Islamists’ “Christian-Jewish Phobia”

“A Radical Muslim’ is a ‘Practicing Muslim’, a ‘Moderate Muslim’ is a ‘non Practicing Muslim’ or otherwise known as an Apostate of Islam. The penalty for Apostasy under Sharia law is Death”

Whenever any person or organization refutes the actions, statements, and/or objectives of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations and their supporters, the executives of these organizations immediately go into their modus operandi. Essentially this means the MB (Islamic based terrorist groups) immediately begin to blackmail, threaten, intimidate, physically attack, discredit (false and deceptive, but truth is of little concern to groups who kill, rape, and rob from even innocent Muslims themselves), and these groups use the infamous ‘lawsuit’ to ‘force’ their enemies into silence.

NIHAD AWAD

Nehad Hammad (AKA: Nihad Awad)

These terrorist organizations are beginning to realize the power, stamina, persistence, and love/allegiance of the American people to our country and our children. With the recently released best seller ‘Muslim Mafia’, it has made at least one terrorist supporting group Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) realize that Dave Gaubatz does not go away easily. As readers are reviewing this article I will give you a typical scenario within CAIR National.

CAIR’s executive director Nehad Hammad (AKA: Nihad Awad), their spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper, and government relations director (contractor Simple Resolve) are under immense stress. They know they have committed felonies and the FBI are looking at their actions, they know they support the same violent ideologies as Hamas and Al Qaeda, they know foreign governments support them (illegally), they know they have intimidate and blackmailed large and small corporations such as Burger King, NIKE, Bank of America and dozens more. They have used the same tactics against individuals to include Glenn Beck when he was at CNN, Fox’s O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and many more news journalists. They know that Saudi Arabia is behind the Islamophobe campaign and dumps millions of dollars into U.S. corporations to silence them.

Readers need to ponder and seriously question why even Fox journalists seldom (specifically after 11 Sept. 2001) question, condemn, or conduct investigations in regards to the Saudi government. Does Mr. O’Reilly and Beck (both of whom I have respected) aggressively pursue allegations Saudi Arabia is behind and/or endorse the terrorism committed against innocent people around the world? Does any Fox journalist question why Saudi Arabia donates millions to CAIR, spends millions building mosques throughout America, and at the same time allows 50 year old men to marry 7 year old girls? Does Fox or any other American network question the Saudi leadership about spending millions to distribute hate material against Christians and Jewish people in America? Not only is the material ‘hate’ related, but also the material condones killing Americans to include our children.

Since it can be easily proven no major network condemns the violent actions of Saudi Arabia, one must ask why. There can only be four possibilities:

1.  Saudi Arabia is a rich and powerful country and puts billions into the American economy; therefore news organizations do not want to offend the ‘elite’.

2.  Mr. Beck (former Fox journalist), O’Reilly, Hannity and others have personally been intimidated by terrorist groups like CAIR, and they personally are fearful for not only their financial careers, but the safety of their families and themselves. Readers should note that no amount of personal security will protect you if Al Qaeda targets you or related group of killers. O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck are smart enough to know this. If CAIR or one of their affiliates in the Muslim Brotherhood labels you an Islamophobe and oppressor of Islam, they have in reality put you on a ‘hit list’. They rely on the Major Hasan’s from Ft. Hood, and thousands more like him to carry out physical attacks when the time is correct.

3.  Saudi Arabia has many powerful and influential political leaders they have essentially’ bought over the years, and major news organizations are fearful of ‘offending’ former Presidents and they’re Saudi ‘thugs’.

4.  Investigative journalists from major news organizations are not experts and for the most part only report what their ‘assistants’ hand to them. Their assistants know even less about the Middle East, Islam, or Islamic terrorist organizations. Although they believe themselves to be the most informed and reliable people to bring the news to the American people, this is by far more of a fantasy than reality.

Readers are now asking what is the correct answer from above. The truthful answer is a combination of all four. Saudi pumps millions into our economy, CAIR (MB) has threatened numerous journalists like Hannity, Saudi officials have personal friendships and business dealings with powerful Americans, to include U.S. Presidents. Lastly, news journalists are not experts on Islamic based terrorism.

Below is an example of how the peace loving Muslims within this terrorist group (CAIR) attack anyone who dares to ask ‘tough questions’.
From CAIR National:

1.  “Attacks on CAIR are the work of a very finite and interrelated band of Career Islamophobes, whose own credibility is in doubt, who profit economically and politically by bashing Muslims and smearing their leaders and organizations.

2.  This band includes Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Joe Kaufman and David Horowitz together with affiliates like Stephen Schwartz and Andrew Whitehead. These individuals who are all staunchly pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim and create the bulk of the anti-CAIR literature, which is consumed and circulated by others.

3.  All of them spew their bigoted conspiracy theories primarily through the internal which is an un-relegated medium with no professional standards as far as content or fact-checking.

4.  They promulgate their content through thousands of than their own Islamophobic sentiment.5. Some of their lies and conspiracy theories seep through right wing AM and Cable TV radio talk shows that lean towards accepting their conspiracy theories about Muslim Americans and their organizations (Savage, Medved, Prager. O’Reilly, Carlson. Beck, FrontPage Magazine, the online hate site, etc…)”

Again I ask readers to observe how many times CAIR uses the term Islamophobe and hate. CAIR executives remind me of small children. Often children use the strategy of name calling to resolve disputes, but most children grow and become more adult like and professional as they mature. CAIR executives are highly educated, yet still use childlike defense mechanisms instead of facing realities head on. Seldom will you hear any Islamic terrorist use sound and rational reasoning to confront Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, David Horowitz,or myself. In addition CAIR executives are not refuting the documents within our book. The thousands of documents my team obtained from CAIR were salvaged before CAIR had an opportunity to shred them. CAIR officials knew the documents contained criminal information against them. They know the documents show the true CAIR, which is a terrorist organization operating in America. Instead they are using the typical ‘name calling’.

I will close by asking the novice counter-terrorism reader and the more versed reader why anyone takes the name calling by a terrorist organization seriously. I ask all to think of the absurdity of Islamic terrorists calling any American an Islamophobe when the Saudi government does not allow (and this is highly encouraged by CAIR, ISNA, and many others) Christians or Jewish to live and practice their respective religions inside Saudi Arabia. Would this logic not equate to every Saudi citizen and anyone who supports Saudi to be Christian-Jewish Phobes, and hate mongers? By CAIR’s own definition this would be true.

American citizens need to contact Fox and the other networks. Ask them why they have not examined and reported on the documents presented inside ‘Muslim Mafia’. Ask them to choose from the four alternative answers mentioned above, or feel free to add their own reasons. I encourage readers to write me with the results.

RELATED STORIES: 

Texas: Muslim arrested fleeing to Jordan after hit-and-run, lawyer seeks sharia

Virginia: Muslim Couple Arrested on Immigration Charges for Harboring Domestic Slave

Dearborn, MI: Lebanon-born Muslim arrested at airport on way to join Hizballah

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a 13th century Belgian Manuscript illustrating the dialogue between the jew “Moyses” and the Christian “Petrus”. Illustration of “Dialogi contra Iudaeos” written by en:Petrus Alphonsi. This is a photograph of an exhibit at the Diaspora Museum, Tel Aviv en:Beit Hatefutsot. (Photo taken by en:User:Sodabottle)

Enemy of the State, Friend of Liberty by Lawrence W. Reed

Question: If you could go back in time and spend one hour in conversation with 10 people—each one separately and privately—whom would you choose?

173px-Thorvaldsen_Cicero

Cicero

My list isn’t exactly the same from one day to the next, but at least a couple of the same names are always on it, without fail. One of them is Marcus Tullius Cicero. He was the greatest citizen of the greatest ancient civilization, Rome. He was its most eloquent orator and its most distinguished man of letters. He was elected to its highest office as well as most of the lesser ones that were of any importance. More than anyone else, he introduced to Rome the best ideas of the Greeks. More of his written and spoken work survives to this day—including hundreds of speeches and letters—than that of any other historical figure before 1000 A.D. Most importantly, he gave his life for peace and liberty as the greatest defender of the Roman Republic before it plunged into the darkness of a welfare-warfare state.

Cato Institute scholar Jim Powell opened his remarkable book The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000-Year History, Told Through the Lives of Freedom’s Greatest Champions (Free Press, 2000) with a chapter on this Roman hero—a chapter he closed with this fitting tribute: “Cicero urged people to reason together. He championed decency and peace, and he gave the modern world some of the most fundamental ideas of liberty. At a time when speaking freely was dangerous, he courageously denounced tyranny. He helped keep the torch of liberty burning bright for more than two thousand years.”

Who wouldn’t want to have an hour with this man?

Cicero was born in 106 B.C. in the small town of Arpinum, about 60 miles southeast of Rome. He began practicing law in his early 20s. His most celebrated case, which he won, required him to defend a man accused of murdering his father. He secured an acquittal by convincing the jury that the real murderers were closely aligned to the highest public officials in Rome. It was the first but not the last time that he put himself in grave danger for what he believed to be right.

In 70 B.C, 10 years after his victory in that celebrated murder trial, Cicero assumed a role uncommon for him—that of prosecutor. It was a corruption case involving Gaius Verres, the politically powerful former governor of Sicily. Aggrieved Sicilians accused Verres of abuse of power, extortion, and embezzlement. The evidence Cicero gathered appeared overwhelming, but Verres was confident he could escape conviction. His brilliant defense lawyer, Hortensius, was regarded as Cicero’s equal. Both Verres and Hortensius believed they could delay the trial a few months until a close ally became the new judge of the extortion court. But Cicero outmaneuvered them at every turn. Verres, all but admitting his guilt, fled into exile. Cicero’s speeches against him, In Verrem, are still read in some law schools today.

Roman voters rewarded Cicero with victory in one office after another as he worked his way up the ladder of government. Along the way, the patrician nobility of Rome never quite embraced him because he hailed from a slightly more humble class, the so-called equestrian order. He reached the pinnacle of office in 63 B.C. when, at age 43, Romans elected him co-consul.

The consulship was the republic’s highest office, though authority under the Roman Constitution was shared between two coequal consuls. One could veto the decisions of the other and both were limited to a single one-year term. Cicero’s co-consul, Gaius Antonius Hybrida, was so overshadowed by his colleague’s eloquence and magnetism that he’s but a footnote today. In contrast, Cicero emerged as the savior of the republic amid a spectacular plot to snuff it out.

The ringleader of the vast conspiracy was a senator named Lucius Sergius Cataline. This disgruntled, power-hungry Roman assembled an extensive network of fellow travelers, including some fellow senators. The plan was to ignite a general insurrection across Italy, march on Rome with the aid of mercenaries, assassinate Cicero and his co-consul, seize power, and crush all opposition. Cicero learned of the plot and quietly conducted his own investigations. Then in a series of four powerful orations before the Senate, with Cataline himself present for the first, he cut loose. The great orator mesmerized the Senate with these opening lines and the blistering indictment that followed:

How long, O Catiline, will you abuse our patience? And for how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?

Before Cicero was finished, Cataline fled the Senate. He rallied his dwindling army but was ultimately killed in battle. Other top conspirators were exposed and executed. Cicero, on whom the Senate had conferred emergency power, walked away from that power and restored the republic. He was given the honorary title of Pater Patriae (Father of the Country).

But Rome at the time of the Catilinarian conspiracy was not the Rome of two or three centuries before, when honor, virtue, and character were the watchwords of Roman life. By Cicero’s time, the place was rife with corruption and power lust. The outward appearances of a republic were undermined daily by civil strife and a growing welfare-warfare state. Many who gave lip service in public to republican values were privately conniving to secure power or wealth through political connections. Others were corrupted or bribed into silence by government handouts. The republic was on life support and Cicero’s voice was soon to be drowned out by a rising tide of political intrigue, violence, and popular apathy.

In 60 B.C., Julius Caesar (then a senator and military general with boundless ambition) tried to get Cicero to join a powerful partnership that became known as the First Triumvirate, but Cicero’s republican sentiments prompted him to reject the offer. Two years later and barely five years after crushing Cataline’s conspiracy, Cicero found himself on the wrong side of senatorial intrigue. Political opponents connived to thwart his influence, resulting in a brief exile to northern Greece.

He returned to a hero’s welcome but retired to his writing. Over the next decade or so, he gifted the world with impressive literary and philosophical work, one of my favorites being De Officiis (“On Duties”). In it he wrote, “The chief purpose in the establishment of states and constitutional orders was that individual property rights might be secured . . . It is the peculiar function of state and city to guarantee to every man the free and undisturbed control of his own property.”

Politics, however, wouldn’t leave Cicero alone. Rivalry between Caesar and another leading political figure and general, Pompey, exploded into civil war. Cicero reluctantly sided with the latter, whom he regarded as the lesser of two evils and less dangerous to the republic. But Caesar triumphed over Pompey, who was killed in Egypt, and then cowed the Senate into naming him dictator for life. A month later, Caesar was assassinated in the Senate by pro-republican forces. When Mark Antony attempted to succeed Caesar as dictator, Cicero spearheaded the republican cause once again, delivering a series of 14 powerful speeches known in history as the Phillippics.

Cicero’s oratory never soared higher. With the remnants of the republic hanging by a thread, he threw the scroll at Antony. The would-be dictator, Cicero declared, was nothing but a bloodthirsty tyrant-in-waiting. “I fought for the republic when I was young,” he asserted. “I shall not abandon her in my old age. I scorned the daggers of Catiline; I shall not tremble before yours. Rather, I would willingly expose my body to them, if by my death the liberty of the nation could be recovered and the agony of the Roman people could at last bring to birth that with which it has been so long in labor.”

Antony and his fellow conspirators named Cicero an enemy of the state and sent the assassin Herennius to take him out. On December 7, 43 B.C., the killer found his target. The great statesman bared his neck and faced his assailant with these last words: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.”

With one sword stroke to the neck, the life of the last major obstacle to dictatorship was extinguished. At that moment, the 500-year-old republic expired, too, to be replaced by an imperial autocracy. Roman liberty was gone. On the orders of Antony, Cicero’s hands were severed and nailed along with his head to the speaker’s platform in the Roman Forum. Antony’s wife personally pulled out Cicero’s tongue, and in a rage against his oratory, stabbed it repeatedly with her hairpin.

Powell reports in The Triumph of Liberty that a century after the ghastly deed, the Roman writer Quintilian declared that Cicero was “the name not of a man but of eloquence itself.” Thirteen centuries later, when the printing press was invented, the first book it produced was the Gutenberg Bible, but the second was Cicero’s De Officiis. Three more centuries after that, Thomas Jefferson called Cicero “the first master of the world.” And John Adams proclaimed, “All the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher” than Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Some might say Cicero’s labors to save the Roman Republic were, at least in hindsight, a waste of time. He gave his life for an ideal that he was able to extend tenuously for maybe a couple of decades.

But if I had an hour with Cicero, I would thank him. I would want him to know of the inspiration he remains to lovers of liberty everywhere, more than two millennia after he lived. I would share with him one of my favorite remarks about heroism, from the screenwriter and film producer Joss Whedon: “The thing about a hero, is even when it doesn’t look like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, he’s going to keep digging, he’s going to keep trying to do right and make up for what’s gone before, just because that’s who he is.”

And that is exactly who Cicero was.

RELATED VIDEO: The Fall of Rome and Modern Parallels | Lawrence Reed. Lawrence Reed speaks about the parallels between the fall of Rome and the modern United States. This talk was delivered at FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/FPFlH6eGqsg[/youtube]

 

ABOUT LAWRENCE W. REED

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a fresco titled Cicero Denounces Catiline located on the Palazzo Madama, Rome.

The Essence of Sarah Palin’s Message for 2014

I watched a great old movie in the time period of the 1700s starring Anthony Quinn. A small village was brutally abused by an evil bandit and his army of thugs. Quinn organized and inspired the fearful villagers to fight back. When villagers were killed, many blamed, criticized and rejected Quinn. Displaying true leadership, Quinn remained willing to fight. He informed his critics that cowardice begets more tyranny. Freedom ain’t free.

Folks, true leaders pay a heavy price which is why they, as do eagles, fly alone. Sarah Palin has led by example, displaying tremendous courage, backbone and grit by standing up for conservative principles, traditional values, freedom and liberty; even when some conservatives and establishment Republicans joined the chorus of liberals, Democrats and MSM calling her a fool.

Someone said if you promote a lie long enough, for some, it becomes reality. Such is the case regarding Palin’s smarts. Meanwhile, Obama’s list of faux pas including his recent inability to correctly spell “respect” are ignored or laughed-off.

Threatened by her enormous presence and the extreme impact of her inspiring 2008 VP nomination acceptance speech, Democrats and the MSM immediately launched a campaign to destroy Palin. In their joint effort to discredit her, every word out of Palin’s mouth has been viewed through an unjust false lens which assumes that she is an idiot. I challenge anyone on the planet to survive such extreme critical scrutiny.

Sarah Palin is not perfect. She is a human being like the rest of us. But, Sarah Palin is an unmistakably gifted charismatic born leader who inspires millions to fight back against the horrible evil attempting to overtake our great nation. Palin’s passion is fueled by her love for God, family and country and her knowledge that freedom ain’t free. Thank God Palin is conservative.

For those on our side who wish to nit-pic everything Palin says and does, I ask, what the heck are you thinking? Stop it! Obama and his vile minions (Lois Lerner and others) are launching daily unprecedented outrageous assaults on our freedoms. Why waste time, energy and resources beating up on one of our few generals leading the charge to restore America?

As a proud conservative, I hold our leaders to a higher standard than the Democrats. I expect conservative leaders to make character driven decisions rooted in the best interest of the American people. However, I think it is unfair and foolish to demand that our leaders be perfect in every way. We should not join our enemies in berating them every time a conservative has a less than home run hitting media appearance. Our laser focus should be on exposing and stopping Obama’s non-stop crimes against our Constitution. Attacking our own is counter productive.

Despite the left’s best efforts to silence her, Palin has been relentless, sounding the alarm of all the bad things that would accompany an Obama presidency. Palin was right. America’s chickens have come home to roost for electing Obama.

Here are Palin’s predictions which have come true.

Obama pacifying world aggressors would have negative consequences.

Russia (which had just invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia, a U.S. ally) would feel emboldened to send troops in Ukraine as well.

Under Obamacare there would be government “death panels” that would determine whether or not a patient should be eligible to receive life-saving treatments, or whether it would be cheaper to just let that patient die. Could you ever imagine such a thing in America?

A few liberals have admitted that Palin was right when she said Obama does not have a whole lot of substance.

Sarah Palin was right on all these issues.

But the most important thing that Palin has been right about, winning her my utmost respect, is her unapologetic advocacy of true Conservatism; confidently touting Conservatism as the miracle cure for all of America’s woes. 

The 2014 midterm election must be a vote for Conservatism. Conservatives in office is the only way we defeat our outlaw president and his army of thugs. We must take the House and the Senate.

Palin’s CPAC speech confirms that she continues to lead the charge. Her battle cry is loud, strong and clear. If the GOP wishes to repeat the victory it enjoyed in 2010, it had better embrace the Tea Party (Conservatism).

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Sarah Palin is by Therealbs2002. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Stalinism: The ideology behind the IRS scandal, invasion of Ukraine and missing Malaysian Flight 370

The world community is stunned and confused in March 2014 by the avalanche of negative events across the globe: Russia invaded Ukraine, the mysterious disappearance of a Boeing 777-200, and a growing IRS scandal in America. You will be surprised by my conclusion—all of the above have the same root cause. Moreover, this cause has created other crises around the globe, particularly in the Middle East. The Ideology– Stalinism. Stalinism, where the crux of the matter is Deception and Fraud… I am warning you again; it is not the Alinsky’s building of a social state; the reality of transforming America is more dangerous and ubiquitous.

Understanding the term “Statism” as we witness government intervention into our personal, social and economic affairs, Some of the American people are fighting to prevent the building of a powerful centralized government. We, the former citizens of Socialist countries, know this term from our personal experiences—we called it “Stalinism“, named after a dictator who designed and implemented a powerful centralized government in our former Soviet countries. This is the reason I dedicated four articles to the creation of Soviet Socialism, declared and spread by Stalin and his disciples across the globe. Do you remember how the fraudulent ideological impulses were traveling from Marx to Stalin? President Reagan has definitely helped the Soviet Union to collapse, yet the major cause of the collapse was deeper—fraud does not produce, Soviet Socialism simply did not work.

Chelovek_s_ruzhyom-Tenin_Shtraukh_Gelovani

Vladimir Lenin, standing.

You can ask me: Why I am naming Joseph Stalin, the man, as solely responsibility for Soviet Socialism, when Lenin was the leader of the Socialist Revolution? For a better understanding, let me answer this question once and for all. At the 11th Communist Party Congress in 1922, Lenin presented his perspective on “contemporary social development” in Russia, summed up in just three sentences:

  1. There is no proletariat in Russia.
  2. The form of future social organization in Russia is still being debated.
  3. Social and economic conditions in Russia do not allow the application of Marxist theory in the country.

Lenin saw a profound and systematic contradiction in the very character and essence of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Being a savvy and knowledgeable man, Lenin knew an extricable connection between ideology and economy. Russia had experienced a catastrophic situation in its economy at the time and Lenin announced NEP–a New Economic Policy, allowing some return of private property rights. The condition in Russia had dramatically changed for the better, but… Lenin died in 1924, his NEP died with him—Stalin cancelled NEP and began building his personal  form of Soviet Socialism beginning with the confiscation and nationalization of private property.

Winston Churchill was right saying: “Russia’s greatest misfortune was Lenin’s birth. Russia’s second greatest misfortune was his death.” As you can see Churchill was right!

Soviet Socialism has two primary vehicles or instruments promoting the Stalinist ideology: The Stalinist security apparatus and an Ideological Department. As fraud did not work, Stalin needed an application of force to implement his Soviet Socialism plus the media to cover up the Deception and Fraud. . Those two are like two arms of the Soviet Socialism’s body or model have defended and promoted the ideology. You can read the history of the KGB in the Chapter 4: And Evil is Alive and Well of my book: What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, Xlibris, 2012.

Another powerful arm promoting Soviet Socialism was the media. Let me give you a part of my article The Communist Ideological Department:

The Art of Brainwashing, written a couple of years ago: “The Ideological Department was one of the Kremlin’s mightiest weapons, a tentacle that once extended its grip around the world and continues to cast its shadow over global politics even today. It was originally called The Department for Agitation and Propaganda. The Department understood extremely well Russian culture and the key elements of the Russian psyche and therefore knew what it had to do to refashion them in the desired manner. The Department focused on three things, above all else: patriotism, images, and emotions. Its ideological cadres did their nefarious job well…

“…The Department instituted a ubiquitous censorship, not difficult to do given that the entire range of print media and all publishing houses belonged to the government and every level of government had a Department for Agitation and Propaganda to carry out censorship. All cinematography, movie theaters and eventually television also belonged to and were fully controlled by the government, and the Department had a presence in all aspects of such communications. If you remember, Soviet law played its role, as well, through Article 58 of the Criminal Code—Counterrevolutionary Agitation and Propaganda. Perhaps now you are beginning to get an idea of how extensive thought control was behind the Iron Curtain, and even today this effort to control the flow of ideas continues…”

Only now we can return to March 2014 in America. Does not the American media remind you a Department of Agitation and Propaganda, serving the Democrats? The same department is still functioning in Russia under the supervision of the KGB government and the effort to control the flow of ideas continues… Do you note the recent elevation of political division in our country? Look at our Congress and listen to Rep. Trey Gowdy. Also remember Khrushchev’s words “to weaken America,” presented in my article on World War III, published on March 4, 2014.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

Russian invasion of Ukraine is an act of war with a global implication; it is similar to the Anschluss of Austria by Hitler in 1938 and Stalin’s occupation of three Baltic States in 1940. The American media explained the situation by “weakness” of Obama in foreign policy that emboldened Putin. This is not correct. Obama is not a “weak” leader–he is following his agenda in cahoots with Putin, united by the same ideology. For him, Putin is our partner. Obama is taking a lesson from professor of Russian/Soviet history, Stephen Cohen, teaching in Princeton and New York universities. He was defending Putin while interviewed by Fareed Zacharia, CNN, March 2 and March 9, 2014. Professor Cohen reminded me a fake journalist of the 1930s defending Stalin’s Show Trials, his name was Walter Duranty. I was writing about Stalin’s apologist in Baltic Winds. Do you know that Duranty by deceiving the West untied Stalin’s hands to kill millions? And the crux of the matter is again Deception and Fraud.

You can see today, how the ideology is destroying people’s livelihood and lives in America and the world. You also know now that the major devices and tools of the ideology are the Lies and Fraud, which are bringing the benefits to the party in power. Perhaps, you understand now, why I started this series of articles analyzing Marxism, Socialism and Communism: the discrepancies, fraud, and lies that were deriving from the 19th century. Stalinism had quadrupled them in the 20s century with a lot of dynamics in the process, turning the leaders into charlatans, murderous, and thugs. The best example of that is a former president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, his past and behavior. The same kinds of leaders are operating to orchestrate a so-called referendum in Crimea with all the Stalinist methods of intimidation and application of force.

My prediction: Ukraine has a constellation of very knowledgeable, bright leaders to bring the country to Western civilization. In terms of the Russian army, it will move further to occupy the industrial Eastern Ukraine—WWIII is going on. Watch Ukrainian cities: Kherson, Nikolaev, Donezk, and others…

Mystery of Malaysian Flight 370

This is a pre-planned act of a foreign intelligence similar to 9/11 twelve years ago. The plane was hijacked and deliberately diverted to use for the benefits of the criminals involved. If the plane is not on the ground of the ocean, it landed for the further use as a weapon of mass destruction similar to 9/11. Meanwhile, the plane, with a lot of sophisticated technology, will be studied by the team of a foreign country involved in the crime… It could land in one of the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia or in the Western China: My guess is the former, maybe Kazakhstan. I have been writing about the plane crashes since 1999, The Russian Factor: From Cold War to Global Terrorism, Xlibris, 2006, p. 105. I had continued this subject on p. 169, What is Happening to America? Xlibris, 2012. For the last twenty years, I am writing to unmask Stalinism, but our intelligence apparatus is blocking information about all my books.

A Growing IRS Scandal

Any former citizens from the Socialist country would smile or even laugh, watching House Committee investigating Lois Lerner, who oversaw Internal Revenue Service’s scrutiny of tea party groups. It was a spectacle we used to see in our former countries, when people are sabotaging the truth by all means possible. As a matter of fact, the IRS helped Obama to win in 2012, by paralyzing activities of the tea party. Just recall the enormous power of the IRS over the American people. The picture is clear to me in March 2014—Obama is building an American KGB – the IRS.

In summary: All three examples have the same cause–the circumstances of these events have converged in March 2014. To understand my thought-process, here is a conversation of two KGB’s Generals, narrated by one of them. He is Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa; the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect to the U.S, the second General is the KGB’s Chairman Yuri Andropov a devoted Stalin’s disciple:

“In 1972 the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America that could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.” – Russian Footprints by Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, August 24, 2008.

General Pacepa wrote in the same article: “According to Andropov… the Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor, Andropov sermonized.”

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com.

The Future of Catholic Schools – The Curse of Common Core

Hope all is well on this “Second Saturday of Lent“, as it seems almost surreal that I am still writing about Common Core – the most controversial issue to hit the United States of America since that infamous day of January 22nd, 1973 – when the Catholic Church decided to “take the 5th”, allowing the liberals of this country to pass the Roe v. Wade decision – giving abortionists in this country “open season on babies in the womb”.

Historians and Pro-Life experts will tell you today that “Had the Catholic Church stood up as One Body in Christ as One Strong Voice, back at the end of 1972 – abortion in this country would have never been legalized”. I have heard that a million times…I honestly think that’s where our beloved Pope Francis’ latest famous quote “Whom am I to Judge”? was actually birthed…and, it wasn’t just a blob of tissue.

In tying in Pope Francis’ famous “5” words from my previous article, “Who Am I to Judge“, this same nonchalant attitude seems to have a played a large role in our country 41 years ago. It’s almost as if the liberals and Pro-abortionist of this country challenged our Catholic Church back then and asked them:

“Is the Holy Catholic Church going to fight against the legalization of abortion like it should because of the 6th Commandment, or is the Church just going to roll over and allow this intrinsic evil to rule our land of the Free? Is the Holy Catholic Church just simply going to say: WHO AM I TO JUDGE?

Fifty-six million murdered babies and 41 years later, the United States is still paying a dear price for that infamous decision that the Catholic Church could have said NO to. Today, the Catholic Church is faced with a very familiar scenario, and this one involves, not the unborn – but our beloved children who somehow survived abortion. Our school children – specifically, our Catholic School children. Is history going to repeat itself? Are the liberals, the Pro-Abortion fanatics, the crooked politicians and the self-serving school administrators – along with our ever-controlling government – going to wreak havoc on our nation once again? First, the fiasco of Obamacare…now this.

The “Curse of Common Core”, ladies and gentlemen, is what I am referring to in this article as this socialist disease could be even more detrimental to our country than the legalization of abortion.

I have studied it, read all about it, immersed myself into it, written hundreds of emails about it, written to every single Catholic Bishop in our country about it, met with several of them, met with several superintendents, met with many legislators about it, organized and attended meetings, conference and rallies on it. You name it – I have done it. From the second that I heard that our beloved Catholic schools were planning on implementing this government-controlled set of “unproven” education standards that have literally been sneaked in around the back door to our schools – I became very actively involved. That’s only because I know exactly what happened in Nazi Germany back in the late 1930’s, and I know exactly what happened in our own country back on January 22nd, 1973.

Will history repeat itself?

If President Obama and Jeb Bush have their way, it will. If Bill Gates has his way, it will. If Planned Parenthood has their way, it will. If the United Nations has their way, it will. If Agenda 21 has its way, it will. If Jeb Bush and all of these self-serving politicians who are in it for their own greedy purposes, it will. And, if the Holy Catholic Church does NOT come to her senses and says NO to Common Core – history will repeat itself – and the United States will no longer be the same country that my late, beloved father brought us from Communist Cuba to live in back in 1961. Castro destroyed my beautiful place of birth. Obama is doing the same to this incredible country that I love with all my being…and, like Nero, he is playing us like a fiddle.

“Who am I to Judge?” Is that the way the Holy Catholic Church is going to answer when it comes to implementing this ever-controversial Common Core, which has the entire country up in arms? Why on earth would the Catholic schools even think of following the Public schools when the public schools kicked GOD out of their schools years ago? Is the Catholic Church going to back down from Her Catholic Church teachings & position and cower to Obama and his liberal cronies in order to get their prize? Is it too late to reverse the curse or has the damage already been done? Are they really talking about changing the name of Common Core to another name to hide that controversy – but, still looking to get that funding that originated from “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top”?

The Bottom Line:

Is it all about the “Almighty Dollar” or is it all about the “Almighty Father”? Does not the Holy Bible tell us that “we cannot serve two masters?”

“Who am I to Judge?” It’s time the Catholic Church steps up and says” It is the Catholic Church who is here to judge – and it is not the jury – but, the Almighty Catholic Church – that has decided that we are NOT going to do business with the likes of Common Core – with its face & foundation of the “population control”, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; along with “abortion giant”, Planned Parenthood; Agenda 21; the United Nations; and every single crooked politician who has had their greedy hands in putting this controversial curriculum together. Common Core and all it stands for has no place in our Catholic schools and our beloved children deserve better”.

Being a devout Catholic myself, I can only pray that the Holy Catholic Church comes up with this judgement and finally puts this Common Core controversy to its final resting place somewhere in a beautiful Catholic Cemetery…Queen of Peace, Pray for us.

 

mashup2013THE COMMON CORE must BE THE CATHOLIC FAITH!!

cardinal newman society logo

 

 

 

March 14, 2014

Dear Willy G.,

I need your help to continue our important work on the Common Core!

Concerns about the Common Core come from about as diverse a group of people as you will find anywhere. They include conservatives, liberals, top educators, teachers unions, and, most importantly, parents.

But The Cardinal Newman Society has one particular concern: Promoting and defending faithful Catholic education.

We have been working with experts to address Catholic concerns about the Common Core, partnering with the outstanding experts at the National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools, and raising awareness about the flaws in the Common Core standards.

Our position is simple: In Catholic schools, the “common core” should be the Catholic Faith!

Since launching our “Catholic Is Our Core” initiative, we have:

  • co-hosted briefings on concerns about the Common Core for Catholic school superintendents, principals, education experts, and bishops;
  • conducted a poll of Catholic school principals, finding they weren’t broadly consulted and that they have substantial concerns about the Common Core;
  • published a series of “issue bulletins” by national experts on how the Common Core might threaten faithful education;
  • created a comprehensive online library of information on our website;
  • and advocated for strong Catholic identity and academic quality in media interviews about Catholic schools and the Common Core.

Still, many Catholic families and educators aren’t aware of what’s coming rapidly in many Catholic schools. There is so much more to be done!

Will you help us today with a special donation to address concerns about the Common Core and to continue our important work to promote and defend faithful Catholic education?

Whether it’s Common Core, bad theology or just ambivalence about our Catholic Faith, The Cardinal Newman Society will be here to help ensure faithful Catholic education in the years ahead. Our students deserve nothing less!

Thank you for your prayers and most generous support! May God bless you.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Patrick J. Reilly
President

EDITORS NOTE: The featured picture is of Roanoke Catholic School in Roanoke, Virginia taken by Patriarca12. This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Ted Cruz: Other than Cigarette Smoking, the Pic is Accurate

First Breitbart and then Time reported earlier today that mysterious photoshopped posters of Ted Cruz, showing the Texas Republican senator shirtless, with edgy tattoos, smoking a cigarette, were plastered around various locations in Los Angeles, like the Beverly Hilton Hotel, late Thursday night.

Time Magazine writes: Of course, Cruz is tattooed in poster form only. Some mischief-maker posted his photoshopped (we think!) image around town ahead of a speaking engagement for the congressmen at Beverly Hills’ Claremont Institute. The event was scheduled for Saturday night.

Likely a prank, the stunt prompted a tongue-and-cheek response from the Senator:

Ted_Cruz_Tweet.jpg

They think it’s prank? How much do we know about Ted Cruz, really? Could it be that this picture is actually a selfie texted from his phone to a mysterious Tea Party knockout, and his official bio is nothing more than a fictionalized alternative reality?

According to our sources, Ted Cruz is actually a twin brother of Chuck Norris, and his powers extend beyond the realm of what can be grasped by mere mortals.

We know for a fact that…

– When Al Gore invented the Internet, his inbox already contained three unread emails from Ted Cruz.

– Ted Cruz has a quadruple citizenship in the U.S., Canada, Middle-earth and Westeros.

– If you superimpose Ted Cruz’s fingerprints, the resulting image will be the Seal of the President of the United States.

– When Ted Cruz got bit by a rattle snake, the snake had to sign up for Obamacare but couldn’t get through the login screen and died after a week of pain and agony in front of the computer.

– Ted Cruz has already won the presidential election in 2016 with a roundhouse kick in the polls; the pollsters just haven’t developed the technology to look that far into the future.

More facts and documentary footage to follow.

Hillary & Bill, Bonnie & Clyde

In its January 24, 2004 edition, the New York Times reported that a Los Angeles private detective, Anthony J. Pellicano, had been sentenced to thirty months in prison for illegal possession of hand grenades, blasting caps, plastic explosives, and two handguns.

Those items were found by F.B.I. agents in a raid on Pellicano’s Los Angeles office in November 2002.  The agents were acting under a search warrant issued in a federal investigation of threats against a Los Angeles Times reporter, Anita Busch, who was working on a series of articles detailing the relationship between a Hollywood celebrity and a reputed mob figure.

According to news reports, Ms. Busch found her car vandalized, a bullet hole in her windshield, a dead fish with a long-stemmed red rose in its mouth on the front seat, and a note saying, simply, “STOP!”  Unfortunately for Pellicano, the F.B.I. produced an audiotape in which an F.B.I. informant was overheard confessing that Pellicano had hired him to silence Ms. Busch.

After serving a 30 month sentence, Pellicano was back in the news again.  In a February 7, 2006 story, the Los Angeles Times reported that, “… one time private investigator Anthony Pellicano and six others were accused Monday of conspiring to wiretap, blackmail, and intimidate dozens of celebrities and business executives…”  Pellicano was found guilty of illegal wiretapping, harassment, identity theft, and racketeering, and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Not only was Pellicano an important member of the O.J. Simpson defense team in 1994-95, the Times has identified such high-profile celebrities as Roseanne Barr, Kevin Costner, Michael Jackson, Sylvester Stallone, and Elizabeth Taylor as former Pellicano clients.

Of course, the Times couldn’t be expected to list all of Pellicano’s clients.  However, those who were paying attention during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s will remember Anthony J. Pellicano.   His name first came to light during the summer of 1992 when Bill Clinton was a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.

In a long series of “bimbo eruptions,” disclosures that threatened to derail his presidential

ambitions, it became known that Clinton had enjoyed a twelve-year extramarital affair with a Little Rock woman named Gennifer Flowers.  When Clinton called Flowers a liar and his “bimbo eruption” squad attempted to destroy her reputation and her career, Flowers produced audio tapes in which Clinton was overheard telling her to simply lie about their relationship and that, if they both stuck to their stories, no one would ever be able to prove otherwise.

Shortly thereafter, Clinton’s principal handlers, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos, under the supervision of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, began making public statements alleging that an “expert in audio recording analysis” had concluded that a twelve minute portion of the tapes had been “selectively edited” in two places.  That “expert” was identified as Anthony J. Pellicano.  Flowers then submitted her tapes to an organization called Truth Verification Labs, which found them to be totally authentic.

But Pellicano’s services to the Clintons were apparently just beginning.  As investigative reporters uncovered one former lover after another, the White House “bimbo eruption” squad had their hands full.  In fact, the details of the Anita Busch intimidation in Los Angeles bear an eerie resemblance to a story involving a former beauty queen, Sally Perdue, Miss Arkansas of 1958, one of Clinton’s many sexual dalliances.

Perdue said in a 1994 interview with a London newspaper that she’d been threatened with having both her legs broken if she spoke to reporters or government investigators about her relationship with Bill Clinton.  Subsequent to the threats, her car windshield was broken and a spent shotgun shell was left on her front seat.  Cops and screenwriters might refer to that as a “standard M.O.”  Perdue was so terrified that she relocated, quite suddenly, to the Peoples Republic of China.

Then, early in his presidency, a major supporter and fundraiser from Virginia, Kathleen Willey, went to the Oval Office to ask Clinton for a full-time paid position in his administration.  During that meeting, Clinton assaulted Ms. Willey, sexually, causing her to run from the oval office in a state of panic… her hair disheveled, her makeup smeared, and her clothing in disarray.

Later, as she prepared to testify before special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Willey was subjected to acts of intimidation.  Two days before her testimony, while taking an early morning walk near her Richmond, Virginia home, she was approached by a strange man.  The stranger threatened her and her children by name, and references were made to her vandalized car and a missing 13-year-old house pet.  The message was clear: she was being told to remain silent.  A day after the deposition, she found an animal skull on her porch.

Then, in 1998, just four days after the Monica Lewinsky story broke in the national press, one of Lewinsky’s former boyfriends, Andy Bleiler, reported that Lewinsky had told him that she was going to Washington to be a White House intern and to get her “presidential kneepads.”  When it was widely reported that Pellicano had been engaged to dig up dirt on Lewinsky, allegedly by Hillary Clinton herself, he was asked by a New York Post reporter, Andrea Peyser, to either confirm or deny that he was the source of the Andy Bleiler information.  He responded, “You’re a smart girl.  No comment.”

So why does the Times not find it interesting to report Hillary Clinton’s past relationship with Pellicano?  The answer is, those in the mainstream media are interested in seeing Bill Clinton absolved of all his sins and Hillary Clinton inaugurated as America’s first female president… no matter what criminal acts they may have committed.

But now that Hillary has completed her four-year stint as a do-nothing Secretary of State, during which time she was given a fancy office in Foggy Bottom, a big airplane, an unlimited expense account, and told to just travel… get out of town… she now has her eyes set once again on the White House.  But let us not forget who the Clintons are.  They are the real life version of Arkansas’ Beverly Hillbillies, but with a much more expensive wardrobe and none of the class.

When George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, he graciously loaned Air Force

Two to the Clintons to transport them to their new home in Chappaqua, New York.  But when the plane returned to Washington it was necessary to completely restock the aircraft.  Every comfort item on the plane… china, flatware, glassware, napkins, blankets, sheets, pillow cases, ashtrays, book matches, pens, pencils, and playing cards… literally anything and everything that was not a permanent part of the aircraft, had been stolen by the Clintons and their friends.

And when the Bushes entered the White House that same afternoon to prepare for an evening of black tie festivities, what they found left them speechless… and deeply saddened.  They found desks, chairs, and bookcases overturned, telephone lines purposely crossed so as to misdirect calls, computers and word processors with the “W” missing from the keyboards, obscene messages posted to email inboxes, and obscene graffiti spray painted on the walls.  The Clinton staff had totally ransacked Air Force Two and trashed the White House.

These are the people who now rely on Obama’s low information voters to give them another four year lease on the White House.  But now that they are poised to make a third frontal assault on the White House, let us not forget that it was Hillary Clinton who presided over the murder of four Americans at Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

On Friday, September 14, three days after the attack, as the flag-draped coffins of the four slain Americans arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, all of the usual suspects… Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice… were among the dignitaries who were there with long faces, shedding a few feigned tears of sorrow and expressing their condolences to the bereaved family members.

Although everyone in the Obama administration knew within minutes of the attack that it was not the result of an anti-Islamic Internet video, Hillary Clinton took to the podium, and said, in the presence of the grieving families of the Benghazi victims, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.  It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”  When she uttered those words she knew that it was all a lie, designed only to provide political cover for Barack Obama’s reelection less than two months away.

Later, as she and Obama expressed condolences to the families of the slain Americans, Clinton embraced the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods.  She assured him, convincingly, that she would personally see to it that the person who made the video was arrested and prosecuted.

This is the Hillary Clinton we’ve all come to know.  She is far more ruthless than her long-time friend, Diane Blair, described her in her recently released private papers, and the only way she should ever again be allowed to set foot inside the White House is with an engraved invitation from a Republican president in hand… and perhaps one of Anthony Pellicano’s long-stemmed red roses clenched between her teeth.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image was taken on January 26-27, 2007 at Gallaudet University in Washington DC, SEIU local union leaders individually questioned eight Democratic presidential hopefuls—Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM), and former Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) —about where they stand on the issues that matter most to SEIU members: affordable health care, good jobs, and retirement security. This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

Ukraine: Will Any Principle Do?

This week’s news in Britain has been dominated not by the clash of nations or the continuing stand-off on the borders of Ukraine.  Rather, it has been dominated instead by the death of two leading figures of the British left.  The death at the start of the week of Union leader Bob Crow and at the end of the week of the former Labour party minister Tony Benn, has provided an opportunity to dwell not only on their individual legacies, but on the state of the left and politics as a whole.

Despite both men being hugely controversial figures – banes of the tabloid media in particular – both have received fulsome praise even from their political opponents.  Within minutes of the news of Bob Crow’s death, his opponent in the recent London tube strikes, Mayor Boris Johnson, was keen to pay tribute.  In part this was just the exercise of good manners.  But it is also emblematic of something else.  The obituaries of both men have been noticeable by their focus on principle.

True Bob Crow’s principles included a decade and a half long stretch (from the 1980s-1990s) in the Communist Party of Britain.  And in Tony Benn’s case they included a large quantity of doctrines so far to the left that they undoubtedly assisted the government of Margaret Thatcher to achieve its successive election victories.  The radicalism of the policies of both men is not in doubt.  Anymore than was the general public’s distaste for such politics whenever offered to them at the ballot box.

But the reactions to the deaths of both men, from even their most doughty political foes, has kept coming back to the fact that they had principles in the first place.  As though the holding of any principles is now to be considered remarkable and necessarily admirable.

There may be something in this.  It is true that in all the Western democracies a sense has grown that we have entered a period of managerialism in our political systems.  This is not necessarily such a bad thing as is sometimes made out.  Better to have a politics of the middle ground dominated by moderate managers than a politics of the extremes dominated by hungrily competing ideologues.  But debate over the last week is also a reminder that a dose of principle, consistency and even unpopularity is not wholly to be feared.

Neither Crow nor Benn ever managed to pose a threat to the mainstream of politics and perhaps it is for that reason that their ideas – however misguided – can be looked at fondly even while not admiringly.  But the clear hunger for principle of any kind – even of such an unpopular stripe – should be worthy of note for our politicians.  A very different political figure, Enoch Powell, famously wrote in his study of Joseph Chamberlain that, ‘All political careers end in failure.’  That may be true.  What is certain is that all political careers have failure somewhere in their trajectory.  Whether someone was right or wrong on the great questions of the day is what matters most.  But as the judgements of our age become clearer it appears that to have felt strongly on anything at all is now enough to be ranked with honour.

Obamacare Art Appreciation Lesson #1: What’s Art?

Marking the third anniversary of Obamacare’s passage, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the health care law fulfills the promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by liberating workers from their place of employment and allowing them to pursue careers in the arts. “And just think that you could be a photographer or writer,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi often has praised Obamacare in this way, saying it enables Americans to quit their jobs and become artists.

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said in May 2010. “A bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

Last year, while marking the second anniversary of the health care law, Pelosi used a similar line, saying Obamacare allows you to quit your job and become “whatever.”

We made the visual aid below for a new government program helping workers who have lost their jobs due to Obamacare, in their transitioning from shovels to paintbrushes.

Federally subsidized Art Appreciation courses to follow.

obamacare be an artist peoples cube

And on a different note:

“WHO AM I TO JUDGE?”

Happy one year anniversary to Pope Francis. He has taken the world by storm, curbed the role of the Vatican Second-in-Command all the while holding a “Global Open House”.

It seems almost impossible to think that a full year has gone by that we witnessed that plume of white smoke rising from the Sistine Chapel chimney, signaling the election of Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, after the former pontiff abruptly resigned in early February. An entire year has gone by and the entire world has noticed.

From atheists to the liberals to the homosexuals to the media in every country, the 266th Roman Catholic pope has made a mark for himself and the Holy Catholic Church these past 365 days. I refer to his approach as a “Global Open House”. He has invited everybody to the banquet table and has gotten everyone’s undivided attention by using “5” simple words –

“WHO AM I TO JUDGE?”

Those are “5” simple words. Just a simple question…but, boy, has it garnered a ton of media attention all over the world. It basically stems from the Bible and the approach that Jesus, Himself, used in all that He did during his three years of ministry. He ate with the sinners, hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes, and never judged anybody on how they looked, dressed or acted. Jesus simply accepted every person as they were. That is so beautiful and so noble.

Jesus walked the walk as twelve men followed him, with another 1.2 billion followers closely behind them.

Coat_of_Arms_of_Pope_Francis_(Unofficial_variant_with_papal_tiara).svg

Coat of Arms of Pope Francis.

Skip over Saint Peter, Pope John Paul II and fast forward to the Year 2014. We once again, find a charismatic person in the Catholic Church who seems to be walking very closely in Jesus’ footsteps. Meet Pope Francis – one year later. One year as the new Holy Father. One year after shaking up the entire Vatican, the Roman Curia, the liberal media and every person he comes into contact with. And, he has come into contact with millions. And, he has yet to “judge any of them”.

Come follow me and I will make you fishers of the less judgmental. It worked 2,000 years ago. Will it work today?

In this day and age, where the liberals and the immorals have taken center stage in our society, it is easier to listen to a very open pope who has invited them all to the banquet table – regardless of what their morals are; regardless of who they voted for; regardless of what gender they marry; and regardless of their views on the abortion. Only because Pope Francis uttered those world famous words on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome, the entire world has now used it to their advantage. It has become a defense mechanism. It has become a manipulator.

It has become a great cliche. It is a misguided way to deflect any type of pressure from one’s actions. It is basically, “the easy way out”.

After all, if you continue saying “Who am I to Judge” every time anybody asks you a question – how can you go wrong? Heck, Jesus started it and used it on a daily basis. Pope Francis is continuing it by carrying the baton. Could you imagine me, as a former NCAA Basketball Official, telling two irate coaches on the sidelines: “Who am I to Judge?”

But, how long can one continue to use this ambiguous phrase?

320px-Vatican_StPaul_Statue

St. Paul statue in front of St. Peters Basilica (Vatican). Sculptor: Adamo Tadolini. Courtesy of Ang MoKio.

And, where is Pope Francis drawing that very thin red line? Again, is the Holy Father using “Who am I to Judge” as a way to show the entire population that the real Christians and Catholics in this world are not supposed to judge and are supposed to accept everybody, regardless? That we have nothing against the gay lifestyle. Does this simple phrase open up a can of worms and now demonstrates to the entire world that “anything goes”?

Is this going to be the new phrase to replace the old one – “I am taking the 5th”?

“Taking the 5th” is the easy way out. One does not have to answer the question – even in a court of law. “I am taking the 5th”. “Who am I to judge”? Are they not almost identical?

Is it almost a cop-out? Will those five simple words that the Holiest of all Catholics made famous, now going to become the slogan and battle cry for the liberals, unbelievers and sinners? For the blatant homosexuals? For the pro-Abortionists? Is this the phrase that they are now going to use in order to manipulate the rest of our “straight” society? The phrase that they will use to get their way and continue to cram down the homosexual lifestyle to all of America?

My prayer this Lenten Season is that the well-liked Pope Francis comes strong to the entire world some time this Year 2014 – maybe during the joyous Advent Season – and explains to 6.8 billion people in the world what he meant by “Who am I to Judge”?

Claiming to be a “Son of the Holy Catholic Church”, I can only pray that once he gets everybody’s undivided attention, he sits down in front of the chalk board and teaches all of these liberals, homosexuals and pro-Abortionists that “there is a lot more to those 5 words” that he was so famously quoted for saying.

Now, are you all ready to take notes? Lesson One.

 

RELATED COLUMN: Pope Francis Curbs Role Of Vatican Second-In-Command

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Thierry Ehrmann and is of a Pope Francis graffiti in the “Abode of Chaos” museum of contemporary art, in Saint-Romain-au-Mont-d’Or, Rhône-Alpes region, France. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

“Pro-Abortionist” Nancy Pelosi to Receive Planned Parenthood’s Highest Award

Just when we thought we had heard it all – along comes the “Annual Planned Parenthood Awards Banquet” – where on March 27th these infamous “murders of the innocent” gather together to hand out and award the person who exemplifies their mission statement best – that of promoting and endorsing the murder of the innocent at any cost. And, the winner of the 2014 Margaret Sanger Award goes to – Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. What is interesting is that Rep. Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. in 1962. Over a century ago, Trinity College was founded by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur as the nation’s first Catholic liberal arts college for women.

sangerph

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966), Editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938. Founder of Planned Parenthood. Click on the image to read quotes from Sanger.

Yes, Pelosi is a Catholic who endorses abortion as much as President Obama, perhaps even more so. Nancy will step up to the podium on March 27th to accept this “prestigious” Sanger award. But who was Margaret Sanger?

Margaret Sanger’s purpose is best illustrated by this quote:

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” – Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and strong supporter of Eugenics. Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger… Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”

Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that  human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated. Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.” [Emphasis added]

Sanger’s Eugenics efforts inspired Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann and Dr. Mengele. They knew each others ideas, methods and ideals quite well in the late 1930’s, which was intended to create a “a race of thoroughbreds“. Hence, the Holocaust was born in America and transhipped to Germany where it was elevated to the extermination of enemies of the state to an industrial level. The result was 20 million people systematically murdered – including 6 million Jews. Then Sanger and Hitler, today Pelosi and Obama. Two matches made “Far from Heaven”.

Winning the “Margaret Sanger Award” is the equivalent of Hitler winning the Nobel Peace prize.

So, on this “8th Day of our ever-sacred Lenten Season and 40 Days for Life read about how deranged our society has gotten since Obama took office only five years ago. The evermore-progressive Democrat Party is not the same party as we knew and respected  under President Grover Cleveland. They are now the “Party of Satan” as everything that this group is affiliated with has to do with the intrinsic evils that they have single-handedly brought into our present culture. When one embraces the likes of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood and thinks it is an honor to win an award that recognizes you as a person of immoral character, of liberal thoughts, and of promoting the killing of innocent babies – you must be deluded at best and  at the worst deranged. It hurts me even having to read this article, let alone, write about it.

But, if we are to do something about this “culture of death” that the Sangers, Obamas and Pelosi’s of this world embrace, we better do something to try to reverse this curse and do it swiftly. We can complain all we want. We can curse at the wall. We can write emails all day long to vent our anger and frustration. We can criticize all we want until the “cows come home”. Or, we can try to do something about it.

Like attending “America’s Finest Hour” on Tuesday evenings at the Cathedral of St. Ignatius at 6:00 p.m. You may also pick up the phone and call Jane Brill at (561) 889-9212 or Melanie Hill at: (561) 676-2337 to join “40 Days for Life” at either of their two locations. You may also come out twice a month to demonstrate at abortionist, Dr. Daniel Sacks’ office on the corner of Okeechobee and Benoist Farms Road, West Palm Beach, FL.

You can do so many things to “make a difference” in our society – but, if one just simply reads this column and feels a bit guilty that you are indeed, not doing a damn thing about our dire situation in our country and just hit the “DELETE” button – you might as well hit the “DEFEAT” button. How many times are you going to replay this same scenario? And, if you do hit that “Defeat” button – where does that take you?

Do yourself a favor and come out one Tuesday night for our prayer group at 6:00 p.m. at the Cathedral so that we can pray for you and give you some sense of hope. As it is hope that keeps us “Pro-Lifers” going. With all the madness that we see on a daily basis in our country, it is hope that gives us that added intangible that allows us to keep doing what we are doing, day after day.

Is today the day that you are going to “break that mold” and do something different? Something for somebody else? Something to make our world a better place to live in? Something for the most vulnerable in our society? Speak up, folks – for our precious unborn babies cannot.

RELATED STORIES:

Ala. Supreme Court: ‘Unborn Child Has Inalienable Right to Life From its Earliest Stages’
Hillary Clinton: Abortion Needed for Equality —and Human Development…
Newly crowned Miss Pennsylvania, Valerie Gatto, was conceived in rape
Abortion Providers Don’t Inform Authorities about Pregnant 11 year old

RELATED VIDEO: Breaking the language barrier – 40 Days for Life in Croatia

[youtube]http://youtu.be/U0nGdXOusw4[/youtube]

Check Your History by B.K. Marcus

In a recent Freeman article, “Check Your Context,” columnist Sarah Skwire brought my attention to a popular meme on the political left, both online and off: “Check your privilege.”

At its gentlest, this is advice to raise our awareness of those aspects of our personal histories that may lead to complacent assumptions about how the world works, assumptions that may limit the scope of our moral imaginations.

When it is less gentle (which is often), it is a dismissal of the opinions of anyone who is insufficiently poor, or, more likely, insufficiently left-wing.

I hadn’t heard “check your privilege” before, but I did grow up surrounded by the assumptions that privilege has to do with money and education (no matter how they are acquired) and is ultimately something to feel guilty about. So I was very happy to see Skwire succeed in making the same points about context that I spent a silly amount of time failing to make to my peers in college:

No one is privileged at all times and in all ways. The teenager who rules the halls of the high school is just a punk kid when she gets pulled over for speeding. And even the most powerful politician, stuck in a dance club, is still just an old guy who can’t dance.

To augment her advice to check the social context in which we perceive a person to be privileged, I would like to make a different point about “privilege” and context—a historical point that has informed how I have heard the word ever since I learned its etymology. The history of the word—and how its connotation has changed—is critical, I think, for libertarians.

My own path out of the default leftism I grew up with was circuitous at best. For me it did not begin with Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard. Of greater influence was Robert Anton Wilson’s Illuminatus! trilogy.

In a scene in that book we find our anarchist hero Hagbard Celine all dressed up and undercover at a Council on Foreign Relations banquet. The topic of conversation is Mortimer Adler’s claim that “we and the Communists share the same Great Tradition . . . and we must join together against the one force that really does threaten civilization—anarchism!”

Our hero interrupts the ensuing conversation:

“I can put the Great Tradition in one word,” he said calmly. “Privilege.” . . .

“Privilege is defined in most dictionaries as a right or immunity giving special favors or benefits to those who hold it. Another meaning in Webster is ‘not subject to the usual rules or penalties.’ The invaluable thesaurus gives such synonyms as power, authority, birthright, franchise, patent, grant, favor and, I’m sad to say, pretension. Surely, we all know what privilege is in this club, don’t we, gentlemen? Do I have to remind you of the Latin roots, “privi, private, and lege, law, and point out in detail how we have created our Private Law over here, just as the Politburo have created their own private law in their own sphere of influence?”

Obviously the private law of privi-lege isn’t the polycentric legal system advocated by anarcho-capitalists and recently explored by Freeman writer Tom W. Bell (“What Is Polycentric Law?”). Rather, it is, as Etymonline puts it, “‘law applying to one person,’ . . . from privus ‘individual’ (see private [adj.]) + lex (genitive legis) ‘law.'”

In other words, unequal treatment by the State.

True privilege, in this older sense, means membership in the political class, advantages backed by coercive government.

The conflation between wealth in general and State-granted privilege is understandable: For so much of human history, the “upper” class and the political class were one and the same. And whenever the merchant class began to build significant wealth, it either joined the political class by seeking government favor and regulation against competition, or it was crushed by a political class that was jealous of its own privilege—in the original sense.

This pattern continues today, but it is not pervasive. Since the Industrial Revolution, more and more wealth has been created from production and voluntary exchange. The State continues to co-opt capitalists, but the rising general prosperity of the past century or two shows that, in the West at least, more and more wealth is the product of mutually beneficial exchange, not privilege.

Some readers may be rolling their eyes at a history lesson they see as pedantic and irrelevant to modern usage. But, as with the history of the term liberal, no discussion of the word privilege can really be complete without the context of both its origins and its transformation—or its confiscation and obfuscation, which was deliberate at least in the case of “liberalism.”

None of this is to argue with Skwire’s important point about context: Power dynamics aren’t linear, static, or simple, and neither are the individuals we may sometimes seek to dismiss for the power we perceive in them.

But certain classes of power are simpler than others, and more insidious.

The teenager who rules the halls of the high school may or may not have achieved her status through coercion. Either way, her victims do eventually get to opt out of her sphere of influence. The cop who pulls her over for speeding, on the other hand, exerts a privilege that we can’t escape.

The politician may feel powerless on the dance floor, but any social power the other dancers have over him is temporary at best, and does not take the form of direct harm—whereas he can return to work on Monday and initiate legislation against dance clubs. His is an entirely different category of privilege.

Those in the 21st century who are most enamored of the word privilege—and often wield it as a bludgeon—make two mistakes. First, as Skwire shows us, they underestimate the complexity of power dynamics and social context. But they often take it a step further. In the name of reducing their newer, fuzzier kind of social privilege, they often advocate increases in the simple, old-fashioned, government-based variety.

ABOUT B.K. MARCUS

B.K. Marcus is senior editor at Liberty.me and a publishing consultant at InvisibleOrder.com.

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

On Vouchers In General and Particularly the 2014 All-voucher Arizona Push

Over the past year, I have received three glossy mailouts telling me that I can “enroll my child in private school for free.” The last one included the message, “Time is running out!” and added, “Is your child stuck in a failing school? Send them to a private school for FREE.”

Nothing is “for free.” Someone must pay.

I live in Louisiana, so this advertisement is tailored to my state:

Thanks to the Louisiana Scholarship Program, students attending a C, D, or F school– or entering Kindergarten– whose family meets income requirements, can get a scholarship to a private school of your choice– for FREE! 

Ahh, but TIME IS RUNNING OUT, my friends!

As an additional lure, I am told that if I visit the Louisiana Scholarship Program website, I can “enter to win a $500 back-to-school shopping spree!”

It sure sounds like someone really wants to make it appear that vouchers (the undressed term for these “scholarships”) are more popular than they really are.

So, who is pushing this effort?

The card includes the following small print:

Paid for by the Alliance for School Choice

It should come as no surprise that Carrie (Walton) Penner sits on the board of the Alliance for School Choice (ASC), a group co-founded by the late John T. Walton.

As in Walmart Waltons.

The irony behind telling Louisiana residents that vouchers can save children from C, D, or F schools is that the Waltons are also huge supporters of charter schools (just look at the donations/ revolving credit they offer to charters based on their 2012 990). In Louisiana, the Waltons funded the OneApp open-application fiasco for the state-run Recovery School District (RSD)– a district of over 80% charter schools– most of which are rated C, D and F, even by the 2013 letter grade inflated manipulation (otherwise, there would not be so many C’s).

So, the Waltons are paying for advertisements to push vouchers that can “save” RSD children from the “failing” schools that the Waltons also push.

It’s just too rich.

ASC wields its influence nationwide, even offering model voucher legislation. (Sure sounds like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC}, doesn’t it?)

For Legislators

The Alliance for School Choice supports several pieces of model legislation. Download these bills to see how school choice can work in your state.

One such “piece” is the Education Savings Account Act:

Education Savings Account Act
This bill creates an education savings account program that allows parents to use the funds that would have been allocated to their child at their resident school district for an education program of the parents’ choosing. Download the Smart Start Scholarship Program (PDF).

The ESA is a sneaky piece of legislation known as a “backdoor voucher”– if a state’s constitution prohibits use of public funds for directly paying for private schools, ESA “backdoors” it by circumventing direct payment of public funding to private schools and instead uses the parent as the middleman.

Such is occurring in Arizona via the “Arizona ALEC,” the Goldwater Institute.  As Arizona reporter David Safir notes,

The Goldwater Institute came up with the idea for ESAs as a second workaround (the first is our tuition tax credit law) to make vouchers legal in a state where the constitution prohibits the use of public money for religious instruction. (Did you know over 70% of Arizona’s private schools are religious?) The term of art for this kind of legislation is “backdoor vouchers.” In 2011, Arizona’s Republican-dominated legislature passed the ESAs into law for a limited number of students. In 2013, more students were added, and if a new bill passes this session, half of Arizona’s school aged children will be eligible for the taxpayer-funded private school vouchers. The conservative’s ultimate goal is vouchers for all.

Of course, ASC is available to promote vouchers in Arizona– with the help of none other than Arizona State Superintendent John Huppenthal:

The Alliance for School Choice, a Washington, D.C., agent of the vast privatization/corporate complex, put together a script for a [February 2014] robocall to go out to Arizona parents whose children qualify for the ESAs. Huppenthal lent his voice to the robocall. Actually, he lent more than his voice. He lent the power and authority of his office to the message, making it sound like an official public service announcement. Huppenthal’s call sent interested parents to a website about ESAs created and funded by — get ready for it — the Goldwater Institute. And so the private-to-public-to-private-to-public-to-private cycle that begins and ends with the Goldwater folks comes full circle. [Emphasis added.]

And The Republic adds,

State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal caught some heat last month for recording a series of robo-calls promoting the ESA program and suggesting parents can use it to send their children to private schools for free.

Huppenthal’s staff worked with school choice lobbyist Sydney Hay to develop the wording for the calls, according to e-mails ProgressNow obtained. Huppenthal went ahead with some wording despite concern from his staff, including over referring families to a Goldwater Institute website for more information.

The calls went out to 48,000 qualifying families, according to the e-mail correspondence.

Pro-privatizing superintendents love vouchers. Louisiana Superintendent John White and his boss, Governor Bobby Jindal, have been pushing them hard in Louisiana– despite a record  of embarrassingly low test-score yield and miserable oversight.

One issue is clear: A goal to fund an “all voucher” system would seriously cripple or kill public education.

In the case of Arizona, where voucher money is debited to parents via voucher bank accounts, there’s the question of the bloated bureaucracy necessary to adequately monitor proper spending of the voucher disbursements.

Whereas Arizona voucher proponents assert that vouchers save money because of a lower voucher disbursement as compared to the cost of having the student attend public schools, not all costs appear to be accounted for– not the least of which is the bureaucracy noted above.

Yet Arizona– already home to a charter school bonanza that nourishes corporate greed– is fast-tracking public school destruction in the form of an expanded voucher program during the 2014 legislative session:

[Arizona’s] Empowerment Scholarship Account program was, at the start of this school year, scheduled to disperse $10.2 million to 761 students. If expanded as proposed, the 3-year-old program could within the next five years apply to more than 28,000 students and strip more than $374 million a year from public and charter schools, based on the current average cost.

The goal is to eventually expand the program to the state’s more than 1 million public and charter schoolchildren. …

The [Arizona] Legislature started the session with six bills proposing to expand ESAs in various ways. Three are still advancing.

House Bill 2150, which passed the House and moves to the Senate, would allow the children of military personnel killed in the line of duty to participate. The bill is scheduled for a public hearing Thursday before the Senate Education Committee.

Senate Bill 1236 and House Bill 2291 are identical bills, which puts them on a fast-track. They each need a committee of the whole and a final vote in their respective chambers and then would be combined and sent directly to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The bills propose to gradually expand who is allowed to participate in the program.

Next school year, the children of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical technicians could participate, as could siblings of children who already use ESAs.Starting with the 2016-17 school year, children whose family income qualifies them for the federal free or reduced lunch program could participate. Each year after, it raises the qualifying family income by an additional 15 percent until all families qualify.

While the proposed expansion could cost public and charter schools hundreds of millions of dollars each year as parents move children into private schools, it also carries an increased cost to the state due to the funding formula for certain students.

According to legislative staff, expanding the program under HB 2291 or SB 1236 would cost the state an additional $46,100 in fiscal 2016, $3.5 million in fiscal 2017, $7.6 million in fiscal 2018 and $12.5 million in fiscal 2019. [Emphasis added.]

It amazes me how privatizers push for complete privatization– unbridled market force– without conducting any kind of small-scale run-through to see where major problems might arise.

And major problems will arise.

Did we learn nothing from the economic crisis of 2008 regarding the vulnerability of the so-called “free market” to the ever-lurking forces of unbridled greed and high-powered excess?

As to the push for a full-voucher education system in Arizona: What of that disbursement and accountability bureaucracy necessary to adequately handle an all-voucher system? Is there enough money for an all-voucher system– for both vouchers and bureaucracy? Will the Arizona education system bankrupt itself on voucher “choice”? Is it even possible to monitor the quality of education for individual students for such a large-scale voucher program? Who will ensure that students are actually receiving an education? Has no one considered the possibility that some parents might submit beautiful quarterly receipts yet not be educating their children?

And what of the parents who reject vouchers– who actually want a community public school?

Are we to pretend that such individuals do not exist?

Have they no choice?

Consider Milwaukee– a city that has been trying to succeed at vouchers for decades. The Walton-funded University of Arkansas Department of Educational Reform has promoted Milwaukee as evidence of voucher success, but that label only works when viewed through a certain Walton-funded lens.

Milwaukee’s voucher program demonstrates that when offered voucher choice, at least half chose to forego the “scholarship” and leave the voucher school.

Where did they choose to go?

The Milwaukee study in question did not detail exactly where students went once they left the voucher school.

I’m guessing that many returned to their neighborhood public schools.

A neighborhood public school– now there’s a novel idea.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.

Against Libertarian Brutalism by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Will libertarianism be brutalist or humanitarian? Everyone needs to decide.

Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.

The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.

But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.

To be sure, liberty does allow both the humanitarian and the brutalist perspective, as implausible as that might seem. Liberty is large and expansive and asserts no particular social end as the one and only way. Within the framework of liberty, there is the freedom to love and to hate. At the same time, they constitute very different ways of looking at the world—one liberal in the classical sense and one illiberal in every sense—and it is good to consider that before you, as a libertarian, find yourself allied with people who are missing the main point of the liberal idea.

Humanitarianism we understand. It seeks the well-being of the human person and the flourishing of society in all its complexity. Libertarian humanitarianism sees the best means to achieve this as the self-ordering social system itself, unimpeded by external controls through the violent means of the State. The goal here is essentially benevolent, and the means by which it is achieved put a premium on social peace, free association, mutually beneficial exchange, the organic development of institutions, and the beauty of life itself.

What is brutalism? The term is mostly associated with an architectural style of the 1950s through the 1970s, one that emphasized large concrete structures unrefined by concerns over style and grace. Inelegance is its main thrust and its primary source of pride. Brutalism heralded the lack of pretense and the raw practicality of the building’s use. The building was supposed to be strong not pretty, aggressive not fussy, imposing and not subtle.

Brutalism in architecture was an affectation, one that emerged from a theory robbed of context. It was a style adopted with conscious precision. It believed it was forcing us to look at unadorned realities, an apparatus barren of distractions, in order to make a didactic point. This point was not only aesthetic but also ethical: It rejected beauty on principle. To beautify is to compromise, distract, and ruin the purity of the cause. It follows that brutalism rejected the need for commercial appeal and discarded issues of presentation and marketing; these issues, in the brutalist framework, shield our eyes from the radical core.

Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world.

We look back and wonder where these monstrosities came from, and we are amazed to discover that they were born of a theory that rejected beauty, presentation, and adornment as a matter of principle. The architects imagined that they were showing us something we would otherwise be reluctant to face. You can only really appreciate the results of brutalism, however, if you have already bought into the theory and believe in it. Otherwise, absent the extremist and fundamentalist ideology, the building comes across as terrifying and threatening.

By analogy, what is ideological brutalism? It strips down the theory to its rawest and most fundamental parts and pushes the application of those parts to the foreground. It tests the limits of the idea by tossing out the finesse, the refinements, the grace, the decency, the accoutrements. It cares nothing for the larger cause of civility and the beauty of results. It is only interested in the pure functionality of the parts. It dares anyone to question the overall look and feel of the ideological apparatus, and shouts down people who do so as being insufficiently devoted to the core of the theory, which itself is asserted without context or regard for aesthetics.

Not every argument for raw principle and stripped-down analytics is inherently brutalist; the core truth of brutalism is that we need to reduce in order to see the roots, we need sometimes to face difficult truth, and we need to be shocked and sometimes to shock with seemingly implausible or uncomfortable implications of an idea. Brutalism goes much further: the idea that the argument should stop there and go no further, and to elaborate, qualify, adorn, nuance, admit uncertainty, or broaden beyond gritty assertion amounts to a sell out or a corruption of purity. Brutalism is relentless and unabashed in its refusal to get beyond the most primitive postulates.

Brutalism can appear in many ideological guises. Bolshevism and Nazism are both obvious examples: Class and race become the only metric driving politics to the exclusion of every other consideration. In modern democracy, partisan politics tends toward brutalism insofar as it asserts party control as the only relevant concern. Religious fundamentalism is yet another obvious form.

In the libertarian world, however, brutalism is rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be. The core truth is there and indisputable, but the application is made raw to push a point. Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?

These kinds of arguments make the libertarian humanitarians deeply uncomfortable since they are narrowly true as regards pure theory but miss the bigger point of human liberty, which is not to make the world more divided and miserable but to enable human flourishing in peace and prosperity. Just as we want architecture to please the eye and reflect the drama and elegance of the human ideal, so too a theory of the social order should provide a framework for a life well lived and communities of association that permit its members to flourish.

The brutalists are technically correct that liberty also protects the right to be a complete jerk and the right to hate, but such impulses do not flow from the long history of the liberal idea. As regards race and sex, for example, the liberation of women and minority populations from arbitrary rule has been a great achievement of this tradition. To continue to assert the right to turn back the clock in your private and commercial life gives an impression of the ideology that is uprooted from this history, as if these victories for human dignity have nothing whatever to do with the ideological needs of today.

Brutalism is more than a stripped-down, antimodern, and gutted version of the original libertarianism. It is also a style of argumentation and an approach to rhetorical engagement. As with architecture, it rejects marketing, the commercial ethos, and the idea of “selling” a worldview. Liberty must be accepted or rejected based entirely on its most reduced form. Thus is it quick to pounce, denounce, and declare victory. It detects compromise everywhere. It loves nothing more than to ferret it out. It has no patience for subtlety of exposition much less the nuances of the circumstances of time and place. It sees only raw truth and clings to it as the one and only truth to the exclusion of all other truth.

Brutalism rejects subtlety and finds no exceptions of circumstance to its universal theory. The theory applies regardless of time, place, or culture. There can be no room for modification or even discovery of new information that might change the way the theory is applied. Brutalism is a closed system of thought in which all relevant information is already known, and the manner in which the theory is applied is presumed to be a given part of the theoretical apparatus. Even difficult areas such as family law, criminal restitution, rights in ideas, liability for trespass, and other areas subject to case-by-case juridical tradition become part of an a priori apparatus that admits no exceptions or emendations.

And because brutalism is the outlying impulse in the libertarian world—young people are no longer interested in this whole approach—it behaves the way we’ve come to expect from seriously marginal groups. Asserting the rights and even the merits of racism and hate, it is already excluded from mainstream conversation about public life. The only people who truly listen to brutalist arguments, which are uncompelling by design, are other libertarians. For that reason, brutalism is driven ever more toward extreme factionalism; attacking the humanitarians for attempting to beautify the message becomes a full-time occupation.

In the course of this factionalism, the brutalists of course assert that they are the only true believers in liberty because only they have the stomach and the brass necessary to take libertarian logic to its most extreme end and deal with the results. But it is not bravery or intellectual rigor at work here. Their idea of libertarianism is reductionist, truncated, unthoughtful, uncolored and uncorrected by the unfolding of human experience, and forgets the larger historical and social context in which liberty lives.

So let’s say you have a town that is taken over by a fundamentalist sect that excludes all peoples not of the faith, forces women into burka-like clothing, imposes a theocratic legal code, and ostracizes gays and lesbians. You might say that everyone is there voluntarily, but, even so, there is no liberalism present in this social arrangement at all. The brutalists will be on the front lines to defend such a microtyranny on grounds of decentralization, rights of property, and the right to discriminate and exclude—completely dismissing the larger picture here that, after all, people’s core aspirations to live a full and free life are being denied on a daily basis.

Further, the brutalist believes that he already knows the results of human liberty, and they often conform to the throne-and-altar impulses of times past. After all, in their view, liberty means the unleashing of all the basest impulses of human nature that they believe the modern state has suppressed: the desire to abide in racial and religious homogeneity, the moral permanency of patriarchy, the revulsion against homosexuality, and so on. What most people regard as modernity’s advances against prejudice, the brutalists regard as imposed exceptions from the long history of humanity’s tribalist and religiously based instincts.

Of course the brutalist as I’ve described him is an ideal type, probably not fully personified in any particular thinker. But the brutalist impulse is everywhere in evidence, especially on social media. It is a tendency of thought with predictable positions and biases. It is a main source for racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic strains within the libertarian world—at once denying that this sentence is true while asserting with equal passion the rights of individuals to hold and act on such views. After all, say the brutalists, what is human liberty without the right to behave in ways that put our most precious sensibilities, and even civilization itself, to the test?

It all comes down to the fundamental motivation behind the support of liberty itself. What is its overarching purpose? What is its dominant historical contribution? What is its future? Here the humanitarians are fundamentally at odds with brutalism.

Truly, we should never neglect the core, never shrink from the difficult implications of the pure theory of liberty. At the same time, the story of liberty and its future is not only about the raw assertion of rights but also about grace, aesthetics, beauty, complexity, service to others, community, the gradual emergence of cultural norms, and the spontaneous development of extended orders of commercial and private relationships. Freedom is what gives life to the human imagination and enables the working out of love as it extends from our most benevolent and highest longings.

An ideology robbed of its accoutrements, on the other hand, can become an eyesore, just as with a large concrete monstrosity built decades ago, imposed on an urban landscape, embarrassing to everyone, now only awaiting demolition. Will libertarianism be brutalist or humanitarian? Everyone needs to decide.

20121129_JeffreyTuckeravatar (1)ABOUT JEFFREY A. TUCKER

Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at FEE, CEO 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.

Obamas Send Wrong Messages

Two weeks ago, President Obama launched an initiative called My Brother’s Keeper.

As a part of this initiative, he signed a presidential memorandum establishing the My Brother’s Keeper Task Force, chaired by Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary Broderick Johnson. The task force will help determine what public and private efforts are working and how to expand upon them, how the federal government’s own policies and programs can better support these efforts, and how to better involve state and local officials, the private sector, and the philanthropic community in these efforts.

I fail to understand the logic of setting up a yet task force. You would think groups like the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Council of La Raza would already have “shovel ready” projects that the administration could access immediately.

I can’t help but notice that Dave Steward and Bob Woodson were not invited to participate. Dave Steward, chairman of World Wide Technology in St. Louis, is the largest Black-owned business in the U.S. and has built a $ 6 billion company based on principles that highlight morals and values. He also supports these values and morals with his money in communities throughout the U.S.

Bob Woodson, founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, has a 30-year track record of dealing with troubled youths. He has done a lot of work in the president’s adopted hometown of Chicago.

It is impossible to adequately deal with our youth without incorporating the issue of values and morals. It means telling our kids that there is right and wrong; not saying to them: “Who are we to judge?”

The president said, “…I explained to them (the kids on stage with him) when I was their age, I was a lot like them. I didn’t have a dad in the house. And I was angry about it, even though I didn’t necessarily realize at the time. I made bad choices. I got high without always thinking about the harm that it could do. I didn’t always take school as seriously as I should have. I made excuses. Sometimes I sold myself short.”

Was this not the same president that said a week before in the White House that he supported legalizing marijuana? But, then he tells kids, “I made bad choices. I got high without always thinking about the harm that it could do.” If it was a bad choice and it could cause harm, then why would you want to legalize marijuana? As with the president, I am extremely confused and concerned with Ms. Obama’s fascination with people who promote values that are antithetical to creating a healthy environment for young girls to flourish in. Beyoncé is the personification of this.

Two years ago, Ms. Obama was asked by People magazine who she would choose to be other than herself. She replied with, “Gosh, if I had some gift, I’d be Beyoncé.” She and Beyoncé are purported to be very close personal friends, but is Beyoncé the person you really want your daughter to immolate?

Allow me to share a few lyrics from Beyoncé’s most recent CD, Drunk in Love: “I’ve been drinking; I get filthy when that liquor get into me; I’ve been thinking; Why can’t I keep my fingers off it, baby?”

On her song Bow Down: “I know when you were little girls; You dreamt of being in my world; Don’t forget it; Respect that, Bow down b—-es; Don’t get it twisted this is my sh-t, bow down b—-es.”

There is more. On the song Partition: Oh he so horny, he want to f—k; He bucked all my buttons, he ripped my blouse; He Monica Lewinski all on my gown.”

And the First Lady wants to be like that?

Beyoncé has become the Howard Stern of music – vulgar simply for the sake of shocking the public. Her concerts boarder on pornography Yet, Ms. Obama had no problem taking her two daughters (Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10 at the time) to watch Beyoncé perform two years ago in Atlantic City.

Here is a Twitter exchange between Beyoncé and Michelle Obama before the concert: “Michelle, thank you so much for every single thing that you do for us. I am proud to have my daughter grow up in a world where she has people like you to look up to.” Obama’s response on twitter: “@Beyoncé Thank you for the beautiful letter and for being a role model who kids everywhere can look up to. –mo.

The president and his wife are sending out conflicting messages. Kids need to be told and shown how to behave. You can’t support legalizing marijuana and then tell kids not to use it. You can’t tell little girls to carry yourself like a young lady and then tell them you want to be Beyoncé.

That’s not Drunk in Love. You have to be plain drunk to think that Beyonce should be anybody’s role model.