Remove the Feds From Education

Noah_Webster_pre-1843_IMG_4412_Cropped

Noah Webster, American lexicographer and educator (Wikipedia Image).

In 1838 Noah Webster, the father of American education, expressed the purpose of schools was the advancement of the Christian faith:

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

Whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not, until he was given the old kick to the curb in 1963, when prayer was tossed out of American government schools, education was at or near the highest quality on earth.

But since the official dismissal of God and godly principles from U.S. Government school education, the overall quality of education in America now pales in comparison to that of most nations throughout the world. Education in America was supposed to reflect the good values of local communities, with a heavy emphasis on a rigorous curriculum meant to educate the mind, invigorate the soul, and encourage the spirit.

Originally, teachers in the United States understood that no two people are exactly alike. That is why until recent years, generations of Americans were encouraged to learn as much as possible and develop their God-given talents to the best of their ability.

Thus, “We The People” of prior generations of Americans were the most inventive on earth. Another primary goal of past generation teachers was to encourage and stimulate the imagination of young students, while at the same time giving them a sense of optimism about their future, their ability to achieve, and their country.

Unfortunately, in time a philosophical shift took place in America and the biblical principles for education were slowly eroded and abandoned. As a result, there have been sad and tragic consequences that continue to unfold.

John_Dewey_in_1902

John Dewey, American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer (Wikipedia Photo)

John Dewey, known as “the architect of modern education,” said “there is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.” Those so-called props have been obliterated. Thus, the loss of moral standards has opened the door to untold numbers of unwanted teen pregnancies, abortions, high suicide rates, less reliance on one’s God-given abilities, and more dependency on government, stupid violence, etc.

If we believe the founders were correct in asserting that America would fail if she lost her religious, or Judeo-Christian foundation, it is incumbent upon Christian believers to reaffirm and reclaim our Christian educational heritage. There are many ways to instigate change, but it begins with a willingness to become engaged in the battle.

Now please don’t freak out! I am not saying that we suddenly turn schools into theology centers. But a return to the inclusion of Godly or biblical standards would help reestablish an atmosphere of caring, excellence, and a sense of pride in the vocation of truly educating students. That is a departure from the current prevailing attitude of loyalty to the union and obedience to the one-size-fits-all Department of Education.

It is my opinion that the federal government has no moral, ethical, or logical grounds on which to continue dominating the education of our Republic’s young ones. Our students should, and must, be better prepared via parents, real education, and the church to perpetuate our exceptional way of life.

Unfortunately, the Department of Education has only helped to foster the decline in the quality of education that was already in a bad way when it was brought to fruition during the 1970s. The Department of Education (or indoctrination) is simply a bureaucratic beehive of centralized control over education that dictates to local school boards the politically correct indoctrination they want for American students.

Of course, local parents are not considered important unless they willingly go along with the status quo of the indoctrination industry headquartered inside the beltway. The result? Another recipe for disaster currently unfolding throughout our republic turned mob-rule democracy. The Department of Education hierarchy has systematically replaced family values with its own version of “the government is there to take care of you.”

The results of this travesty are self-evident. Hopefully, before it is too late, real local based education will soon replace the dangerous, centralized government den of indoctrination that has done more to stupefy America than almost any other known entity.

RELATED VIDEO: Who is behind FED LED ED/Common Core/21st Century Learning? To learn more about Linda Darling Hammond click here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of ABC News Channel 7 in Denver, CO.

Anti-Semitism Rages, Jewish Values Attacked from Within

There is no moral requirement for Jews to sacrifice their own rights in the pursuit of an illusory concept of social justice.

The alarming rise in global anti-Semitism has prompted Jewish leaders to proclaim that life for Jews in Europe will be “unsustainable” if they are forced to live as an increasingly persecuted minority in the face of escalating hostility. Citing a 2013 survey of anti-Semitic trends, Dr. Moshe Kantor of the European Jewish Congress painted an alarming picture for the future of European Jewry.

Given the historically dreadful treatment of Jews in Europe – by governments, churches and society at large – doomsayers find it easy to predict further catastrophes, particularly when they factor in the Islamist influence now stoking the flames of Jew-hatred across the continent. The anti-Jewish riots in France and elsewhere since the start of Operation Protective Edge show that Dr. Kantor’s statement was not mere hyperbole.  However, the threat is external and recognizable; and its transparency has aroused a sense of outrage and vigilance.

But what about threats from within? Is it possible to guard against internal impulses that weaken identity, facilitate assimilation and engender complacency in the face of growing anti-Semitism?  The question is not simply whether Jews can avert tragedies thrust upon them from without, but whether they can survive their own abandonment of the values, faith and historical perspective that sustained them through generations of persecution and exile.

Those who lose sight of their heritage and history often fill the resulting void with ideological flotsam that undermines Jewish continuity. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the United States, where assimilation, intermarriage and the dogmatic allegiance to politically-driven agendas are undermining loyalty to traditional priorities.

Though anti-Semitism has increased in the United States as it has elsewhere, an equally serious threat facing American Jewry today is existential and self-inflicted.  Secular Jews have grown increasingly ignorant of their own history and values, replacing both with a political faith that often contravenes normative tradition, makes it acceptable to question Israel’s character as a Jewish state, and endorses a Palestinian narrative that is rejectionist and anti-Semitic.  All too often, unbalanced criticism of Israel is promoted on the left as being consistent with Jewish ethical tradition, and progressive “social justice” is proclaimed to be an inherently Jewish value through the misapplication of tikkun olam.

Jewish morality and Torah justice do not demand the renunciation of history or tradition, and tikkun olam is not synonymous with liberal ideology – or for that matter secular conservatism.  Rather, it is a mystical concept that has been twisted to fit a sociopolitical outlook adopted by progressives as a religious imperative.  There is no moral requirement for Jews to sacrifice their own rights in the pursuit of an illusory concept of social justice.  Likewise, there is no ethical dictate for Jews to suppress their religious and national interests to accommodate competing Palestinian claims, or to dialogue with Islamists who despise them as a matter of doctrine.

The left-wing’s tendency to eschew ethnic loyalty and marginalize Israel arises from its attempt to redefine Judaism as a humanistic philosophy divorced from halakha (Jewish law) and stripped of national character.  In seeking to equate identity with temporal ideologies, secular advocates often characterize partisan causes as “Jewish” even when they contravene traditional belief and practice.

While some liberal ideals are consistent with Jewish tradition, many conservative values are as well, such that neither ideology has a monopoly on the Jewish zeitgeist.  Nevertheless, liberals often proclaim their agenda to be a pure expression of Jewish values, even though certain fundamental aspects of that agenda deviate from normative halakha or bear no relevance to it.  There are certainly points of tangency, but not to a degree that justifies kneejerk partisan advocacy masked as religious belief.

Although the nontraditional movements are generally pro-choice on the issue of abortion, for example, their position is not dictated by Jewish values because the law does not support a single, uniform application.  Under Jewish law, abortion can be permissible, required or prohibited depending on the circumstances of each case.  Thus, while liberals are free to support unfettered choice, they cannot claim that it is an intrinsically Jewish mandate.  Similarly, the contrary view is not a core doctrinal position for Jews who disagree, as it is for Christians who oppose of abortion.

The liberal agenda incorporates diverse causes (e.g., global warming, same-sex marriage and tax-and-spend economics) that are supported by many secular Jews.  Depending on the issue, however, Jewish law may take a contrary position or none at all.  As members of a larger society Jews can support any causes they wish, but they cannot claim to be guided by Jewish values where the law disagrees or is silent.  Interestingly, observant Jews tend to refrain from taking public positions on so-called “moral issues” to avoid the appearance of insular parochialism.  In contrast, secular liberals are often vocal in their advocacy and in invoking Jewish moral authority, regardless of whether their agenda is consistent with that authority.

The nontraditional movements have embraced numerous progressive causes and channeled them through a version of tikkun olam that is more political than rabbinic.  Despite the prominence of social action committees in many American synagogues, tikkun olam does not mean “social action” and does not constitute a mitzvah.  The term “mipnei tikkun ha-olam” (“for the sake of tikkun of the world”) is associated in the Mishnah with certain commandments that promote societal harmony, usually relating to marriage and divorce, the redemption of captives, the collection of damages, and the purchase of religious items from gentiles.

According to Lurianic Kabbalah, prayer and the performance of mitzvot are essential for liberating “divine sparks” said to have been dispersed throughout the universe at the moment of creation.  The mystical purpose of tikkun olam is to ingather these sparks and the souls that contain them through the understanding, contemplation and performance of all mitzvot, not only those that relate to societal functioning.  The ultimate goal is to restore spiritual equilibrium and hasten redemption.

Accordingly, Chabad’s campaign of outreach and increased mitzvah observance is truer to the mystical purpose of tikkun olam than is progressive social action.

In contrast, progressive advocates of tikkun olam have separated the concept from its contextual roots and sanctified political priorities over traditional ritual practice.  They have thus consecrated the mundane to fill the emptiness created by the rejection of law and tradition.  In doing so, however, they have lost the tools necessary to reinforce Jewish identity and continuity, and this loss is reflected by the rising rate of intermarriage.

According to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, the U.S. the intermarriage rate since 2000 is 58% overall and 72% among the non-Orthodox.  Not surprisingly, Orthodoxy has the lowest rate, followed by Conservative, Reform and the unaffiliated.  Among the Reform and unaffiliated, however, the rate is probably higher than assumed in light of the finding that “intermarriage is much more common among Jewish respondents who are themselves the children of intermarriage,” and that “among married Jews who report that only one of their parents was Jewish, fully 83% are married to a non-Jewish spouse.”

The survey did not define identity according to Jewish law, but rather by affiliation and self-reporting.  Thus, the survey population undoubtedly included people deemed Jewish by patrilineal descent.  Because this standard is not recognized under halakha or by movements other than Reform, however, the technical intermarriage rate is likely higher than reported.  Moreover, the finding that children of intermarriage are less likely to marry Jews would seem to undercut the argument that patrilineal descent preserves Jewish identity into the future.

Some progressives argue that opposition to intermarriage constitutes racism, and that the ethnic and cultural diversity found in many liberal congregations is the “new face of Judaism.”  It is not racist, however, to want to preserve Jewish law and identity; and one could argue that skyrocketing intermarriage rates reflect a failure to instill values necessary for insuring Jewish survival.

It is difficult to discourage assimilation when many nontraditional rabbis perform intermarriages and sometimes have non-Jewish spouses themselves, or when their congregants believe that excluding gentiles from the marriage pool constitutes a form of bigotry.

The claim that critics of intermarriage are racist is not an expression of Jewish values, but of political correctness run amok.  Rather than address the issues that enable assimilation in the first place, or admit that certain political or philosophical precepts may be incompatible with Jewish cultural survival, it seems that some would rather denigrate traditional observance as socially antiquated or morally flawed.

It is the elevation of secular agendas to the level of religious obligation, however, that weakens identity and engenders moral ambiguity.  This is particularly apparent whenever war flares up in the Mideast.  Usually quick to condemn and criticize, the Jewish left in America often employs moral equivalency and historical revisionism to excuse terrorism against Israel, accuse her of war crimes for defending herself, and validate questionable Palestinian claims.

The current conflict in Gaza was precipitated by Hamas’s unprovoked missile attacks, the kidnapping and murder of three young yeshiva students, and the construction of an elaborate tunnel system for the purpose of infiltrating Israel and attacking civilians.  Hamas has breached every ceasefire and continues to use civilians as human shields.  Israel, in contrast, has done more than any other nation to minimize civilian casualties, usually at great risk to her military personnel.

Nonetheless, voices on the Jewish left can be heard condemning the proportionality of Israel’s response and excusing Hamas for targeting Israeli civilians and using Arab women and children as cannon fodder.

The progressive left in America has at best a conflicted relationship with Israel, as was suggested by the recent withdrawal of J Street from a “Stand with Israel” rally in Boston.  Progressive unease is also evidenced by the New Israel Fund, which claims it does not support global BDS activities, but which states on its website that it “… opposes the occupation and subsequent settlement activities… [and] will not exclude support for organizations that discourage the purchase of goods or use of services from settlements.”  And by the Jewish Voice for Peace, whose San Diego chapter has accused Israel of “repeated war crimes [and] systematic human rights abuses” and opposes Operation Protective Edge.  Claims that such conduct exemplifies Jewish moral introspection are nonsense.

There seems to be plenty of dialogue these days with Islamic organizations that are hostile to Israel and Christian denominations that call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the Jewish State.  In some communities, progressive rabbis are sitting down with imams without first vetting them for connections to extremist organizations.  In contrast, there is little dialogue with Christian groups that actually support Israel, or with former Muslims, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim of ritual genital mutilation, who criticizes the treatment of women and minorities in Islamic society and who speaks with the knowledge of an insider.

Even some establishment organizations have been criticized for not doing enough to expose anti-Semitism within certain political and religious ideologies.  The ADL, for example, has been accused of not fully exploring the Islamist threat in America.  It was also criticized recently for lobbying in Florida against legislation aimed at limiting the enforcement of foreign laws, including Sharia, by civil courts.  The Council on American Islamic Relations also lobbied against the bill.

Because so many liberals today define their Jewishness according to secular political ideals instead of traditional values, it should hardly be surprising when the more extreme among them take the progressive side against Israel, promote the Palestinian national myth, or support BDS activities.

Nevertheless, it is still jarring when progressive rabbis call on people to pray for the Gazans or chastise Israel for civilian losses caused by Hamas.  Did these rabbis pray for Israeli civilians when Hamas began shooting missiles into Israel?  Did they pray with equal vigor for the yeshiva boys who were abducted and murdered by Hamas?  It is an affront to common decency to invoke Jewish ethics when empathizing with those who believe in jihad and genocide.  Clearly, defining Jewish values by adherence to partisan ideals can lead to absurd results that undercut Jewish priorities.

Interestingly, since the start of the current hostilities in Gaza, some progressive Jews have finally begun to acknowledge the anti-Semitism of their fellow travelers and publicly question their political allegiances.  Whether this will spark greater introspection among Jews on the left remains to be seen.

What is certain is that Jewish identity cannot be defined by allegiance to political agendas or reimagined through historical revisionism.  Neither can it be reinforced over successive generations by emphasizing the “cultural” aspects of Judaism, which for secular Jews might mean little more than having bagels with their New York Times on a Sunday morning or voting Democratic.

It cannot be denied that the rejection of traditional belief and observance has led to increased assimilation; and that substituting progressive ideals for Jewish values has facilitated the abandonment of Judaism and rejection of Israel by many on the left.

EDITORS NOTE: The writer will be attending a National Security Panel conference next month, which will feature Lt. General Thomas McInerney, Lt. General William Boykin, and Gary Berntsen, a former CIA station chief.   The program is entitled, “Israel, the U.S. and the Fight for Western Civilization,” and  will be moderated by retired Lt. Col. (and former congressman from Florida)  Allen West. This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.

A New Dawn for Liberty by Jeffrey A. Tucker

How fabulous it is to be living in times of technological revolution. It’s spreading freedom through the world—through entrepreneurship and the private sector, through enterprise, technology, and commercial life.

It’s a new world of personal connection touching every corner of the globe. It’s emerged over the last 20 years, and the pace of development is accelerating. It’s taking place outside the government plan. Technology is changing how we think about politics, tearing through all the old models.

The world of liberty cannot neglect this time in history. We are seeing a real-life demonstration of how the choices of individuals in a new frontier of freedom can result in a beautiful anarchy.

The results are neither chaotic nor static. They are emergent in all the ways fashionable opinion in the twentieth century said was impossible.

The digital world represents the ultimate refutation of the central planning model of social organization. What they said was impossible turns out to be possible, productive, and prosperous.

This is our moment, and we must thrust ourselves into the center of it.

How do we do that? We’ve just launched Liberty.me, a digital city wholly dedicated to liberty, to answer that very question. If you love liberty, this city is your home.

Liberty.me exists to enhance personal and economic freedom in your life—and by extension, in our world. It’s not about marching in the streets, lobbying officeholders, or retreating into isolation.

It’s about building a new world of freedom.

Liberty.me gives you a publishing space and audience, a community of friendship, an online classroom with ongoing seminars, and a large library of books with forums for discussion. It’s everything you have wanted in a digital community for the cause of human liberty.

With your free trial comes the whole experience. It’s a public space — this is about reaching the world — but also a private space: Members only. That means no trolls, annoying ads, or flame wars. It’s the most comprehensive solution to the main problem that confronts us all today. The answer begins in our own lives.

At Liberty.me, we believe that liberty is something we live. This is why we are so focused on practical issues. How can we use technology to live freer lives? How can we arrange our financial lives to avoid the depredations of Leviathan? What books and films can inspire us? What can we do about schooling, medical care, travel, personal protection?

Government is making our lives ever more difficult. We know that. But we shouldn’t let the barriers stop us. With intelligence, expertise, and determination, we can work around the barriers. We can’t depend on politics to make the difference. We have to do that ourselves.

Liberty.me has already, in the short time that it’s been around, been called a sanctuary for creativity and inspiration. Liberty.me has helped rekindle a sense of community among liberty-minded people.

How has freedom been won in the past? When people got busy and practiced it in their lives. They built institutions. They outsmarted the rulers. They came together to create alternatives. It’s communities and networks of mutual interest that build freedom—communities like Liberty.me.

Log on to Liberty.me today, and take advantage of 30 days for free. Use the code LIBERTY and get 35% off.

When you join, drop me a chat so I can say hello. Then plunge in and enjoy the intellectual adventure.

We have the tools to make for freer lives, outsmarting and outrunning those who purport to manage the world. Let’s get busy and do it.

ABOUT JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and publisher at Laissez Faire Books. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminar “Making Innovation Possible: The Role of Economics in Scientific Progress.”

Life Without the McDouble:McDonald’s is just one example of how enterprise makes our lives less nasty, brutish, and short by Jeffrey A. Tucker

It thrills me when McDonald’s burgers get the attention they deserve. This happened last year when Stephen Dubner, co-author of Freakonomics, made the provocative statement that the McDouble is the cheapest and most nutritious food in human history.

That we dare to recoil at such a claim indicates how spoiled we truly are. In a state of nature, getting food is the single greatest challenge. You can find shelter and it endures for a time. Clothing made of animal skins can be scarce, but once acquired, it lasts too.

The thing about food is that you have to get it every day. And without tools, you can only eat things that are stationary or very slow-moving. Once you learn to kill, preserving the meat is not easy, which is why salt has been one of the most valuable commodities in the history of humanity.

That most everyone has access to food now is one of the great triumphs of history. As Dubner points out, the McDouble provides 390 calories and 23 grams of protein divided between meat and cheese. All told, one hamburger provides a half day of all the stuff we need to sustain human life, and all for a bit more than a buck.

That McDonald’s can do this as at a profit is wonderful. Its profit margins are variously reported to be around 6% percent—this is an extremely hard business, as any franchise owner can tell you—but many of its most popular products earn no money whatsoever.

The masses of McDouble buyers are being subsidized by customers who buy higher-end products like the Bacon Clubhouse and the super-sized value meals. The best deals are designed to get you in the door in the hope that you will, every so often, splurge just a bit.

Dubner’s thesis got renewed attention in the week following my own renewed love affair with McDonald’s while in Las Vegas this summer. This is a place that picks your pocket at every turn. Okay, granted, every dime spent in Vegas—apart from high taxes and ridiculous union wages—is coughed up by willing buyers. Still, there is an air of voraciousness about the place that seems inescapable.

After days of feeling fleeced for food and drink, I finally found a McDonald’s. The prices were not Vegas prices. The dollar meal was still there. The coffee was delicious and cheap, which is an incredible relief in a city where every cup otherwise runs $5. The breakfasts are wonderful and satisfying. If “healthy food” is your thing, go for the salad, which can’t be beat for the price.

In one food court I entered, there were a dozen establishments, but McDonald’s had the longest line, and consistently so. This makes complete sense to me. Reflect on the ingredients of the Big Mac or the Clubhouse and it just blows your mind. The meat alone is a miracle. Meat wasn’t available for the masses of humanity until canned meat was invented in the the middle of the twentieth century; preserving and transporting it was an extreme challenge.

There is a reason that your knees don’t fit under the desk you found at the antique store, and it’s because of the meat-driven growth in human height we’ve all experienced since World War II.

There is a reason that knight armor at the museum looks like it belongs to a member of the Lollypop Guild—again, it’s because we have access to meat, and those tough guys in the Middle Ages had to live off whatever grew around them.

There is a reason that the average Japanese person is 3.5 inches taller now than 50 years ago, and it comes down to a gigantic dietary change due to the availability of meat and cheese.

In addition, there is bread (if you take that for granted, try growing your own wheat), lettuce (again, only refrigeration made this available for most people), cheese (cows are incredibly expensive to raise), bacon (food of the gods, courtesy of the pig), pickles (the time structure of production here is lengthy), and various sauces that originate in seeds from all over the world.

Somehow they manage to get all of this to you in a small package that costs you a dollar.

But let’s focus for just one moment on the least-appreciated ingredient in ketchup and on the burger itself: the tomato. Surely it has always been with us, right? Anyone can grow tomatoes in a pot on the back porch. That wasn’t true until the sixteenth century, when Europeans had their first wide exposure to the tomato. Spanish explorers brought the fruit back from Latin America. Before then, there was no such thing as the tomato in the Italian diet.

It was trade that brought the tomato to the whole world for the first time in the Renaissance period. Without trade, without travel made possible by technology and capital investment, we’d never know how one tasted.

This reality never occurred to me until I read A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World, by William Bernstein (2008). It turns out that staples such as coffee, beef, and the potato, and the existence of practically everything in your refrigerator, is owed to trade, technology, and therefore to the existence of free enterprise.

I was once lecturing to a group of students about the problems that come with the state of nature, of just trying to survive based entirely on the resources around you, while fighting off nature’s penchant for exterminating human beings that don’t fight back. I asked the group what people invented some 150,000 years ago in order to survive in the face of massive privation and the growing scarcity of food.

The answer I was looking for was this: They invented private property to allow them to domesticate animals and enclose spaces for agriculture. But the first answer that was offered from the audience was: Create a government. My mouth fell open in amazement. But after just a few moments, the student starting laughing and then everyone joined in.

Why laugh? Because creating a government—assigning a small group to control a geographic space with a monopoly on weapons and allowing them to pillage and kill as they see fit—does absolutely nothing to solve the core problem that humanity faces. Just stating the answer this way illustrates the absurdity. Our problems as a species are solved when we figure out how to get more of what we need and want. Governments, on the other hand, only redistribute what already exists.

Governments come and go, but the achievements of trade and private enterprise last generations and then even become permanent features of the world. Once a good is transported, once a technology is invented, it becomes part of the capital stock of civilization to be enjoyed by every generation thereafter.

That we were born now and live now to enjoy the massive beneficence of the struggle of thousands of years to bring us things like the tomato, beef, cheese, bread, and to wrap it all up in a tiny package and make that available to us for a dollar in nearly every city in the world, that this comes to us with no work on our part, is a gigantic privilege afforded us by virtue of accident or providence (depending on your religious views). To whatever force you attribute your good fortune, we should recognize it as such.

The McDouble does not appear in nature. That we can laugh at it, put it down, sneer at it, and even denounce the company that brings it to us is a wonderful privilege of the ungrateful. Those who know and understand don’t have to eat at McDonald’s, of course. But everyone should at least recognize its restaurants as symbols of what humankind can achieve when we are given time and freedom to make great things happen–and to overcome the grueling state of nature that has pervaded all but a small fraction of the history of humanity.

I’m only asking that we think about that seriously before we sneer.

20121129_JeffreyTuckeravatarABOUT JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and publisher at Laissez Faire Books. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminar “Making Innovation Possible: The Role of Economics in Scientific Progress.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Making History is not Enough

In many ways Obama’s presidency has been historic.

On June 19, 2008, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976.

On Thursday, August 28, 2008, Obama became the first Black to be nominated by a major U.S. party.

On November 4, 2008, Obama won the presidency with 365 electoral votes to 173 for Sen. John McCain, becoming the first Black to be elected president of the United States. Earlier, Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote to McCain’s 45.7 percent.

Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by Obama on May 26, 2009, to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, was confirmed on August 6, 2009, making her the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

On November 6, 2012, Obama won 332 electoral votes, exceeding the 270 required for him to be re-elected as president. With 51.1 percent of the popular vote, Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to twice win the majority of the popular vote.

During his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, Obama called for full equality for gay Americans: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” This, too, was a historic moment. It was the first time that a president mentioned gay rights or the word “gay” in an inaugural address.

But for all of Obama’s firsts, at the same time, he has left people scratching their heads, especially Blacks.

How could the first Black president not even interview a Black female for either of the two Supreme Court openings he had to fill? After all, Black women were the largest voting bloc for both of his presidential elections (96 percent in 2012).

Obama promised during his 2008 campaign that his administration would be the “most transparent in history.” According to a recently released report by the Associated Press, nothing could be further from the truth. The AP calls the Obama administration “the most secretive presidency in American history.”

The AP analyzed 99 federal agencies over six years. According to their report, “the Obama administration censored more documents and delayed or denied access to more government files than ever before. In 2013, the administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public. That’s a 57% increase over the year before and more than double the number in Obama’s first year in office.”

According to several media accounts, Obama has launched more than 390 drone attacks in his almost six years in the White House, eight times as many as the Bush administration; and there have been more than 2,400 people killed in these air strikes, many of them civilians.

Obama has signed at least three executive orders giving entitlements to homosexuals, at least two giving entitlements to those in the country illegally, and zero specifically for Blacks. Obama will go down in history as the first U.S. president to totally ignore his largest voting bloc and be allowed to get away with it.

Obama will also go down in history as one of the most lawless presidents in history (Benghazi, I.R.S., NSA, etc.). He has done more damage to the U.S.’s standing in the world than any other president in history. No one fears Obama.

Russian President Vadimir Putin thumbs his nose at Obama and marches into the Ukraine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has total disdain, publically and privately, for Obama. Foreign leaders – including the presidents of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador – are not afraid to chastise Obama while standing on White House grounds when they disagree with his policies.

Obama seems to think our sovereignty should be sublimated to other countries or their people, i.e., illegals in the country telling America they have a right to be in the U.S., feeling entitled to be in the U.S. even though they crossed our borders illegally or overstaying their visas.

Obama thinks he is the president of the world, not just the U.S. This is one possible explanation for why he is so hell-bent on trying to give amnesty to those in the country illegally or unilaterally trying to make homosexuality a universal entitlement. He and the Democrats really believe that we are responsible for the plight of the world, even at the expense of ignoring our own citizens who are in dire need of jobs, food, housing, education, and a crime free environment.

So, indeed Obama’s presidency is historic, but not for all the right reasons.

BREAKING NEWS: South Korea threatens North Korea with gigantic inflated condoms

In a distasteful “up yours” gesture of aggression, South Korean capitalists have staged a hostile and unprovoked attack against peaceful communist North Korea, its caring leadership, and personally Dear Leader Kim Jong-un, by sending an array of menacing condom-shaped balloons over to the glorious workers’ paradise of economic equality, equipped with unhealthy and fattening bourgeois chocolates dangling from the base of the phallic symbols to sweeten the deal.

Korea choco piesIt is a known fact that chocolate is a drug-like addictive substance, which is why the loving and compassionate North Korean government banned its manufacture and consumption, replacing it with a healthy and non-addictive diet of grass clippings, seaweed, and tree bark with occasional grub meat.

To make things worse, chocolate is packed with calories, saturated fat, and sugar, which are now being banned even in the arch-capitalist United States. In addition to causing headaches, obesity, heart burn, and rectal itching, chocolate also triggers emotional problems like irritability, confusion, anger and mood swings.

Korea choco piesCombined with blatantly pornographic balloons, this calculated mix of drugs, sex, and hullabaloo is clearly designed to agitate and disorient North Korean workers and peasants, provoking the least ideologically conscientious of them to stage an uprising against their caring government and Dear Leader himself.

It is understood that if this vulgarity on the border doesn’t stop, the peaceful North Korean military will have no choice but to respond with ballistic missiles shelling the hostile balloon launch sites, which South Korea is cleverly disguising as civilian parking lots.

The bourgeois propaganda organs, obedient to their capitalist masters, have predictably described the lewd provocation as a mere “gift” to the “suffering” people of North Korea, promoting the insidious lie that the toiling masses across the border are somehow “starving” and are “desperate” for their “food.” Below is an example of such ridiculous distortions.

South Korea Sent Thousands of Choco Pies Over North Korea via Balloon

On Wednesday, about 200 South Koreans attached thousands of chocolate snacks to 50 giant balloons and released into North Korea after Pyongyang reportedly banned the coveted treats from the country earlier this month. The pies, which have become popular among hungry North Koreans, are considered as a symbol of capitalism and represent a cultural impact that might encourage an uprising.

“We will continue to send Choco Pie by balloons because it is still one of the most favorite foodstuffs in North Korea,” said Choo Sun-Hee, one of the organisers ofWednesday’s balloon launch.

In response to the activity, Pyongyang has pressed Seoul to stop their people and threatened to shell the launch sites.

Korea Ballons