Minneapolis: From Hijab to Jihad

ows_139674139624040

Mayor Betsy Hodges donned a dark blue hijab as she addressed a group of business owners and elders at a Somali mall in south Minneapolis. Photo courtesy StarTribune.com.

Did Minneapolis’s democrat Mayor Betsy Hodges not get it? This was no game, not dress-up playtime or Carnival. Then I wondered if she ever found occasion to dress in the ethnic clothing of her city’s other ethnicities – the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, English, Polish, Irish, French Canadians, Native Americans? Perhaps she had not done her homework about the Somali immigrants, and it took her only 100 days into office to don a hijab for an alliance.

Surely, she has heard all the recent news about the subjugation and severe treatment of women in the Islamic Middle East; the Honor Diaries film that the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is trying to suppress; the controversy over Brandeis University’s bestowing and then rescinding an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the pressure applied by CAIR that forced Disney to cancel a movie that Muslims find “offensive,” and more. Then why would she don the quintessential symbol of inequality and bondage – the shroud of the Islamic woman.

Interestingly, the mayor has a strong admiration for Wonder Woman, the most popular female superstar in figure-hugging, stars-and-stripes regalia, with bracelets that make her invincible. Hodges is a collector of Wonder Woman dolls and has recently hung a photograph of this shining symbol of strength and sexual equality on her office wall. Rather than emulate her heroine, however, she abandoned the image with which she allegedly identifies, this icon of bravery and justice, for cowardice and deceit.

Perhaps she is a Lost Soul, one without direction, without ties to ethics or principles, unstable in today’s culture and society. Unwilling or unable to stand up for American ideologies, she too easily acquiesced to the preferences or demands of the archenemy of humankind. Whether Hodges was clueless and diplomatically inept or has emerged with a heretofore concealed agenda remains to be seen, but both choices do not bode well for the office she holds.

What began as the 7th century Bedouin woman’s attempt at privacy and protection in the desert, these shrouds have become a symbol of woman’s indignity and servitude. As Nonie Darwish so aptly explained in her book, Cruel and Usual Punishment, woman has come to represent the totality of evil and inferiority in Islamic teaching. Considered lacking in intelligence and religion, women are seen as half, and sometimes a quarter, of man’s worth in a Shari’a court (Islamic law). They may be beaten by their husbands and forbidden to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative. They may be killed by their fathers if the parent deems his honor compromised. In this oppressive society, women are the ones who preserve the honor of the male, so that he may avoid responsibility and disrepute for any unpleasantness or trouble.

Betsy Hodges Endorsement

Betsy Hodges campaign ad. For a larger view click on the image.

The hijabs and burqas serve the purpose of enforcing obedience to Shari’a and to men. With the obligation of defending their enslavement under constant threat of their own destruction, they may become very self-justifying when challenged. Some may even try to earn honor and respect by joining the radicals for violent jihad (holy war against the infidel). But there’s more. To cultures that relish freedom, these hidden women are deemed victims of sadism, forced to endure the insufferable heat of the subtropics under layers of clothing, and prevented from enjoying the summer sun and cool breezes. In fact, medical experts have noted that women so covered in northern climes, with less sunshine, are suffering more from osteoporosis from the lack of Vitamin D, and experiencing an increased risk of pelvic fracture during childbirth. Their newborn babies are more prone to getting seizures from the same deficiency.

Islamic law is concerned more with raping, beating, flogging, and stoning women than it is in honoring them. The Shari’a demand that women be covered from head to toe is also the Islamic way of solving the problem of male sexual temptations. Rather than teach the men self-restraint and respect, the onus is on the woman to hide herself, her sexuality, her body, her shame. Tragically, because there are women who want to appear as being obedient to their god and faith, it becomes the burden of other women to withstand being hated, ridiculed, or become targets of fatwas. Women face divisiveness or derision at every turn, and their society discourages, and even hinders, women from establishing friendships, particularly where polygamy is practiced.

Betsy Hodges Ad Campaign

Betsy Hodges Ad Campaign. For a larger view click on the image.

To have surrendered her dignity, self-esteem, pride in her American heritage and culture. goes beyond Hodges’ courtship of a voting bloc or fulfilling a promise to constituents. She is responsible for having her female police chief and city council representatives wear the hijab on February 28, proclaimed Hijab Day at City Hall. Rather than guide these new immigrants in becoming Americans, as previous ethnic groups have done, she is accepting their customs and laws over our own.

When the intruder or invader makes demands (no matter how subtle) that are met with compliance and submission from the host culture, this is conquest, not assimilation. I am deeply concerned as to how Hodges and her administration will address future demands, as they will surely be forthcoming – whether for Islamizing children in the classroom, serving only halal foods in the cafeterias, observing Islamic holidays on the city calendar, or all manner of accommodations in everyday life.

Hodges’ decision may well have been meticulously planned. Her hijab is stealth jihad.

RELATED STORIES:

Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”
Minneapolis City Council creates Somali-American day
Connecticut: Lawsuit alleges Edible Arrangements favored Muslims over non-Muslims

America’s Suicide Pact with Communism

It was a Founder and our second President, John Adams, who said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

He was right and I am sure he would be appalled to know that the Constitution has since been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn or that the ancient definition of marriage has been trashed to permit people of the same sex to “marry.” The legalization and use of marijuana is a further sign of decline.

These and other elements of the values expressed and expected by the Founders are eating away at the present and future of the United States of America. The Supreme Court was created to rule on what the Constitution’s actual words say and mean, not on the passing aspirations of generations who have abandoned the fundamental principles of the remarkable government it created.

The Constitution represents a federal government that was granted limited powers. The rest were retained by the States, but Communism and Socialism are based on a strong central government, one ruled by an elite class of intellectuals to oversee all elements of the economy and to set the rules by which everyone must live even if they conflict with their religious convictions and moral values.

The degradation of the nation has tracked the rise of Socialism, begun with Karl Marx’s creation of Communism. Born in Prussia in 1818, Marx was influenced by the writings of Hegel, a German philosopher. Marx’s socialist writings would get him expelled from Germany and France. In 1848, with Friedrich Engels, he published The Communist Manifesto and was exiled to London where he wrote the first volume of Das Kapital, living there until his death in 1883. Suffice to say that the Communism he unleashed would cause the death of hundreds of millions, particularly in Russia and China where it was embraced.

Americans and, in particular, conservatives who have a high regard for the Constitution and the values of personal freedom and liberty it bestows on individuals, have been fighting against the tyranny of Communism and Socialism, but it has always had an appeal to those who prefer to let others determine the actions of government and the bigger it is, the better. This is enhanced by a government that redistributes the wealth from those who worked for it to those who have not.

Along the way there have been voices that have spoken out against Communism and Socialism. I came across a speech by one of them. At the time he said, “We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

It is happening today in an America that has twice elected a Communist as its President, some say out of guilt over the slavery the nation countenanced and which took a Civil War to end. That Civil War was fought between moral Americans who hated slavery and those who profited from it. In the latter part of the last century, Americans joined with the black community to put an end to the injustices it had encountered for a century. That was the act of a nation with its moral values intact.

Barack Obama was “a red diaper baby” raised from birth by a family devoted to Socialism and educated in universities where it thrives today. His actions are entirely determined by the Marxist theology to which he has devoted his life and his failures demonstrate its failures. In the process, millions of Americans are suffering unemployment in an economy that knows what it takes to create growth, but which has been thwarted by massive government regulation and the crony capitalism that corrupts it. It has wasted billions on the global warming/climate change hoax that is still being advocated by some in Congress.

AA - Reagan on GovernmentIn the stump speech given to support the campaign of a leading conservative, the speaker said that the issue of that elections was “Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” That question exists today.

A centralized government was the “very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that… a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

At the time he gave his speech, he noted that “For three decades we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

He warned that, “Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp at this moment.”

He could have delivered that speech today, but the speaker was Ronald Reagan and the speech was given on October 27, 1964. He was campaigning for Sen. Barry Goldwater who was running against Lyndon Baines Johnson who was the incumbent as the result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Johnson was overwhelmingly elected and, while expanding the war in Vietnam that would cost more than American 53,000 lives, he also launched the “Great Society” program based entirely in Socialism. Like the war, it too would fail.

Goldwater had rejected the New Deal socialism of Franklin D. Roosevelt and it was Roosevelt who would preside over the nation’s longest economic doldrums from his first election in 1932 until the Great Depression would end in the wake of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Four years later Americans would celebrate the defeat of the Japanese Empire and Germany’s Nazi regime.

Reagan would be elected President in 1980 and, through two terms, would oversee economic growth that would be passed onto George W. Bush. The nation would turn to Bill Clinton in 1992, electing him twice.

To save the nation today, Americans must reject a Democratic Party that resembles the Communist Party USA. The voters must secure control of the Senate and House by a Republican Party that must tap into the values of men like Reagan and predecessors that included Coolidge, Hoover, and Eisenhower. Both Bush presidencies tried as well.

The warnings Reagan voiced in 1964 are no less true today and, with Barack Obama in the Oval Office, an even greater threat exists than did five decades ago. If we fail, we will be signing a suicide pact with Communism.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Islamists are rising in America while we sleep by Allen West

This week we covered two key stories that I’m quite certain aren’t getting much play: the rejection of Muslim women’s advocate Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Brandeis University and the Muslim Brotherhood forming a political bloc in America.

We are indeed witnessing the rise of Islamists in America. How has it come to this, that such a small minority has gained such a powerful political voice and influence? How is it that an organization like the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is even allowed to exist in our Republic?

It’s simple, we have become so damn politically correct that a vile organization that was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Islamic terrorist funding case in America can thumb its nose and by intimidation and coercion deny free speech and freedom of expression in our country. We have fallen under the spell of the bumper sticker “coexist” and have failed to heed the lessons of history.

What is even worse, we have failed to even take this enemy — yep, I mean it –enemy to heart for what they have openly stated their objective to be. Just read the Strategic Memorandum discovered in 1991 if you still have any doubts.

However, most importantly, we have seen a class of political cowards who castigate those of us who recognize this enemy as “Islamophobes” and “extremists.”

And why is that possible? Because we refuse to develop our own energy independence so that we can tell OPEC and the 56 nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to get bent. Instead, they use our petrodollars to hold us hostage, fund their Islamic terrorism, export their materiel propaganda, and worst of all, buy off American political cowards.

We need to follow the money in America from these Islamist organizations to any politician and defeat them. We then need to find courageous men and women who will be relentless in identifying these Islamist infiltrators and their enablers, and ban them from operating in our country. If the Egyptians can categorize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, so should the United States of America. And in turn, classify those groups associated and listed in the Strategic Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations and cease their operations in America.

This is no laughing matter. It is not about “freedom of religion” — as a matter of fact, Islam stopped being a religion in 622 when Muhammad decided to undertake the “”hejira” (migration) and departed Mecca for Medina.

When he returned to Mecca in 628 it was after breaking the Treaty of Hudaibiya and massacring the occupants of Mecca in the Battle of the Trenches. Thus began the violent march of the theocratic-political totalitarian system, a global scourge for the past 1400 years known as Islam. America battled this enemy in the Barbary Wars, first from 1801-1805, and then in 1815. The specter of the past has returned, but do we have a Jefferson and Madison who will give the order to crush this enemy — or will we continue down the path with feckless, accommodating, and acquiescing leadership which offers the throat of our Republic to this rabid barbaric foe?

If there is one thing that is bipartisan it is the failure of Democrat and Republican senior elected officials to confront this enemy — and therefore they exploit this weakness.

I cannot say this often and enough: When tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide.

Sorry, I ain’t going down this way, and to Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, and all the other Muslim Brotherhood facilitators and Islamists in America — enjoy it for now, but your dawg don’t hunt!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Bundy Ranch, Nevada: Has the American Spring begun?

10153046_243809939145413_6471996933610397881_n

Dennis Michael Lynch with militia members at Bundy Ranch, NV. Photo courtesy of Bud Parriott. For a larger view click on the photo.

The internet is ablaze with stories about what is and has happened at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. When this all began I never expected that the federales would back down in the face of armed citizen militia members.

ABC NewsLiz Fields, via Good Morning America, reports, “A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters. Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally. Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a “range war” against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.”

“I have no contract with the United States government,” Bundy said. “I was paying grazing fees for management and that’s what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay.”

Here is an amazing Facebook post on DML Daily from Dennis Michael Lynch:

Its me DML. Today was insane. I got the best footage. I was in the heart of it all. In fact, I think I may need an appointment with a psychiatric specialist because I took the firs[t] step and walked alone toward snipers who told me I needed to retreat or else they’d shoot. I did not turn back and they continued to warn ne [sic] but i ignored the warning. Eventually, everyone behind me started coming forward and there was no way they could stop us. 

Amon Bundy later said to me, “Man you have guts like I’ve never seen.” I replied, “No, you do. Had you not stood up to the BLM, me and the other thousands of Americans wouldn’t be here.”

Today was a victory and a tremendous step towards taking back America. My footage and story of events will be on The Kelly File this Monday. Right now I’m going to drink a few scotches because it is sinking in that I had 40 plus AR15 riffles (sic) pointed at my head. 

i didn’t have a camera guy today — i shot all the footage myself — so the only proof that says I was in NV is this shot that i inadvertantly grabbed while I tried fixing the camera. However, I am sure other people captured the heated stAndoff when I was in it. More importantly, I captured everything that took place including BLM giving back the cattle. Great Americans stood up today. So many excellent new friends. Heroes all over Nevada and around America came together. One of the best days of my life. 

America won today!!!!!

I must agree.

RELATED STORIES:

UPDATE: Sheriff Announces BLM Will Cease Operation…
‘Serious concern about safety of employees and public’…
Backdown Comes Hours After Reid/China Land Grab Report…
Confiscated Cattle to be Released…
‘Control Our Borders, Not Our Ranchers!’
Wild horses targeted for roundup in Utah rangeland clash…

RELATED VIDEO FROM ABC NEWS:


ABC US News | ABC Business News

RELATED PHOTOS:

10171073_716235721749221_1615940644521970357_n

 

10155752_716179235088203_6642169996764298258_n

10169292_716147181758075_2942411614697547002_n

EDITORS NOTE: The photos used in this column are courtesy of Dennis Michael Lynch – DML Daily. 

Keep Unions Out of College Athletics

We’ve been raised to compete, to want more! More! More! It’s a way of life. It’s about greed. — Sandy Duncan, actress, singer

And so, the label “amateur” will likely be lifted from college football players very soon. No more is it about earning scholarships, attaining a college education, and working hard at a sport in order to pay for that education. It’s all about greed.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

The National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling in March declaring football players from Northwestern as “employees” of the university and therefore the right to form a union.

What?

That’s like saying tuba players in the band are employees of the college. Maybe even swimmers, cheerleaders and chess players. After all, they all compete, they all enhance the “sporting” events and they all work hard.

Yes, football players work hard at their sport. But they are not employees! They are students of a college or university who – in most situations – must maintain a particular grade average in order to be granted the privilege to compete.

Now, a mighty foot has wedged into the proverbial door for unions to take over college sports. It may start with football, but don’t think for a minute this won’t spill over to basketball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, wrestling and more, even beyond sports.

For their hard work and training, many football players have earned scholarships at institutions of higher learning, which is worth a lot of money, not only in tuitions but in achieving an education that will prepare them for profitable careers in later life. There’s the reward.

Some outstanding players are often cherry-picked into the big leagues where millions of dollars are bestowed upon them as a pro. That’s another reward for being great at their sport.

But until then, the kids are primarily students. Other than teachers, there is no place in amateur/university sports for unions. Union power will eventually translate in to sport domination, collective bargaining and if they deem necessary, strikes and sit-downs. And it will reach out to all other extra-curriculum activities on campus.

Talk about opening Pandora’s box.

Collective bargaining will translate to higher and higher salaries, which will create the need for new sources of funding. Network television is already established and on board. So where will that come from?

Ticket sales. Vendor costs.

Today’s pro baseball and football, ticket prices have soared out of sight to where the average family can barely afford a day at the ball game, unless they sit in the bleachers over center field or the end zone. The bulk of good seating is reserved for corporations, politicians, and clients of all sizes and shapes of money bags.

Fortunately, prices for attending amateur school games have not hit the stratosphere – yet. But wait until the costs of ball players generate the need for revenue – revenue which the average Joe cannot afford.

Going to college is first and foremost about attaining education. Sports and their associated events are an important element of college life, but it’s not a “profession.” If kids wish to dodge education and go for the big bucks, they can always apply for the pros once out of high school.

Amy Perko, Executive Director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics said, “Universities and the NCAA, not unions, need to be the ones to guarantee benefits, like multi-year scholarships.”

When it comes to students, regardless of their extra curricula, unions should be kept out of the universities and colleges. To say that students who play sports are an “employee” of the school, is not only absurd, it’s nothing but a money-grubbing ploy to destroy the spirit of school sports now and forever…not only for the kids, but the families and spectators as well.

Amy Perko enunciates many of the benefits that college athletes should be entitled to, outside of being paid “salaries” as an employee. Watch the video:

RELATED STORIES:

College Players Granted Right to Form Union – NYTimes.com

College Athletes Granted the Right to Unionize—Is This the End of the NCAA? | Alternet

Does Megyn Kelly understand the Fallacy of Radical Islam and Moderate Muslims?

Megyn Kelly of Fox News has done an outstanding job of pounding CAIR’s Spokesperson Ibrahim ‘Dougie’ Hooper. Although she and other major journalists and self proclaimed counter-terrorism experts continue to make the same mistake. 

I counted at least a half dozen times that Ms. Kelly used the term “radical Islam.” If you really want to fight and defeat the Islamic ideology that advocates the destruction of Israel and America this practice must stop.

Is it intentional so as not to offend the Saudi government and terrorist supporting organizations such as CAIR? Islam is Islam and there is no word within Islam, the Hadith, or within Sharia law, for the term ‘Radical Islam’. One is either fully practicing Islam with their hearts, soul, and minds, or they have chosen to not practice Islam completely. In accordance with Sharia law these people are referred to as Apostates within Islam.

I will use an analogy but first must make a statement. Never, ever try to correlate
Christianity or Judaism with Islam. It can’t be done and Islam never intended them to be understood as having the same rules and guidelines. For instance. I often hear people saying there are Christians who do not adhere to all aspects of Christianity. This is true, but in comparison to Islam there is nothing within Christianity that says a non practicing Christian can be killed for this action. Sharia law does condone and advocate killing people within Islam who practice and adhere to Islam partially.

If a Christian does adhere to all 10 Commandments of the Bible is he/she a ‘Radical Christian’ or is it not better to define him/her as a practicing Christians? If a Muslim follows all aspects of Sharia law are they ‘Radical Muslims’? No, they are doing exactly what Islam dictates to be a good Muslim.

Journalists make the huge mistake by continuing to use the term ‘Radical’. The groups such as Hamas, Al Qaeda, Taliban, and the Saudi government are practicing Islam as Islamic leaders from 1400 years stated it must be followed. They are not being ‘Radical’ by following their ideology of hatred of Jews, Christians, and others. They are being faithful to their ideology.

I have released the following a couple of times. It is a more extensive explanation of the’ fallacy of the moderate Muslim’.

The Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

There have been, and will continue to be, debates on the authenticity of ‘who and what are moderate Muslims’? I could spend two years giving my personal opinion and it would mean as much as Bill O’Reilly giving his opinion of the next Super Bowl Game. The point being there are no experts pertaining to the Islamic based ideology. During my years of first-hand research I have obtained thousands of materials from Islamic Centers/Mosques, interviewed hundreds of Islamic scholars and Imams. The evidence I provide in this article is based on their information and not my opinion. In accordance with Sharia law a Muslim is either 100% Sharia compliant or they are not. If they do not accept all aspects of Sharia law they are considered Apostates. This eliminates the term ‘Moderate Muslim’. This term is man-made and in reality has no meaning or existence. In other words a ‘Moderate Muslim’ is simply a non practicing Muslim. Since 1979 I have been traveling throughout the Middle East and have met thousands of good people who have called themselves Muslim. Again in reality the ‘good Muslims’ were people who did not adhere to Sharia law, specifically in regards to physical Jihad.

Many will by right now wondering why I did not use the word ‘religion’ in the same context as Islam. To best answer this it is best to explain to the reader that my background has led me to the Middle East since 1979. Since that period of time I have had the fortunate opportunity to speak with hundreds of the leading Islamic leaders and Imams throughout the world. I was selected as the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. Although the rules of engagement did not specifically give us the authority to enter mosques, schools, and hospitals, I had insisted the men and women with me check these places before all others. My number one responsibility was to ensure the young 18 and 19 year old kids who were putting their lives on the line for people of all religions, races, and cultures, were going to go home and be with their families – regardless what a ‘political General’ had read from a book about sensitivity training in dealing with the Muslim people.

Per my suspicions our team located senior Saddam Forces, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Fedeyeen forces hiding in the off limit areas: schools, mosques and hospitals… We captured them without incident.

Many Muslim people risked their lives and in fact many gave the ultimate sacrifice to assist the American forces. Of course in war this is not seen by the enemy as a ‘medal of honor’ nominee. On the contrary the Muslims who helped protect Americans were considered traitors and ‘Apostates’ of Islam. Islamic Sharia law demanded the death penalty for the Muslims who assisted the enemy (the American forces and their allies).

Why would I bring up a war time situation to try and explain ‘moderate Muslims’ living in America? The one and only point is for the American people to understand Muslims can only have allegiance to either Allah and Sharia law, or to the U.S. Constitution and America. Islamic leaders stress this avidly to their worshippers across the U.S. A Muslim can’t serve two masters. Sharia law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible.

Again the word of Dave Gaubatz is not important. The words of Islamic leaders such as Yusef Estes, Ahmad Sakr, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, CAIR and ISNA Executives and a half dozen other pseudo-based Islamic leaders need to be listened to before me. These leaders take their orders directly from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and more importantly from the Saudi government.

I have personally visited over 250 Islamic Centers/Mosques throughout America. 95% are Sunni dominated (“Pure Islam”). Islamic leaders put out material distributed from Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia detailing the specifics of how a ‘Pure Muslim’ should lead their lives in accordance with Sharia law. A Muslim can’t pick and choose which aspects of Sharia they want to adhere to and which ones they prefer not. A Muslim is either Sharia compliant or they are not. In other words, they either practice Sharia law or they are non practicing Muslims. If a Muslim does not adhere at least in his or her heart to all aspects of Sharia law, they are considered Apostates by their leaders. This is a death sentence for them regardless of what country they reside in. Islam and Sharia law have no boundaries. Boundaries are man-made specifically by Jews and Christians, and in the hearts of Muslims they are meaningless.

Within America we have politicians and media who use the term ‘moderate Muslim’ as if this word has a legitimate meaning to ‘Pure Muslims’ who control the actions of Islamic terror groups. There are three requirements which non Muslim world leaders must come to terms with if we are ever going to live in safety and if our children are to ever have a fighting chance of having peace from Islamic terror groups in their lifetimes.

The following three requirements are directly from Islamic leaders/Imams from whom my research team and I have received advice over the last three years. The intelligence I collect is always first-hand intelligence.

  1. Islam is not a religion.
  2. Islam is a political, economic, and military ideology.
  3. Religion within Islam is used as a tactic to achieve the ultimate goal of Islam which is an Islamic Ummah (nation) worldwide and under Sharia law.

Sharia law is an all or nothing. A Muslim can’t pick and choose which parts of Sharia they desire to adhere to. 90% of Sharia law may be peaceful, but it is the 10% that innocent people must ‘fear’. This part pertains to the intolerance of other religions, the hatred of Jews, Christians, and even Muslims who do not adhere to Sharia law, and physical Jihad. All Muslims are not required to physically fight their enemies, but ‘All’ Muslims must assist in equipping and financing their brothers and sisters who are engaged in physical Jihad. For a Muslim to choose not to do so equate to him/her being an Apostate of Islam; again this is a death sentence for the accused.

The innocent people of all races, religions, and cultures are at war with Islam. This is the hardest and most difficult concept for people to understand. The Muslims who committed murder on 11 Sept. 2001 were doing so in the name of Islam. The 4000 plus men and women who have been murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed in the name of Islam. Maj. Hassan from Ft. Hood who killed several people did so in the name of Islam. The same materials being studied by Hamas, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban are the exact materials being distributed across America and provided to innocent young Muslim children to study in order to be ‘Pure Muslim’.

Readers should note that in 90 plus percent of the mosques my research team visited in America, the following was being advocated for the worshippers. The manuals of ‘Riyadh Ul Salheen’ are literally an explanation to Muslims on how to interpret the Quran in their present day lives. For instance the following is an explanation of how Muslims should always be prepared for war against their enemies; yes even in America!

“In accordance with the conditions of his times, the Prophet (PBUH) ordained the Muslims to acquire every possible power and keep it ready for war. Elucidating his order on this point, he stated that by power he meant archery and then he repeated this word three times to stress its importance. He did it because the art of archery had fundamental importance in war at that time. In the present-day world, archery has lost its value as it has been replaced by other inventions like tanks, guns, atom bombs, etc. Similar is the case of devices which are used in naval war, and all these military wares have superb importance in modern warfare.

In the present-day context, the injunction of the Noble Quran to acquire power means manufacturing and possession of all these devices. It is incumbent on the Muslims that they equip themselves with all this material and show no carelessness in this regard. In modern times, Muslims have badly neglected this field with the result that non-Muslims have more knowledge of modern warfare and by dint of that they are dominating the world and making a claim of their supremacy all over the world. Unless Muslims pursue the Quranic injunctions on this score and acquire greater or equal or at least similar measure and style of power, as is possessed by the non-Muslims, they will not be able to check the onslaught of their enemies, and to defeat them. It is incumbent upon the Muslims to overpower the might and power of the infidels for the “glorification of Islam”.

The commentary and instruction to the Muslim worshippers throughout America is:

“It is essential that they should not slack in acquiring the material resources required for war, nor neglect military preparations and exercises. Modern military weapons and new style of warfare have now taken the place of archery, and Muslims should master all of them”.

“He who neither performs a good deed nor aspires for it, has a hypocritical disposition. This is especially true of a Muslim who does not even aspire to take part in Jihad. Such a Muslim develops a resemblance with hypocrites”.

If our country has even the remotest chance of securing our nation we must accept America is indeed at war with Islam. There is no nice way to ignore the violence within neither Islam nor its teachings. There are millions of ‘good people who call themselves Muslim’, but in actuality they do not follow Sharia law and are Apostates of Islam. Sharia adherent Muslims are not ‘good Muslims’. Islam forbids this trait which naïve Americans desire. There is nothing I have said in this article that the leaders of Islam have not repeated over and over to their worshippers and to non-Muslims.

Now is the time to take them for their word, or else you are risking the lives of your children by ignoring their warnings.

RELATED STORIES:

Legalized Rape: Iraq Legalizes the Raping of Young Girls Starting at the Age of Nine
EXCLUSIVE: Report: Ansar Bait Al-Maqdis Threatens To Harm American Interests In Egypt Including KFC
AQAP Cleric Calls On Muslims To Avoid Infighting And Killing Of Other Muslims, Says Allegiance To Islam Takes Precedence Over Differences
ISIS French Spokesman: ‘Woe To The Infidels And The Apostates Facing The Islamic State (ISIS)’

Obama’s Chickens Have Come Home

In a March 26, 2014 article for The Jerusalem Post, titled Column One: Campus Brownshirts Rising, writer Caroline Glick reports on the efforts of Vassar College Earth sciences professor Jill Schneiderman’s abortive attempt to arrange a field trip to Israel to study water supply issues in the Holy Land.

The trouble started when Professor Schneiderman conducted a pre-trip seminar for students who intended to participate in the field trip to Israel.  When the Vassar student chapter of an anti-Semitic hate group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), picketed her seminar, pressuring Earth science students to drop Schneiderman’s class and to forego any plans to travel to Israel, Schneiderman complained to Vassar college administrators, seeking redress for her students whose civil rights and academic freedom were under attack by the SJP.

Instead of taking action against the thuggish actions of the pro-Palestinian students, college administrators once again demonstrated the sort of cowardice that has become so common among college and university administrators across the country.  They referred the issue to the college’s Committee on Inclusion and Excellence.  But when those vested with the responsibility for “inclusion and excellence” at Vassar convened to discuss the anti-Semitic outrage, Professor Schneiderman was, as she noted in her blog, “knocked off-center by a belligerent academic community dedicated to vilifying anyone who dared set foot in Israel.”

As Schneiderman and her Vassar students proceeded with plans for their trip to Israel, the University of Michigan student government was voting on a motion to suspend debate, indefinitely, on a resolution submitted by an anti-Jewish student group, calling upon the University to boycott and divest from all companies that do business with Israel… precipitating yet another confrontation in which Jewish interests came in second to the interests of Muslims on a traditionally liberal college campus.

According to the Jerusalem Post, a Michigan students group, calling itself Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE), “responded with rage and violence,” staging sit-ins at the student government offices and cursing Jewish members of the council, hurling epithets such as “kike” and “dirty Jew.”

Then, on Thursday, March 27, 2014, fascism reared its ugly head on the Dearborn campus of the University of Michigan.  On that evening the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was successful in blocking the screening of a documentary film, titled Honor Diaries.  The film tells the story of the unspeakable horrors endured by women throughout the Muslim world, including such brutal practices as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings, the forced marriage of eight and nine year old girls to thirty and forty-year-old men, the lack of educational opportunities for women, and restrictions on their freedom of movement.

However, according to a Fox News report, CAIR wasn’t doing its own dirty work, or even its own research.  The group relied on facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a liberal blogger who argued, “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews… ”  In other words, how could a group of Jews possibly produce a film that profiles human rights abuses against Muslim women?  It flies directly in the face of Muslim sensibilities… the truth of the matter be damned.

In the end, those who sponsored the screening of the film were fearful that the showing would be seen as “Islamophobic.”  Wishing not to offend the Islamic community… and perhaps in fear of violent retribution… university administrators canceled the screening, proving once again that intimidation works.  But, as the Fox report asks, “Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?”

Then, just days later, the April 9, 2014 edition of Frontpage Magazine reported that Brandeis University, a longtime bastion of liberal orthodoxy, had conferred an honorary degree on leftist anti-Semitic writer, Amos Oz, who has described religious Jews as “Hezbollah in a skullcap.”  Brandeis is the very same “progressive” institution which yielded to pressure from Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, causing the university to withdraw a similar honor intended for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a noted Somali critic of Islam and co-producer of the Honor Diaries film.

So what’s happening on our college and university campuses?  Haven’t the most liberal colleges and universities always been places where Jewish academics hold forth and children of Jewish families are prepared for lucrative careers in medicine, academia, and the law?

CarolineGlick

Caroline Glick

For answers we might refer to a February 1, 2014 Jerusalem Post article by Caroline Glick,  titled, Column one: The New York Times Destroys Obama.”  In that column, Glick quotes extensively from a Times report by David Kirkpatrick on Barack Obama’s handling of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.  Glick writes that Kirkpatrick “tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.”

Glick reminds us that “Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University.”  It was his first venture abroad as president and is best remembered for his warm embrace of Islam, for his unprecedented bow to the King of Saudi Arabia… described in the Washington Times as a “shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate”… and for the cold shoulder he delivered to Israel, America’s most steadfast ally.

The thought that a newly-inaugurated president of the United States would take a major overseas trip, passing within fifty miles of Israeli territory, and not pay a courtesy call on the Israelis… the only functioning democracy in the Middle East… was a snub of gargantuan proportions and a major diplomatic faux pas.  It was also a portent of things to come in the Obama foreign policy.

Reassuring his friends in the Muslim world of his belief that the violent extremists in the Muslim world were but a “small but potent minority of Muslims,” Obama went on to say that he had traveled to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”  Instead, he asserted, “they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

The Israelis, listening to his words from less than 220 miles away, must have been shocked and dismayed to hear Obama refer to Islam… the most violent and intolerant force on the face of the Earth, where Christians, Jews, and others are brutally murdered and persecuted simply because they are not Muslims… as sharing American principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of human beings.

Then Obama went on to say that Islam had “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed… And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

It was then that he shocked Americans, describing how “Islam has always been a part of America’s story…”  He reassured Muslims that “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the (Sharia) laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.”  He claimed that, “since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.”

So, if we wonder how radical Muslims have come to feel as if they are welcomed with open arms at our institutions of higher learning, and if we are wondering why Muslims feel as though they can shut down major portions of America’s busiest cities by holding prayer sessions in the middle of public thoroughfares, we may have struck on the answer.  It is Barack Obama who has set the stage and who has invited them to take full advantage of American tolerance and generosity.

Since the first day that Obama occupied the White House, he has extended the hand of friendship to the most brutal and intolerant people on the face of the Earth.  In doing so, he has denied the Judeo-Christian origins of our great nation.  He has caused the gloom of a declining culture to fall across the face of America; his chickens have come home to roost.

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is courtesy of S. Schofield and Watchdog Wire.

Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead, The Wicked Witch, The Wicked Witch

Photo caption: Barack, now that we have wrecked havoc on all the Christians in this country with my HHS Mandate – I think it’s time that I resign and let you and Nancy take it from here. Remember, focus on the 70 Million Catholics. Like Nancy and I – the Majority of them are not “real Catholics”.

There is a GOD and I believe in Miracles. And, I love the movie, “The Wizard of Oz”. Great classic that has such a surprising ending. Sure, it was all a dream that took place in the tornado alley of Kansas and Dorothy experienced something out of this world in the Emerald City, while meeting a scarecrow, a tin man and a cowardly lion on her way to meet a wizard. But, it was all a dream.

The HHS Mandate is not a dream. It’s a reality. It is still going on as I write this piece, and there is no wizard at the controls. Far from a wizard. There is a liberal dictator by the name of Barack Hussein Obama at the controls behind that curtain, pushing all the buttons with no regard for anybody – but, at least the “wicked witch behind the Mandate is dead”…or, at least resigned – as in Kathleen Sebelius…the wicked witch – and yes, she also spent quite a bit of time in Kansas.

Just like Dorothy and Toto’s episode taking place on a farm in Kansas – the “Pro-abortion” 65 year-old Sebelius was once governor of Kansas. Not a coincidence. Dorothy’s beautiful story was a dream. Sebelius’ controversial story was a nightmare. But, after 5 years of raising hell, of going head-to-head with Cardinal Dolan and the Catholic Church – she finally decided to “throw in the broom” and call it a day. “I’m melting”…but, how much damage has been done??

Like I have said for over two years, “When Sebelius & the Obama administration introduced the H.H.S. Mandate back on January 20th, 2012 – challenging the Catholic Church in a big way – Cardinal Dolan (then President of the USCCB), should have never “backed down”, and given Sebelius & Obama any window of opportunity to control the countless Catholic institutions in this country. Had Dolan taken a stronger stance against this liberal administration and had he instructed “every single Catholic institution to file a lawsuit against the H.H.S. two years ago”, we would have never spent more than a month on this issue. We would have been able to put it to rest immediately…and Obamacare would have gone away before our very own eyes… almost like pouring a bucket of water on a wicked witch, to put out a fire on a helpless scarecrow.

Needless to say, that did not happen. Only seventy-seven lawsuits from Catholic institutions have taken place to date; Cardinal Dolan is no longer the President of the USCCB; and Obamacare is trying to survive as the number of enrolled Americans has been inflated greatly by Obama, himself, stating that 7.1 million Americans have signed up – or were forced to sign up – for this controversial health care.

So, we shall see what happens from this point on. Is it too late for the new president of the USCCB, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, to instruct every single Catholic institution to file a law suit against this unethical H.H.S. Mandate? Is the Catholic Church finally going to stand up to the liberal Obama administration and this H.H.S. fiasco, while the transition from Sebelius to Sylvia Mathews Burwell, is taking place?

Will the ever-popular Pope Francis put in his two cents worth during this up-coming Holy Week and remind Obama what he shared with him back on March 27th, when the two met at the Vatican? Or, are we going to go back to that famous 5th Amendment cop-out cliche and say once again – “WHO AM I TO JUDGE”???

The Methane Hoax Cranks Up

Having spent decades trying to convince everyone that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a “greenhouse gas” that was going to cause the Earth to heat up, the same environmental charlatans are now embarking on a campaign to do the same with methane. In the U.S. the first move was announced by the White House in late March.

The carbon dioxide hoax fell apart in the wake of a cooling cycle affecting the Earth that began around 1997 and continues to this day. Warming and cooling cycles are natural events and both are tied to the activity or lack of it of the Sun. Humans have nothing to do with the climate other to enjoy or endure it.

Why methane? It has a lot to do with the development of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking”, and the way it unlocks natural gas, aka methane, all of which portends an America that is energy independent, along with its huge reserves of coal and oil. If, of course, the government permits this to occur.

As we know, the Obama administration does not want that. It would mean more jobs, greater prosperity, and the ability to pay down the national debt, not to mention drive down the cost of electricity, gasoline, and everything else that depends on energy.

Despite the cooling cycle that is likely to last for many more years, Steve Hamburg, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was quoted by the Washington Post saying that “ounce for ounce, methane is 84 times as potent as a greenhouse gas over 20 years” compared to carbon dioxide. “More than a third of the warming that we’ll see as a result of today’s emissions over the next couple of decades comes from, essentially, methane. We need to remain focused on carbon dioxide emissions, but doing so is not enough.”

Excuse me, but the Environmental Defense Fund and countless other Green advocacy groups have been focused on carbon dioxide for decades and the Earth is cooling, not warming. What part of this does Hamburg not understand?

James M. Taylor, the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly published by The Heartland Institute, reported in January that “Natural gas fracking is not causing a spike in the U.S. methane emissions”, citing Environmental Protection Agency data. “Methane emissions specific to natural gas are in a long-term decline, down ten percent since 1990 and down seven percent since 2007 when the fracking boom began.”

The Washington Post, however, asserted that emission levels “are set to rise by 2030 as shale oil and shale gas production expands in the United States.” Do you remember all those predictions about the increase of carbon dioxide emissions and how, in ten, twenty, fifty or a hundred years, the Earth would heat up?

This is not about methane, it is about finding a way to shut down fracking and the extraction of natural gas and oil in the same way the Obama administration’s “war on coal” has caused the loss of over 150 coal-fired plants that until it began, were providing electricity. Reducing sources of electricity drives up its cost to everyone. As more natural gas came on line by 2013 it had become the second greatest source of U.S. electricity, but overall the amount of electricity produced was less than in 2007 before the war on coal began.

A natural component of the Earth, it has a number of sources, but one that has also caught the eye of government regulators involves cow flatulence and belching.

cow-farts-costa-ricaThe White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25% by 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency has been tracking cow farts since 2012 and now the dairy industry has to worry along with the oil and gas industry. In addition to the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management will be announcing “new standards this fall to reduce venting and flaring from oil and gas production on public lands.”

It’s often best just to let the Greens speak for themselves, revealing their never-ending efforts to attack the energy industry that keeps our lights on, heats and cools our homes, and fuels our cars and trucks. “President Obama’s plan to reduce climate-disrupting methane pollution is an important step in reining in an out of control industry exempt from too many public health protections,” said Deborah Nardone, the director of the Sierra Club’s Keeping Dirty Fuels in the Ground campaign.

“However,” said Ms. Nardone, “even with the most rigorous methane controls in place, we will still fall short of what is needed to fight climate disruption if we do not reduce our reliance on these dirty fossil fuels.”

What the heck is a climate disruption? A blizzard, a hurricane, a flood, tornadoes? None of these phenomena have anything to do with using fossil fuels. This is the kind of utter drivel we have all been hearing for decades.

It has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with denying access and use of the greatest reserves of coal, oil and natural gas that exist in the greatest nation on Earth, the United States of America.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

A Little Past Due Love for Cousin Glen

COUSIN GLEN

Cousin Glen, drawing by Lloyd Marcus.

A homosexual, Glen’s adult life was cut extremely short due to AIDS. My purpose for writing is to let the world know that Glen was here, his suffering and that I loved him.

Aunt Bummie was my mom’s older sister. Their childhood was horrendous. Their father was accidentally killed in a street shooting. Their alcoholic mother would abandon the two little girls for long periods of time. Mom and Bummie endured things kids should not have to endure.

In the 1950s when Dad broke the color barrier to become a Baltimore City firefighter, our family (mom and four younger siblings) moved out of the government projects into our own home in a black suburban community.

Aunt Bummie and her five sons by two absentee fathers remained in the projects on welfare. I enjoyed occasional sleepovers at my cousins’ government provided townhouse in the city. Aunt Bummie’s house was unkempt with holes punched in walls and broken furniture.

“Aunt Bummie, when I grow up, I’m gonna buy you new furniture”. “Thanks Peanut”,(my nickname), she replied.

I got along great with Aunt Bummie and her boys. And yet, I felt my cousins’ envy of me having a dad in our home. I felt sorry for them.

Aunt Bummie and her boys lived different than my family. Aunt Bummie did not have a job. Unlike my home, the refrigerator was off limits to her children. Food was very valuable; each boy was protective of his food when eating. I remember large generic labeled boxes of government cheese and powdered milk – cans of meat and peanut butter.

Fondly, I remember Aunt Bummie covering her table with newspapers and dumping a huge pile of fried chicken necks and backs on it for us boys to devour. I still like fried chicken necks and backs.

Even as a little boy, I felt the sadness, anger and dysfunction of their household. Aunt Bummie was extremely kind and gentle with me, but brutal towards her boys – Glen in particular, the baby. I vaguely recall overhearing my parents saying Bummie hated Glen because he reminded her the most of his father.

Their household humor was weird and violent – the five boys along with Aunt Bummie would laugh hysterically about the time she broke the baseball bat while beating Jimmie and how she bent the cooking pot while beating Glen.

Glen was the family servant. When everyone was watching TV, anyone could order Glen to go fetch something for them. The slightest non compliance from Glen would result in Aunt Bummie screaming at him, and/or beating him; not spanking, beating. My heart always went out to Glen as I watched him cry during his beatings. The lack of love. The unfairness. The cruelty.

Lawrence, the eldest, was very intelligent and responsible. He played substitute dad to his brothers. Glen was intelligent and responsible. Aunt Bummie’s other three sons acted like Neanderthals. And yet, she catered to her two most lazy and irresponsible boys while being extremely tough on Lawrence and Glen.

Etched in my brain is the day I witnessed something emotionally die in Glen. Aunt Bummie was beating Glen, pounding away at him with her fists. Though his seven or eight year old body bent in reaction to her punches, Glen just stood there with a blank look on his face, not shedding a tear. It was chilling.

Sadly, Aunt Bummie and four of her sons died young. Her surviving son is one of her favorites who is now in his 50s. He never had a job in his life and lives in a nursing home.

The one bright spot in Aunt Bummie’s depressed household was her eldest son, Lawrence. Incredibility, Lawrence worked his way through college and achieved great things. Her favorite jobless adult sons lived at home. Despite two non working adult sons living with Aunt Bummie, a phone call would bring Lawrence with financial support. Lawrence, a homosexual, died of AIDS in his late 30s.

My heart goes out to Aunt Bummie and her boys, no husband in the home for her and no father for her sons. She was prone to explosive fits of rage. Aunt Bummie and her adult sons embraced cradle-to-grave government dependency. I believe their lives could have been so much more. Aunt Bummie eventually became a born-again Christian. Praise God!

But there is a special place in my heart for Glen. That kid never got any love. When he became an adult, according to the family grapevine, Glen was a bit wild and crazy, sexually promiscuous with very little self-respect. What if Glen would have had a real dad rather than the federal government? His life would have probably been much different. Truly sad. Truly tragic.

African Diplomats Shun Black Business Owners

Last week I attended a very nice reception hosted by two of my friends, Rosa Whitaker and Bernadette Paolo. Rosa is CEO and President of the Whitaker Group, a Washington, D.C.- based consultancy specializing in trade and investment in Africa. She previously served as the first Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Africa in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 2010, Whitaker was named one of Foreign Policy’s Top Global Thinkers.

Paolo succeeded the former president and Founder of The Africa Society, Leonard H. Robinson, Jr., in 2006, after his untimely death. Prior to assuming her new position, Paolo served as Vice President of The Africa Society and Vice President of The National Summit on Africa.

AmbMulamula2

Liberata Mulamula of Tanzania

At the event promoted as “Reception, Tribute and Discussion for East Africa’s Four New Female Ambassadors to the U.S.” The ambassadors honored were Mathilde Mukantabana of Rwanda [pictured above], Liberata Mulamula of Tanzania, Oliver Wonekha of Uganda, and Jean Kamau of Kenya.

Each of these women has a fascinating background and sterling accomplishments.

Oliver Wonekha of Uganda

Oliver Wonekha of Uganda

For those who are not followers of Africa, it’s important to remember that the continent of Africa is extremely patriarchal. Women are barely beginning to be welcomed into decision making positions in government, business, and politics, etc. In many African countries, women’s roles in society are clearly defined, with most of their roles being relegated to motherhood and the raising of the children.

In foreign affairs, to be posted as ambassador to the U.S. is like winning the Super Bowl; it is a crowning achievement for any diplomat. So, to have these four women from East Africa posted in the U.S. is a historic development in diplomatic circles.

Therefore, I want to use this column, to speak directly to these four distinguished ambassadors:

I have spoken to many of your male predecessors about the role of an ambassador in a foreign country. The main objective of an ambassador is to be the voice and the face of their home country’s foreign policy towards the U.S. They should be the head cheerleader for their country and engage with as many Americans as possible.

Jean Kamau of Kenya

Jean Kamau of Kenya

I am very optimistic about the long term future of Africa. I have travelled and done work in many countries on the continent. But, I am and have been very critical of Africa and many of their ambassadors for their lack of engagement with Blacks in the U.S. Since women claim to be better listeners than men, let’s put this theory to the test.

Madam Ambassadors, each of you stated that you wanted Americans, especially Blacks, to invest in your respective countries. Why should we? What is the business case for such an investment? Most African ambassadors have little engagement with the Black community, especially the businessman. People all over the world tend to do business with people they know.

There are Black businessmen who have created and run multi-billion dollar companies and have never had an African ambassador come to meet with them. Businessmen are not just going to magically show up in your country and want to invest millions of dollars in your country and you have never found the need to establish a relationship with these successful businessmen.

When your presidents come to the U.S., they always meet with the same group of White organizations: the Corporate Council on Africa, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the U.S. Institute for Peace, etc.

Madame Ambassadors, why is it that your presidents refuse to meet with these successful Black entrepreneurs when they are in the U.S.?
These same presidents would miss their own mother’s funeral to meet with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Mark Zuckerberg, but when it comes to meeting the Black owner of a $ 6 billion IT firm, they can’t find time.

Madame Ambassadors, how many of you know that there are more than 200 Black newspapers in the U.S.? When you are allocating money to promote tourism to your country, why do you never consider partnering with these Black media outlets? Do you think Blacks can’t afford to travel or have no discretionary income?

Madame Ambassadors, how many of you have made yourself available to be interviewed by those who own Black newspapers, magazines, or websites? Do you not believe that Blacks read or care about the motherland?

Before there can be an investment of money; there first has to be an investment of time.

Madam Ambassadors, remember, when all is said and done; there is more said than done.

Chasing Dystopian Rainbows by STEWART DOMPE, ADAM C. SMITH

It seems scientism passes for science these days.

There are rarely any happy prophets. To get headlines you have to claim the world is ending. Add generous helpings of doom and gloom—and a pinch of apocalypse—and you’ll widen your audience.

The most recent batch of dire predictions for humanity’s future takes the same dramatic approach. You might think these are coming from the usual suspects—believers in the Mayan calendar or radical Evangelical interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. Nope. Apparently, this global, glass-half-empty prediction is the consensus of the mainstream scientific community. Or so we’re told.

Just last week, the United Nations released its IPCC report, which states that if we don’t meet global climate change head on, then all of humanity will soon be a vulnerable, dreary mess with plenty of natural disasters, famines, and other dismal scenarios to look forward to. Despite its attempt at shock and awe, there’s nothing new being offered in the report. We don’t want to suggest there are no potential problems looming in the future, but rather remind readers that one must be precise in articulating the problem if one is to propose a solution. Even among the strongest proponents of climate change, there is still considerable debate about the strength of their models given the serious shortcomings in the precision of their forecasts.

Collapse: Houston, We Have a Problem

One exemplar of this wave of dystopia is a bit of research ostensibly conducted at the behest of NASA, presumably with your tax dollars. (See hereherehere, and here.) Study authors argue that not only will human civilization collapse, but that income inequality is intricately intertwined both in the causal process and in the timing of the collapse.

The NASA study is a good illustration of the risks in applying analytical tools to problems they are unsuited to analyze. Its Human and Nature DYnamics (HANDY) model is built on the predator-prey model—which simulates interactions among wolves and rabbits—where predator Elites do everything but literally cannibalize the Commoners. Their biological model, in this instance, is simply inappropriate. Or more charitably, it’s severely limited in dealing with problems better suited to political economy.

The study starts with an assumption about inequality that would make even Paul Krugman blush. People are placed into two categories: Elites and Commoners. “The economic activity of Elites is modeled to represent executive, management, and supervisory functions, but not engagement in the direct extraction of resources, which is done by Commoners. Thus, only Commoners produce,” the report says. Elites, as much modern thinking goes, do nothing but skim off the labor performed by Commoners. Given such assumptions, the model has nothing very encouraging to say about our future.

Models Just Aren’t That Smart

The authors might contend that theirs is a model of predator (humans) and prey (nature) but the Elites can only eat because of the existence of the Commoners. This is problematic for various reasons. For example, are Commoners also responsible for entrepreneurial discovery? Going further, the authors assume that not only do the Elites hold the Commoners at a subsistence wage but that the Elites will always pay themselves a wage times larger than subsistence.

Over time, the gap widens as Elites populate at greater rates than Commoners, thus placing tremendous burdens on the supply of natural resources. At some point, this burden becomes so pronounced that extraction rates fall because the total population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment. Here’s what happens:

  • The Elites always pay themselves first;
  • Forced extraction exceeds the natural regeneration of the environment;
  • Commoners are then driven below subsistence income; and
  • Famine ensues.

Once Commoners start dying out, Elites are unable to sustain the economy without them and presto! Doomsday. (Have a nice day!)

Such a model might explain the population dynamics of North Korea, but it seems inapplicable to most of the modern world. So, the main problem with this “study” is that it doesn’t go much further than nineteenth-century economics in its assumptions about how the economy actually works. Using neo-Malthusian pseudoscience with a touch of Marxian class struggle only leaves us with an embarrassingly outdated framework that is about two hundred years past its prime. However elegant the mathematical model, the assumptions used to create it are beyond spurious.

The Ultimate Resource Redux

One of the fundamental differences between humankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we humans discover new resources and modes of production. When there are more wolves, there are fewer rabbits; but when there are more humans, there are more chickens. Malthus, despite some interesting insights, was catastrophically wrong in his prognostications about population and agricultural output. And neo-Malthusians have been even more wrong.

The simulation only serves to give the underlying argument a veneer of scientistic respectability. But it really is just as wrongheaded as Malthus’s original theory. Relaxing the initial assumption of extreme wealth inequality would not only be more realistic but would overturn the result, as Elites would only be able to extract surplus above wages set by the market, which would certainly be greater than subsistence for most workers. This would in turn check their ability to damage the underlying resource base.

Furthermore, the model assumes that any efficiency gains from technological progress are undermined by greater consumption (akin to Peltzman’s argument that better safety technology leads to greater consumption of risk). But then how do we explain how productivity gains in agriculture have led to exponential growth in other emergent sectors (manufacturing, services, computers, etc.)? We may consume more food but not nearly enough to balance out the productivity gains. So farm employment shrinks and resources move to other pursuits, making the world a wealthier place. These real-world phenomena are literally an impossible result in the NASA model.

Cross-disciplinary studies can offer new insights into how we should view human behavior. That said, those that offer only partisan parlor tricks and dystopian caterwauling should stick with reading Mayan calendars.

ABOUT STEWART DOMPE

Stewart Dompe is an instructor of economics at Johnson & Wales University. He has published articles in Econ Journal Watch and is a contributor to the forthcoming Homer Economicus: Using The Simpsons to Teach Economics.

ABOUT ADAM C. SMITH

Adam C. Smith is an assistant professor of economics and director of the Center for Free Market Studies at Johnson & Wales University. He is also a visiting scholar with the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University and coauthor of the forthcoming Bootleggers and Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics.

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

New Mozilla browser called “BackFireFox”

This just in: Mozilla has launched a new browser called BackFireFox. But seriously, folks, what’s the firing of some Mozilla CEO with old-fashioned views on marriage compared to the potential advancements in technology the progressive Mozilla team can unleash once it’s been liberated from this guy’s heteronormative oppression?

All Brendan Eich has ever done was invent JavaScript. But we all know that the world-wide proletarian revolution is being organized according to a different script, which does not involve Java.

mozilla add ons peoples cube

For a larger view click on the Mozilla menu.

Here is just a small sampling of new Mozilla plugins, extensions, and themes proposed by us on Twitter hashtag #NewMozillaAdOns.

  • Drudge Block
  • Shovel-Ready Jobs Locator
  • E-Z Tantrum Scheduler
  • Hyperventilation Tantrum Protocol
  • The Current Truth status updates
  • Thoughtcrime Analyzer
  • “Denounce your Neighbor” auto-fill function
  • Gulagosphere Migration Tool
  • Guilt Acceleration Plug-in
  • Thought-Corrective Action
  • One-Click Report-a-Christian
  • Browser Reeducation Camp
  • Opinion Block Plus

Is visiting Africa a stretch?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (physician, writer, lecturer and father of the U.S. Supreme Court jurist by the same name) wrote:

“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.”

The sooner African leaders come to appreciate this, the better off we will all be. Many of the African leaders I meet with in my consulting activities complain about how Africa is portrayed in the U.S. media. Yet, they are without an effective, proactive, public relations strategy.

Tourism provides the perfect platform to improve one’s brand, by educating visitors who have hitherto been exposed exclusively to filtered media images. Before more U.S. companies and individuals embrace Africa as an investment destination, they need to be “shown around”. Living the experience changes perspectives and it changes lives.

Americans must be disabused of the broad stroke images of Africa as a poor, unstable place that is wracked by famine and war. Indeed, these problems are present, but I remind you that Africa is not a country. It is a continent that is made up of 54 nations. Look at Botswana, where proceeds from diamond mining are used to give citizens free education all the way through university. (You don’t see that in the richest country on earth). Ghana is one of the more stable economies on the continent. South Africa is booming and Nigeria is nipping at its heels.

Africa must not wait for others to tell their story. They must tell their own story! If you live on the east coast of the U.S. you can be in Dakar, Senegal in about the same time it takes to get to Los Angeles or San Francisco. Did you know that Delta Airline’s most profitable route, worldwide, is Atlanta to Lagos (Nigeria)?

Let’s talk national security. The best way to fight terrorism is (also) with education. The more we know and the more our African friends know, the more difficult it is to paint the west as anti-African or anti-Muslim and the more difficult it is for westerners to think of Africa as a basket case.

Questions for my African friends: What has your country done to educate Americans? Do your government leaders meet with other than mainstream journalists when they are in the U.S.? Do your tourism officials meet with tour operators and other travel professionals abroad?

A good stretch before a physical workout will help you to avoid injury. Stretching can be uncomfortable, but it’s worth the effort. If Africa is willing to stretch into a more constructive engagement with Americans and we are willing to learn more about a vast emerging continent by seeing it first hand, then stereotypes and inaccurate portrayals will cause less harm.

Do some stretching. It’s worth it.

EDITORS NOTE:  The featured image is a map of Africa produced in Amsterdam. It is a first edition circa 1689 using copper engraving.

If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? by Marita Noon

Surely NOT the ones listed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee!

Recently the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a “2014 Priority Issues Survey.” In addition to the obligatory Tea Party bashing: “help the Democrats protect the progress we have made from Tea Party radicals, deliver the positive changes America needs and help Democrats win a Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives!” and the fundraising requests to “help protect House Democrats against Republican attacks”—there is a section on energy.

Section VII, asks: “Which of the following will help America achieve energy independence?” It offers five options that do little to move America toward energy independence—which isn’t even a realistic goal given the fungible nature of liquid fuels. Additionally, most of the choices given on the DCCC survey actually increase energy costs for all Americans—serving as a hidden tax—but hurt those on the lower end of the socio-economic scale the most. The proposals hurt the very people the party purports to champion.

The survey asks respondents to “check all that apply.”

Raising gas mileage standards for all new cars and trucks

This choice presumes that making a law requiring something will make it happen. Sorry, not even the Democrats have that kind of power. Even the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025—finalized on August 28, 2012, and called “the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history”—will be tough to hit.

The CAFE standards mean that a carmaker’s passenger vehicle fleet average must achieve 54.5 mpg. To meet that, and produce the big pickup trucks and SUVs Americans like to drive, the manufacturers must also produce the little itty-bitty cars with mpg above 60 and the more expensive hybrids (not one of which was on the top ten best-seller list for 2013)—or have a loss leader like the Chevy Volt to help bring down the average.

Suggesting a forced raising of gas mileage standards implies that auto manufacturers are in collusion with oil companies and are intentionally producing gas guzzlers to force Americans into buying lots of gasoline.

With the price of gasoline wavering between $3.00 and $4.00 a gallon, most people are very conscious of their fuel expenditures. If it were technologically possible to build a cost-effective truck or SUV that had the size and safety Americans want and that got 50 mpg, that manufacturer would have the car-buying public beating a path to its door. Every car company would love to be the one to corner that market—but it is not easy, it probably won’t be possible, and it surely won’t be cheap.

When the new standards were introduced in November 2011, Edmunds.com did an analysis of the potential impact: 6 Ways New CAFE Standards Could Affect You. The six points include cost and safety and highlights some concerns that are not obvious at first glance.

Achieving the higher mileage will require new technologies that include, according to Edmunds, “turbochargers and new generations of multi speed automatic transmissions to battery-electric powertrains.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have estimated that the average new car will cost $2,000 extra by 2025 because of the proposed new fuel-efficiency standards.

Additionally, new materials will have to be used, such as the proposed new Ford F-150 made with aluminum, which is predicted to add $1,500 over steel to the cost of a new truck. Aluminum also complicates both the manufacturing and repair processes. Edmunds reports: “Insurance costs could rise, both because of the increased cost of cars and the anticipated hike in collision repair costs associated with the greater use of the plastics, lightweight alloys, and aluminum necessary for lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. (Plastics, lightweight alloys, and aluminum are all more difficult than steel to repair.)”

smartmessAnother concern is safety. “The use of weight-saving materials will not only affect repair costs but could make newer vehicles more susceptible to damage in collisions with older, heavier vehicles, especially SUVs and pickups. Their occupants could be at a safety disadvantage.”

One of the subtle consequences of high-mileage vehicles is the probable increase in taxes. Edmunds points out that lower driving cost may increase wear-and-tear on the nation’s highway system as consumers drive more freely. “Declining gas sales mean a further decrease in already inadequate fuel-tax revenue used to pay for road and infrastructure repair and improvement. … As more untaxed alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas and electricity are used for transportation, fuel tax revenue falls even farther. All of this is likely to lead to calls for a road tax based on miles driven and not the type of fuel used.”

Instead of increasing costs by forcing a higher mpg, a free-market encourages manufacturers to produce the cars the customers want. The Wall Street Journal story on the Ford F-150s points out: “In 2004, as the auto market soared, Ford sold a record 939,511 F-series pickups. That amounted to 5.5% of the entire U.S. vehicle market. But four years later, gas prices rose above $4 a gallon, sales of pickups began tumbling.” Then, consumers wanted small cars with better mileage. I often quote an ad for Hyundai I once saw. As I recall, it said: “It’s not that complicated. If gas costs a lot of money, we’ll produce cars that use less of it.”

In response to an article in US News on the 54.5-mpg CAFE standard, a reader commented: “ALL CAFE regulations should be repealed. Let the market and fuel prices decide what vehicles are purchased. The federal government should not be forcing mileage standards down the throats of the automaker or the consumers. This is still America, right?”

Develop Renewable Energy Sources

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea renewable energy. However, the cost factor is one of the biggest problems. When I do radio interviews, people often call in and point out Germany’s renewable energy success story: “The share of renewable electricity in Germany rose from 6% to nearly 25% in only 10 years.” While that may be true, it doesn’t address the results: “Rising energy costs are becoming a problem for more and more citizens in Germany. Just from 2008 to 2011 the share of energy-poor households in the Federal Republic jumped from 13.8% to 17%.”

Germany has been faced with a potential exodus of industry as a result of its high energy costs. For example, in February, BASF, the world’s biggest germanynaturalgasplantchemical maker by sales, announced that for the first time, it “will make the most of its capital investments outside Europe.” According to the Financial TimesKurt Bock, BASF chief executive, explained: “In Europe we have the most expensive energy and we are not prepared to exploit the energy resources we have, such as shale gas.”

Throughout America people are beginning to feel the escalating costs of the forced renewable energy utility companies are required to add as a result of Renewable Portfolio Standards that more than half of the states passed nearly a decade ago.

But the cost is not where I take issue with the DCCC’s inclusion of “Developing renewable energy sources” in its survey. The survey question is about achieving “energy independence.”

In preparation for writing this column, I posted this question on my Facebook page: If the goal is “energy independence,” what issues should be a priority in America? The first answer posted was: “Smart grid and fast ramp natural gas turbines.” Another offered: “High efficiency appliances and lights. I am a LED FAN!” Yet, another: “Solar, tidal, water.” Bzzzzzzt, all wrong answers.

All of the above suggestions are about electricity. The U.S. is already electricity independent. We have enough coal and uranium under our soil to provide for our electrical needs for the next several centuries. Add to that America’s newfound abundance of natural gas and we are set indefinitely. By the time we might run out of fuel for electricity, new technologies will have been developed based on something totally different, and, I believe, something that no one is even thinking about today.

Developing more “solar, tidal, water,” or wind energy won’t “help America achieve energy independence.” Nor will a smart grid or natural gas turbines. High efficiency appliances or LED light bulbs won’t either.

Encouraging consumer and industrial conservation

Consumers are already feeling the pinch of higher energy costs—both electricity and liquid fuels. When possible, people are restricting driving by taking a stay-cation rather than a traditional vacation. Many people who can afford the option are switching to more energy-efficient light bulbs.

F150As the BASF story above makes clear, most industry is energy intensive. In the story about the Ford F-150’s use of aluminum, the WSJ says that the new manufacturing process requires “powerful and electricity-hungry vacuums.” Industry cannot stay in business without profit. Therefore, in interest of preservation,  energy conservation is virtually an instinct.

The cost of energy drives conservation.

Including this question in the survey is a red herring that would lead the respondent to think conservation is a big issue.

Investing in energy efficient technology

When the word “investing” is used in reference to a government document or program, it always means spending taxpayer dollars. In a time of ongoing economic stress, we don’t need to borrow more money to spend it on something of questionable impact on energy independence.

Remember, much of the “efficiency” numbers bandied about refer to electricity, which has nothing to do with energy independence. Energy.gov states: “Every year, much of the energy the U.S. consumes is wasted through transmission, heat loss, and inefficient technology…Energy efficiency is one of the easiest and most cost effective ways to … improve the competitiveness of our businesses and reduce energy costs for consumers. The Department of Energy is working with universities, businesses, and the National Labs to develop new, energy-efficient technologies while boosting the efficiency of current technologies on the market.” Among the “solutions” presented on the page are “developing a more efficient air conditioner” and “a new smart sensor developed by NREL researchers that could help commercial buildings save on lighting and ventilation costs.” Nothing is offered that will actually impact energy independence.

Increasing offshore drilling and oil exploration in wilderness areas

Respondents are discouraged from selecting the one item on the list that could actually lead to “energy independence” by the inclusion of the words “offshore” and “wilderness areas”—as if those are the only places drilling could take place.

Yes, we should increase exploration and drilling—and, while there are risks, it can be, and has been, done safely in offshore and wilderness areas. But there are vast resources available on federal lands that are either locked up or are under a de facto ban due to the slow-walking of drilling permits.

Instead of phrasing the choice “Increasing offshore drilling and oil exploration in wilderness areas,” if the goal is energy independence, the option should have read: “Release America’s vast energy resources by expediting permitting on federal lands.

While the options on the DCCC survey, even if a respondent checked them all, will do little to “help America achieve energy independence,” the survey didn’t include any choices that could really make a difference in America’s reliance on oil from hostile sources.

Some selections that would indicate a true desire to see America freed from OPEC’s grip should include:

  • Approving the Keystone pipeline;
  • Revising the Endangered Species Act so that it isn’t used to block American energy development;
  • Encouraging the use of compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel in passenger vehicles and commercial trucks;
  • Expediting permitting for exploration and drilling on federal lands;
  • Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and
  • Cutting red tape and duplicative regulations to encourage development.

The fact that not one of these options that would truly make a difference was included in the DCCC survey belies the ideology of the Democratic Party. Its goals do not include energy independence. Instead, it wants to continue the crony corruption that has become the hallmark of the Obama Administration as evidenced by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz’s April 2 announcement that: “[T]he department would probably throw open the door for new applications for renewable energy project loan guarantees during the second quarter of this year.”

Like the Ukraine, until there is a change at the top, the U.S. will likely remain dependent on the whims of countries who want to use energy as a weapon of control. The goal should be energy freedom.

About Marita Noon

Marita Noon

The author of Energy FreedomMarita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.