Is fear of Islam unfounded?

Reza Varjavand is associate professor of economics and finance at the Graham School of management at Saint Xavier University in Chicago. In this short piece at Iranian.com, he asks a common-sense question that has been obscured by the fog of jihad-enabling propaganda pumped out endlessly by the likes of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media. His title, “Is Fear of Islam Unfounded?,” is of course prompted by the use of the term “Islamophobia,” which literally means fear of Islam; however, I think the best response to the atrocities he mentions is not fear, but resoluteness in the defense of freedom and human rights.

“Is Fear of Islam unfounded?,” by Reza Varjavand for Iranian.com, February 26:

Once again, a violent attack by Muslim extremists astounded the world, they murdered a number of innocent students in Nigeria just because they were attending school and learning what their attackers called Western education! Is this the religion whose prophet allegedly said “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave”? I think the world have seen enough images of atrocities committed under the name of Islam: Blown-up buildings, burning cars, beheading, flogging, arresting innocent people for no reason, butchering of a British soldier in a street of London, Boston bombing, Train bombing in Madrid, fatal shooting of 13 people by army major Nidal Hassan, public executions in street, death threat against, or assassination of, writers or those who express their opinions just to name a few.

Sometimes I ask myself is this what Islam is all about?

In light of all of these, we, Muslims, keep telling others how peaceful our religion is which reminds me of that famed Wendy’s “where is the beef” commercial. Aren’t Muslim influential leaders guilty of implicit complacency by remaining silent and not publically condemning such atrocious acts or taking a firm position against them?

We may not be able to change this madness; at least we can say something about it.

Indeed. Stopping the victimhood manipulation and working for serious, genuine reform would be a good place to start.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the flag of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

RELATED COLUMNS:

Syria: Muslim group imposes Sharia rules of submission on Christians

“Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime”

Stupid, Evil or Both?

For a long time now I have been trying to determine whether the Obama administration is stupid, evil or both. In addition to its long list of scandals, its governance of America increasingly looks like and acts as if the power granted to it by two elections exists to intimidate and harass Americans, inflict endless new taxes, and granted it the right to destroy one of the best healthcare systems and military in the world.

Listening to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry constantly talk about the non-existent threat of global warming/climate change is both stupid and evil. There is no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for some seventeen years at this point and the supposed “science” they cite—that carbon dioxide emissions will heat the Earth—is utterly bogus, based entirely on computer models that have been wrong from the day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were first used.

In a recent article in Forbes magazine, James Taylor, editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment and Climate News, noted that “More than 30,000 scientists have signed a summary of the science explaining why humans are not creating a global warming crisis.” He cites several other surveys that confirm that neither scientists nor the public regard global warming/climate change to be a concern.

What should be a major concern, however, is the way the Obama administration has transformed the Internal Revenue Service into an agency to thwart conservative groups from receiving non-profit status to advance their views. The Environmental Protection Agency has been let loose to generate all manner of regulations whose intent is to shut down coal-fired plants that produce electricity and deny the ability to build new ones. The amount of electricity that is being produced from these plants has dropped significantly from the 50% it once was.

The passage of the Affordable Health Care Act—Obamacare—is wreaking havoc on the economy and is the result of the lies told by the President and many Democratic members of Congress who voted for it without even reading it. The nation is suffering from losses of jobs and the reduction of full-time jobs to part-time. Americans are losing their healthcare plans and Obamacare plans have far higher premiums. Individuals and businesses who fail to sign up for one face fines.

This is worse than stupid. It is evil. It is a deliberate attack on the nation’s economic growth, rendering an estimated 100 million Americans without employment and forcing millions to apply for food stamps in order to put food on the table.

While the lies are evil, the stupidity of those like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is demonstrated by things she has said in recent years.

“It’s almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.” The nation has a huge borrowing and spending problem that currently adds up to more than $17 trillion in debt. Federal spending (25% of the Gross Domestic Product) is the highest since World War II as is the budget deficit (10% of GDP). The U.S. suffered the first downgrade in its credit rating in its history.

The administration’s “stimulus” program wasted billions on alternative energy companies that often filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter. The promise of “green jobs” was as specious as “shovel ready” jobs that even the President admitted did not exist. Nancy Pelosi said at the time that “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs” but the U.S. population is currently around 317 million total!

This goes well beyond just stupidity. Obama’s, Pelosi’s, Biden’s and other administration member’s statements have been a consistent record of lies and that is evil.

When Obama took office in 2009 America was still regarded as the leading nation in the world in the arena of foreign affairs, but in the years since then nations and non-state enemies such as al Qaeda have concluded that it has demonstrated not just weakness, but dangerous stupidity as seen in its current efforts to negotiate with Iran to cease its quest of nuclear weapons. To this day its leaders still lead chants of “Death to America” and to our only true ally in the Mideast, Israel.

Claims that al Qaeda had been defeated were also false as it and other Islamic radical groups expand their activities.

One can barely find any evidence that the Obama administration has shown any success domestically or in foreign affairs and we still have three more years of it to endure.

The only hope at present is the forthcoming November midterm elections and, if power in the Senate can be acquired by the Republican Party and expanded in the House, efforts to thwart the deliberate destruction of the nation can be enacted. We have been living with a President who has refused to negotiate with Congress and with a Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has blocked debates and votes on any of the legislation initiated in the House.

The nation is just months away from either further decline or a reversal of policies that are either stupid or evil or both.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Evangeline Wanders by Sarah Skwire

Hardly anyone reads Longfellow anymore, but maybe we should.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Evangeline. 1847. 64 pages.

Nobody reads Longfellow anymore, except perhaps students at Bowdoin College, where Longfellow was a student and later a librarian and professor. But Longfellow’s poetry used to be read and recited everywhere. Memorizing it was a common exercise for school children. And you probably know a few lines of some of his poems, though you may not know they are his.

Listen my children and you shall hear

Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere

and

Under the spreading chestnut tree

The village smithy stands

and

Christ save us all from a death like this

On the reef of Norman’s woe!

Longfellow’s epic Evangeline was, according to my grandmother, one of my grandfather’s favorite books when he was a young man, and—for poetry—it sold like hotcakes when it first came out. Nearly 36,000 copies sold in the first decade after publication.

But nobody reads Longfellow anymore. So I thought I’d have a look at Evangeline, and see what it might have to offer readers of this column.

Certainly the story’s bare outline is promising ground for thinking about liberty. Evangeline tells the story of two young lovers separated by the expulsion of the Acadian people from Canada’s maritime provinces to the colonies and, in some cases, to France. (Later, some of the Acadians relocated to Louisiana and became known as Cajuns. The Longfellow reference is probably why, in The Princess and the Frog, the celestial beloved of the Cajun firefly Ray is named Evangeline.)

Modern scholars have rightly noted some of the historical problems with Longfellow’s poem. He absolves the American colonists of any blame for the expulsion in order to make King George more of a villain, constructs an ahistorically homogenous Acadian culture, and is often insensitive to the Native Americans he describes, for example. But Longfellow’s tale of expulsion, displacement, and the search for lost family, lost love, lost culture, and a place of refuge remains moving today. In fact, our contemporary awareness of such injustices as the forced relocation of Native American nations on the Trail of Tears and the signing of Executive Order 9066, which imprisoned Japanese Americans and stripped them of their property, should bring additional meaning and pathos to the poem.

From the poem’s opening words, “This is the forest primeval,” Longfellow situates the soon-to-be-destroyed Acadian culture in a timeless, golden world marked by peace and equality.

Thus dwelt together in love these simple Acadian farmers,—

Dwelt in the love of God and of man. Alike were they free from

Fear, that reigns with the tyrant, and envy, the vice of republics.

Neither locks had they to their doors, nor bars to their windows;

But their dwellings were open as day and the hearts of their owners;

There the richest was poor, and the poorest lived in abundance.

Longfellow claims later that the Acadians held all things in common, but the characters in the poem clearly possess private property, and one is designated as “the wealthiest farmer of Grand-Pre.” Like the above passage, that claim about common property is, I think, intended to accent the peaceful accord of the culture and the way its world runs easily and regularly, with a time and a place for everything, and no strife among the Acadians.

But all is not well. As the village of Grand-Pre prepares to celebrate the betrothal of Evangeline (the loveliest maiden in the village) and Gabriel (the best of the village’s young men), their fathers and fathers’ friends are worrying about the intentions of the armed English ships anchored near their harbor. The presence of the ships and their implicit threat has the men of the village debating questions of justice and power. The blacksmith argues:

“Daily injustice is done, and might is the right of the strongest!”

But, without heeding his warmth, continued the notary public,—

“Man is unjust, but God is just; and finally justice

Triumphs”

When the men of the village are called to the church to hear a proclamation from King George, the blacksmith certainly seems to have been correct in his concerns. The leader of the English troops announces:

To my natural make and my temper

Painful the task is I do, which to you I know must be grievous.

Yet must I bow and obey, and deliver the will of our monarch;

Namely, that all your lands, and dwellings, and cattle of all kinds

Forfeited be to the crown; and that you yourselves from this province

Be transported to other lands. God grant you may dwell there

Ever as faithful subjects, a happy and peaceable people!

Prisoners now I declare you; for such is his Majesty’s pleasure!”

It is a credit to the apparent simplicity and to the precision and conciseness of Longfellow’s verse that we can read this announcement a time or two without noting the depth of its horror. Bad enough that the land and homes and animals of the Acadians are, with a few brief words, stripped away and taken for the crown. Bad enough that they are transported to other unspecified lands. But they are also expected to remain happy, peaceful, and faithful subjects of the king who has done this to them. It is his pleasure to make them prisoners. He requires that it be their pleasure as well.

The blacksmith tries to rebel, but is rapidly subdued by the armed soldiers. The Acadian men are locked into the church until the village can be transported, and in the transportation Evangeline is separated from her betrothed. The remainder of the poem is the story of her lifelong search for him and their tragic reunion when she—now a nun—is called to nurse him on his deathbed.

At one point during her wanderings, Evangeline finds some of the resettled Acadians in Louisiana. She sees the culture in the process of rebuilding itself, and is told:

Here, too, numberless herds run wild and unclaimed in the prairies;

Here, too, lands may be had for the asking, and forests of timber

With a few blows of the axe are hewn and framed into houses.

After your houses are built, and your fields are yellow with harvests,

No King George of England shall drive you away from your homesteads,

Burning your dwellings and barns, and stealing your farms and your cattle.

And I think we are meant, as readers, to find the Acadians’ quiet rebuilding, like Evangeline’s quiet persistence and the lovers’ deathbed reunion, to be noble and comforting. I think we are meant to feel reassured that, while it may take a long time, “finally, justice/Triumphs.”

But I remain uneasy.

Given that King George has already shown his willingness to treat his subjects as his property and to relocate them for his own profit and his own purposes, and given that settlement in Louisiana puts the Acadians under the control of—at various times—the French, English, and Spanish monarchies, how secure should the Acadians really feel?

When lives and property are held at “his Majesty’s pleasure,” the blacksmith is always right. Injustice prevails, backed up by might. And Evangeline will always wander, looking for a home.

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image originally appeared on the Foundation for Economic Education website and is reposted with permission.

What Is Polycentric Law? by Tom W. Bell

Do you like having options when you look for a new bank, dry cleaner, or veterinarian? Of course you do. You want to find the service that will best satisfy your particular demands, after all, and you know that when banks, cleaners, and vets have to compete they have a powerful incentive to make you happy. A monopoly, in contrast, can take its customers for granted.

Polycentric law simply extends that observation from commercial services to government ones. Just as competition makes life better for those who seek banking, cleaning, and pet care, it can benefit those seeking fair and efficient legal systems. Competition helps consumers and citizens alike.

Polycentric law regards the sorts of legal services that governments provide—defining rules, policing their application, and settling disputes—as a ripe field for competition. When a government claims a monopoly in the law, it tends to neglect the needs of its subjects. In a polycentric system, however, providers of legal services care more about what consumers want. They have to, if they don’t want to go out of business.

Our Polycentric World

But won’t competition between legal services lead to chaos? Evidently not. We already live in a world that offers us a fair degree of choice between the sorts of rules we live under. Polycentric law simply takes note of that fact, sees the good in it, and argues for more of the same.

It may not always seem as if you can choose the legal system you will live under. If you like the culture and climate of United States, for instance, but not the commands that issue from the federal government, you indeed face a hard choice: Suck it up or hit the road.

And even if you do decide to leave in search of a better legal system, you have no guarantee of finding one. Because they typically impose uniform rules across large geographic areas, governments tend more toward monopolistic law than polycentric law.

Even so, excepting totalitarian regimes such as the former Soviet Union and present-day North Korea, most governments allow disgruntled residents the freedom to escape to better legal systems. Most also allow movement within their borders, from one state, county, or town to another, affording the freedom to choose between local legal systems. To some degree, therefore, governments already compete against each other. But the influence of polycentric law goes deeper than that.

From Plain Old Law to Polycentric Law

To fully understand the extent of polycentric law, you have to understand the nature of law itself. Legal philosopher Lon Fuller aptly described it as “the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules.” So described, the law is not just a service provided by public organizations. It also issues from private sources such as homeowners’ associations, businesses, religions, clubs, and myriad other organizations that subject their members’ conduct to the governance of rules.

Consider a residential cooperative corporation, for instance. Such a co-op’s members both possess shares of it and lease their homes from it; in effect, they own their landlord. And like other landlords, a residential cooperative corporation subjects its tenants to the governance of rules. A residential co-op might specify quiet hours, for instance, and establish a committee to resolve complaints between member tenants.

That may not sound much like the sort of legal system offered by a conventional government—until you reflect that many residential co-ops rival cities in terms of their size and range of operations. The largest of them, Co-Op City in New York’s Bronx borough, houses over 50,000 members. In addition to shelter, Co-Op City provides an elected government, parks, streets, security, and just about every other service you might expect from a conventional city.

Homeowners’ associations (HOAs) likewise often grow as large and capable as cities. The largest HOA in the United States, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, includes over 30,000 homes and 90,000 residents. In all respects but its origins and legal status, it resembles a conventional municipality.

Other private organizations also effectively duplicate cities on a small scale. Malls and hotels, for instance, provide their users with transportation networks, shelter from the elements, utilities, fire protection, security, and (most pertinently for present purposes) rules of conduct.

The scale and scope of residential co-ops, HOAs, malls, and hotels make it easy to see how the private sector can rival the public one in providing governing services. Polycentric law is not solely the province of huge, private quasi-cities, however. Under Fuller’s definition, even a small organization that regulates only a narrow range of behavior—a church that imposes strict dietary rules on its members, for instance—also qualifies as a source of law. Size and breadth matter less than whether an organization subjects human conduct to the governance of rules.

For More Polycentricity

We thus already live in a somewhat polycentric legal order. Except when they completely imprison their subjects, governments have to compete against each other for financial and human capital. This means that, in the long run, governments that fail to supply adequate legal services tend to end up poor and unpopulated. Alas for consumers of governing services, though, that “long run” can last for generations. To make governments better sooner, we need to make them face more competition.

Except when a totalitarian government completely eradicates them, intermediary institutions also compete in the market for law. Towns compete with residential co-ops and HOAs to provide housing arrangements; main streets compete with malls to provide shopping environments; religious institutions compete with each other to provide moral instruction, and so forth. Because each subjects human conduct to the governance of rules, each of these institutions competes in providing the law. Here, too, though, we might benefit from more competition.

How can we make the law more polycentric? We can start by recognizing that legal systems do not differ in principle from banks, vets, cleaners, or other services. All face some competition and, insofar as they do, consumers benefit. Legal systems differ from other services not because they escape the effect of market forces, but because they have for too long pretended to do so.

Once we recognize that competitive forces already shape legal services, we can turn to increasing their influence. We should seek ways to make it easier for disgruntled subjects to flee, either physically or virtually, from bad governments to better ones. Bitcoin, for instance, seems likely to help on that front. And we should encourage the rise of special jurisdictions, such as the ZEDE/LEAP zones recently introduced in Honduras, where locals can opt into legal rules imported from abroad.

From a Good World to a Better One

Far from a mere theoretical ideal, polycentric law already shapes our world. We need only appreciate its latent power and invite more of the same. Once more fully realized, polycentric law can give to the consumers of legal services the same benefits that free and open competition already gives to the consumers of banking, cleaning, and veterinary services.

ABOUT TOM W. BELL

20121126_TomBell

Tom Bell

Tom W. Bell is a professor at Chapman University School of Law.

A Quest for Commonality

The Adult Catholic Education program, held recently at a local Catholic parish hall, was entitled, “Under Abraham’s Tent: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the World Today.” The evening, designed to “foster peaceful relationships” of three religions through their shared patriarch, Abraham, attracted about 200 guests.

The first speaker, Rabbi “J,” related the story of Abram, who smashed all but one of his father’s idols, leaving a hammer in the hand of the largest. When his father, Terach the idol carver, returned to the store and saw the damage, Abram alibied that a war had ensued among the gods, and the largest idol won. Terach scoffed, saying, “The idols have no life or power,” to which Abraham responded, “Then why do you worship them?”

Thus did Abram show the folly of idol worship and introduce the belief of monotheism into civilization. “J” further explained that the Jews, through Moses, were also the first to bring laws of morality and humanity to humankind, the rules by which civilizations have prospered since. Regrettably, she did not offer a definition of Judaism, the role of Jews in world history, or the significance of Israel to the Jewish people.

Although Jews had resided in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Mesopotamia, and despite their persecution through the centuries, they nevertheless did not declare these lands as theirs. She might have dismantled the accusation that Jews are colonialists, had she noted the Jewish claim to the land has very specific boundaries set forth in the ancient Torah – the same boundaries established by the League of Nations in 1920, and again by the United Nations in 1948. .

It may be that the rabbi simply forgot these exhaustively documented facts, or she felt compelled to abandon her own and her religion’s survival for the fashionable multiculturalism and diversity.

“J” related an anecdote about being asked about the origin of people Cain met after his banishment from Eden. The Torah explains that Adam fathered many children before he died at age 930, and Cain may well have met these others in Nod, where he married and built a city. Rather, she responded that she told “our story,” and that could be another’s story, thereby allowing for the intrusion of a revisionist narrative!

She also mistakenly said that Ishmael was Muslim. In this, her timeline was off because it is well known that Mohammad did not proselytize for Islam until the 7th century AD, some two and a half millennia later. In fact, Ishmael was an Arab, but not a Muslim.

Another fact is that Muhammad’s conquests for an Islamic people began with the slaying of Jews, Christians, and idolaters of Mecca and Medina – beheading the men and raping and enslaving their women and children. Hence, the first Muslims were children of all four groups in the Middle East.

To a prompt about the 1967 origin of “Palestinians” (in quotation marks because before that date, the term meant any Jew or Arab who lived in that geographical area), “J” replied, “I don’t want to go there.” It is a well-documented reality that Yasser Arafat began using that terminology to provide a false bond for these usurpers to the land, but she saw it as a threat to multiculturalism and Islamic revisionism.

A reminder to the rabbi: throughout history, Jews have argued that if they abandoned their traditions and rituals, and conformed to their host society, they would be less likely to face persecution. But during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews who embraced their heritage were either converted, murdered, or expelled en masse in 1492. And, of course, during the Holocaust, Jews who trusted the concept in the 1930s and ‘40s were savagely annihilated.

Father “C,” the second speaker, also referred to Abram’s belief system as the beginning of monotheism, and to Jesus Christ’s ministry for the beginning of Christianity. He seemed distressed when an audience member asked, “Do Muslims and Jews need to trust in Jesus to get into heaven?” Whereas the Catholic Church may mandate conversion as an entrée to heaven, the Father seemed to abjure an exclusionary viewpoint. He did not reference Catholic Charities’ efforts to convert Muslims to Christianity or Muslim efforts to convert Jews and Christians to Islam. Neither did he reveal that the Qur’an restricts Muslims from designating zakat (charity) to any but Muslims, except for outreach and conversion.

Imam “M,” the last of the three, speakers, stated he would discuss historical accounts, revisionism, the universalism of Islam, and the “pre-Islamists” (Jews and Christians) who rejected Muhammad’s message.

His claim that Islam’s history is akin to Judaism’s, and that the two religions “shared ethics,” is fallacious. The Jewish Bible exclusively introduced the early Noahide Laws and Ten Commandments that provided God’s universal and timeless standard of right and wrong for all civilizations. In stark contrast, Islam’s laws contain none of those ethics and morals, and their purpose, as stated by modern-day imams and throughout the Qur’an, is to require strict adherence to Mohammed’s stern teachings of Mohammed by virtually everyone.

Further omitted was that Islam combines both political ideology and religion; they are inextricably linked. “M” stated that Sharia law is based on scripture, words of the prophet, and human intellect (an ambiguous statement), but failed to inform that 83% of the Qur’an deals severely with the infidel. Shari’a laws are meant to regulate non-Muslim as well as Muslim life.

At this point, “M” reminded us of earlier statements – that Jews argued with God (that God must live up to His promise to the Jewish people), that Christians agree with Jesus, and that, “Under the Qur’an, all people would agree to be one faith, one religion, follow the laws of their prophet/role model, have the same behavior, attitude, and there would be no fighting. A quick check at the countries around the world disproves that easily enough. He also assured the audience that Muslims kill other Muslims more than they kill Jews and Christians – a hardly comforting gen.

He went on to say that Muslims have a high degree of illiteracy. It is a fact that domination and oppression thrive as long as the masses are kept in ignorance. The importance of education goes back to Biblical times and is inherent in our Constitution.

Before closing, the imam added, “The ethnic people of the Middle East includes Palestinians,” yet another invention left unchallenged. The Philistines from Crete are long gone, and the current Palestinians are traceable to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, from which they came to the nascent Israel in search of employment. Adopting “Palestinians” for their appellation was a stealth war tactic to provide a false bond to the region they coveted.

It became quite evident that a mountain of historical revisionism was required to create a very false and tenuous harmony. Only when the Jews diminished their history, when the Christians moderated their beliefs, and when Muslims eluded questions that there could be any semblance of sharing and understanding. So this was not educational, but in doctrinal.

If the church members brought these three philosophies together in the name of harmony and understanding, then at least harmony prevailed for a couple of hours. But I knew that the morrow would bring more news of violent Jew-hatred, church burnings, and other catastrophic acts of jihad, and the parishioners would remain terribly misinformed. In the name of multiculturalism, diversity, and political-correctness, they were left with dishonesty and self-congratulatory egotism.

Ukraine topples Lenin statues, meets quota ahead of schedule

Despite severe weather conditions, the plan to topple Lenin statues in Ukraine has been successfully completed this month, ahead of schedule. The government of the former Soviet republic is happy to report that the quota of toppling monuments to Vladimir Lenin and other communist leaders has been met and in some places exceeded, with toppling of a number of unrelated statues in the process, as well as ransacking headquarters of the local Communist Party in Kiev.

Leninoval_280_3.jpgAlthough many critics warned that the goal was unrealistic, irrational, and even mathematically impossible, the toppling of statues of the creator of the world’s largest planned economy still went ahead as scheduled, paced over the course of several Five-Year Plans, starting in 1991.

However, not everything went according to the Planning Committee’s projections. The first Five-Year Plan revealed a drastic shortage of ropes to pull the statues down, and of gasoline to power the moving machinery.

Lenin_Snow.jpg
The second Five-Year Plan was plagued by continuously bad weather, consisting of five hot summers and as many cold winters, with uncharacteristically wet rains in between, presumably the result of climate change caused by a disproportional use of fossil fuels in the United States.

During the third Five-Year Plan all work was put on hold by the newly created Local 11 Statue Toppler Union.

The union leadership demanded an increase in wages and benefits in addition to a restraining order prohibiting all non-unionized persons from approaching any Lenin statue within a 200 foot radius.
Lenin_Pigeon.jpg
The fourth Five-Year Plan was beleaguered by a nationwide strike and a media campaign on behalf of Local 12 Pigeon-Handlers Union, whose members feared permanent unemployment and demanded a fair treatment with guarantees of lifetime salaries and benefits should all Lenin statues be toppled and outsourced to Third World countries.

The number of Lenin statues in existence also appeared to have been grossly underestimated, factoring only statues with the iconic beard and omitting those representing the father of the socialist revolution in his teens or prepubescent years, prior to the development of Lenin’s facial hair follicles. Neither did the plan account for the number of Lenin’s busts, bas reliefs, and mosaics, as well as semi-professional carvings and drawings on the walls of public restrooms.

Lenin_Snowman2.jpgNo Lenin statues made of stone were ever toppled either, which was later blamed on the Planning Committee typist who mistook the word “stone” for “scone.” Amazingly, as many as twelve “scone” statues had been reported as processed and billed by government contractors.

A subsequent audit discovered instances where money was paid for the toppling of Lenin statues that never existed, or where the statues had been made on the spot out of snow or cardboard and then pulled by a bulldozer. In other cases funds were disbursed where no actual topplings occurred.

As a result, while the number of all reported topplings exceeded the initial projection, a visual observation by the auditors led them to conclude that nearly all Lenin statues still remained exactly where they had been placed by the erstwhile Soviet government.

At the time, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich clarified the situation as follows: “More than twenty years of heroic and selfless struggle by our government to topple Lenin statues have exhausted the national budget and forced us to request a bailout from either the European Union or the neighboring Russia. Given that Moscow has more expertise than Brussels in toppling Lenin statues, we chose to side with a partner who better suits our historic needs.”

Leninoval_200_2.jpgIn the aftermath of certain events in Kiev earlier this year, the Ukrainian president modified his position, closely approaching that of the Russian president: “If you like your Lenin statues, you can keep your Lenin statues.”

In a final speech to the nation delivered from the steps of a charter plane Mr. Yanukovich stated: “Rather than burdening our economy with this pointless toppling, I should have followed the Russian model and granted myself exclusive powers to build more palatial mansions in every struggling region of the country. Now if you’ll excuse me, my baggage and I have a flight to catch.”

Leninoval_200_3.jpgInspired by the president’s farewell address, citizens of Ukraine enthusiastically poured into the streets, toppling Lenin statues completely free of charge, without troubling the overworked authorities and union contractors with requests to plan and coordinate their activities. After only several hours of work, volunteers around Ukraine were able to topple all of the remaining Lenin statues.

The next morning, as various government officials looked out their windows and didn’t see the familiar Lenin statues, they immediately knew that it was time to report a successful completion of the final Five-Year Plan, ahead of schedule and almost within the budget.

Hollande government chokes on “Gender Theory”

The French government’s attempts to have old-fashioned pink and blue sexual stereotypes replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites and the like – have run into trouble.

France’s Socialist Hollande government, mired in unprecedented depths of unpopularity, was caught red-handed with its latest social engineering experiment: a pilot project in some 600 kindergartens based on gender theory. The issue had been stewing ever since the passage last spring of the same-sex marriage law that granted homosexuals the right to marry and raise children in wholesome families. Adoption rights are extended, children born in previous heterosexual relationships can be cuddled in recomposed matrimonially united 2-mother or 2-father families.

The implied promise of normalization of children brought into the world with the help of artificial insemination and womb rental and the eventual legalization of these methods in France rounded out the package. But widespread opposition to the indoctrination of male-female equality, starting with day care centers and kindergartens, has blocked the “social progress” momentum.

While tens of thousands of well-behaved citizens marched for five hours on February 2 in protest against the government’s “family phobic” measures, cabinet ministers, commentators and, for some reason, journalists, too, parroted government talking points: the demonstration was totally uncalled for. Neither womb-rental nor artificial insemination for lesbian couples is in the proposed Family Affairs bill. As for the decried gender theory, it doesn’t exist. Women’s Rights Minister & government spokesperson Najat Vallaud-Belkacem kept repeating: This demonstration is uncalled for, it’s based on fear mongering and vicious rumors, there is no such thing as gender theory, we are teaching male-female equality, helping children overcome stereotypes that lead to homophobia and violence again women while stifling their professional ambitions.

The Family Affairs bill is indefinitely postponed. Family values advocates are not reassured, the LGBT contingent is furious, and social engineering is alienating the Left’s Muslim clientele.

Farida Belghoul, who was in the forefront of the Beur [second generation Arab-Muslim immigrants] movement in the 1980s is back with JRE [journée de retraite de l’école]: Parents opposed to gender theory indoctrination keep their children home from school in a once-a-month boycott organized by Belghoul via her text message network. Farida Belghoul has forged an alliance with Alain Soral, France’s most unashamed National Socialist [= Nazi], 100 percent anti-Semite, and buddy-buddy with the comedian Dieudonné. Videos of her talks are posted on Soral’s Egalité et Réconciliation [Equality and Reconciliation] website, cheek to jowl with tirades against the “Jew-loving” Interior Minister Manuel Valls; the Minister of Education, Vincent Peillon, who is a Jew; and long winded exposés on the civilization Soral is defending… from the Jews.

Belghoul has no compunction about drawing French Muslims, including banlieue youths, into her coalition with Soral. A strong Catholic society, she declares, is the best protection for Muslims in France and worldwide. “If France falls, we all fall.” Her discourse and her physical appearance are frantic. Her plea for family reconciliation – husbands with wives, children with parents – seems to be fuelled by personal disappointments. She concludes her talks with a resounding “Vaincre ou mourir” [vanquish or perish]. Her claims about sexual indoctrination in the schools may be oversimplified and exaggerated, but when she displays a merry multiple family book that celebrates all combinations – mother & father + child, 2 mothers + child, 2 fathers + child, 1 female-female couple & 1 male-male couple + child, etc. – her exasperation is shared by multitudes outside of her unsavory movement.

Scores of titles were exposed in the aftermath of the February 2 demonstration. Opposition leader Jean-François Copé discovered “Tous à poil” [everybody strips]: everyone from the baby-sitter to the grandfather and including the postman, the teacher, the traffic cop is realistically drawn in explicit nakedness with full display of what used to be called the “private parts.” The publisher did a new print run of 2,000 to satisfy demand stimulated by the controversy. Vallaud-Belkacem said Copé is an Inquisitionist book burner.

Other titles emerged, celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites etc. via animals or human beings: Two male birds raise an egg deposited in their empty nest by an anonymous donor, a princess doesn’t like princes, a tomboy, a boy in frilly dresses, brother and sister toddlers playing tickly games in bed… in short, those silly old-fashioned pink and blue stereotypes are replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes. It turned into a game of ping pong: opponents of gender theory would display a title on official reading lists, national education authorities would deny it and simultaneously take it off the lists. The ABCs of Equality used in schools, they said, owes nothing to gender theory. It doesn’t exist.

Why do politicians keep lying in the old fashioned way when everything they ever said is available with one click of the mouse? Interviewed in August 2011 by the giveaway newspaper 20 Minutes,  Belkacem is asked how “gender theory” can help change society. She replies: “By showing that the socio-cultural context is as much a factor as biology in determining  ‘sexual identity’ gender theory raises the question of unacceptable, persistent inequalities between men and women, and homosexuality, and shows us how to educate on these subjects.” I noted Vallaud-Belkacem’s LGBT commitments in my profile [Dispatch International May 2013], and her intention to develop programs based on the findings of a commission she appointed to study sexual stereotypes. The report included an enthusiastic account of an experimental Norwegian kindergarten where the children were never identified as boys or girls.

Having copiously fawned over its Muslim clientele for decades – it is estimated that Francois Hollande got 80 percent of the Muslim vote to 14 percent for Sarkozy – the Left is alienating this electorate with its social engineering. On the other hand, voters attracted by the Left’s progressive agenda are drastically disappointed. The extent of the damage will be counted in the coming municipal elections (March 23 and 30).

Speaking of stereotypes, isn’t Najat Vallaud-Belkacem a sterling example of the use of feminine charm to defend anything and everything? Despite her boyish haircut and unisex style Vallaud-Belkacem is an attractive young woman with lovely eyes and French elegance. As befits her role, she speaks the words put in her mouth by the government, lies with disarming sincerity, attacks her opponents with a delicately sheathed blade.

As for President Hollande, he runs a full range of feminine attributes, from the fertility companion Ségolène Royal, mother of his four children, to Valerie Trierweiller, maturely glamorous journalist, to the sexy young movie star, Julie Gayet. And Najat asks kindergarteners why so few girls want to be stonemasons?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured picture is of François Hollande à Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire taken by Ludovic Lepeltier. The photo is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Hollywood Rediscovers the Bible

When I was growing up in the 1950s there were two blockbusters, “The Ten Commandments” and “Ben-Hur.” Together they pulled in $1.795 billion in adjusted domestic ticket sales. The power of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, to draw audiences is impressive and, in hard times like the present, many seek a message of hope in religion.

It’s worth keeping in mind that, according to Pew research, by the end of 2012, a large majority of Americans—77% of the adult population—identify with a Christian religion, including 52% who are Protestants, 23% who are Catholic, and 2% who affiliate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Mormons. Some 18% expressed no explicit religious identity and 5% identified with a non-Christian religion.

U.S. Presidents, particularly the Founders, were serious readers of the Bible. Tevi Troy, writing in The Wall Street Journal on February 14, noted that “Our earliest presidents, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all assiduous readers—of history and philosophy, and the Bible as well. Lacking many books in his earliest years, Abraham Lincoln “was among the most diligent readers of all U.S. Presidents.

I suspect that the Obama administration’s open attacks on the Catholic Church for its resistance to Obamacare’s demands that contraceptive medications be covered in healthcare insurance plans makes a lot of Americans, not just Catholics, uneasy at best, raising serious questions about the nation’s fundamental devotion to the free practice of religion.

In a statement about the National Day of Prayer, President Obama made no reference to Christianity, but acknowledged freedom of religion in its historic context. He is a far cry from his predecessor, George W. Bush, for whom his faith in Jesus was openly acknowledged and who found wide support in the nation’s evangelical community. Bush was an avid reader of the Bible.

A Marxist at heart, I doubt that Obama cares much for Christianity and his Chicago church was led by Jeremiah Wright who is most famous for having said “God damn America” and had to apologize for remarks critical of Jews. Obama has openly defended Islam and many believe he is a Muslim.

Hollywood is rediscovering the Bible these days after years of films based on cartoon characters like Batman and Spider Man. In 2014 it will release more big Biblically-based films than it has in the last eleven years combined and the trend is strong for more in 2015.

Debuting in February was “Son of God” from Twentieth Century Fox, culled from the History Channel’s 2013 miniseries, “The Bible”, produced by Mark Burnett who, along with his wife, Roma Downey, is a devout Christian. Debuting in March is “Noah” from Paramount, starring Russell Crow and coming in April is “Heaven is for Real.” On its way to the nation’s theatres are “Mary” and “Exodus.”

Burnett believes that people are seeking messages of spiritual uplift in the wake of the 2008 financial crash and I would add the five years of Obama’s failed management of the economy with its emphasis on socialist, Keynesian government spending that has proved to be largely a waste that has added six trillion to the nation’s soaring debt.

Having attended school when the day began with a pledge of allegiance and the reading of a prayer, I am among those who lament the court-imposed ban on the latter.

As a longtime book reviewer, I have seen a trend of books espousing atheism. Among the latest I have received are “Writing God’s Obituary: How a Good Methodist Became a Better Atheist” by Anthony B. Pinn, “The Original Atheists” edited by S.T. Joshi, and “The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal” by Paul Kurtz, one of the most active critics of religion with fifty books to his credit. There are, however, many books that explore faith such as “Faith Afield: A Sportsman’s Devotional” by Steve Scott and “”What on Earth Do We Know About Heaven?” by Randal Rauser.

One can only hope that Hollywood’s rediscovery of the Bible will contribute to a resistance against those groups and individuals who protest any display of religious symbols such as the Cross, notable during the Christmas holidays.

America was founded by men who were believers in religious expression and faith. And tolerance. The drift from these values harm the nation and a renewal of them are the essence of hope.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

VIDEO: Son of God movie trailer.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/WcIXCok9HPg[/youtube]

Free Press Freely Distorts Black TV Ownership

Over the past few months there have been several news stories about no Blacks owning major broadcast TV stations anymore.  The cries have bordered on mass hysteria.  It turns out that the story is not true.

Most of this hysteria in the media has been created by a Free Press, a White, liberal advocacy group. According to their website, “Free Press advocates for universal and affordable Internet access, diverse media ownership, vibrant public media and quality journalism.” They released their first report on the state of TV ownership in 2006, and found that there were only 18 Black-owned and operated full-power commercial TV stations, representing just 1.3 percent of all such stations.

By December 2012, those 18 had shrunk to just five. And now, according to Free Press, they’re all gone. This report is false in many ways. First, there is the issue of context.  For example, what happens when Blacks decide to sell their stations like Bob Johnson did with BET or Mike and Steve Roberts from St. Louis (friends of mine) who were forced to sell their stations last year after they filed for bankruptcy? The problem is that Free Press, while deploring the state of Black ownership, does not factor in situations where Black owners voluntarily or involuntarily sell their properties.

Therefore, reduced Black representation in the industry is not solely attributable to slamming the door in the face of Black investors. As they say, figures can lie and liars can figure. Again, taking a look at Free Press, they claim there are no Black-owned TV stations and consequently favor some type of government action to swell the ranks of Black ownership. Well, it turns out that there is at least one Black, Armstrong Williams, who owns not one, but several TV stations.

Last November 28, Williams won approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to buy WEYI-TV, an NBC affiliate in the Flint/Saginaw/Bay City/Midland, Mich., WWMB-TV, a CW affiliate in the Myrtle Beach/Florence, S.C, and WMMP in Charleston, S.C. He obtained a $50 million loan from JP Morgan. Williams acquired the stations from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., the nation’s largest independent owner of broadcast TV stations.

They own and operate programs or provide sales services to 87 television stations in 47 markets, reaching about 27 percent of U.S. television households. But Free Press does not count Williams as a true owner because Sinclair will provide some of the programing and sales support to his newly-acquired stations, which not an unusual arrangement, especially with a new owner. Williams, a well-known Black Republican media personality, is the owner and CEO of Howard Stirk Holdings, Inc. a Washington, D.C. media company. A  native of Myrtle Beach, S.C., he has extensive industry experience.  For more than 30 years, Williams has been a leader in media and content production.

He has developed and produced high quality television programs, including primetime specials with heads of state and key political figures. From 2001 to 2003, he served as Chief Operating Officer of the Renaissance Cable TV Network with responsibility for all programming, advertising and content development. Williams’ new relationship with Sinclair is akin to owning rental property or office buildings. It’s not uncommon to hire a property manager to handle the day-to-day business operations while all major decisions will be made by the owner.

In most cases, the owner is either too busy running other business ventures or is more comfortable with bringing in management with more specialized knowledge of the particular business. In this case, Williams has the knowledge to oversee these stations himself.  What is amazing is that Free Press tried to get the FCC to block approval of Williams’ purchase.

But wait a minute, they stated: “Free Press advocates for universal and affordable Internet access, diverse media ownership, vibrant public media and quality journalism.” Yet, they lined up to block one of the goals they profess to have – more diverse ownership. For the sake of argument, say they had some legitimate concerns about Williams’ management arrangement with Sinclair. Still, that wouldn’t warrant trying to prevent the sale of the television stations to an African American. Given these strange set of events, the only conclusion I can reach is that the liberal advocacy group that claims to seek “diverse media ownership” does not want politically diverse Black ownership.

There is no other way to explain it. There is no question that Williams is the certified owner of the aforementioned stations, the TV stations’ licenses are in his name and the loan from JP Morgan is in his name. That was enough to satisfy the FCC and should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person. Free Press has proven itself to be anything but reasonable.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of Visitor7. The photo is of a black and white television console at Cafe Delirium in Gresham, Oregon. Visitor7 does not in any way endorse the author of this column or his views. The photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

Mainstream media in Massachusetts starts campaign to normalize transgenderism and sex-changes for schoolchildren!

Pushing the transgender agenda to kids.These two men had a booth at the “Youth Pride” event in Boston last year. They were inviting middle school and high school students to a “Drag Gospel Festival”. [MassResistance photo]

MassResistance fights back on national radio.

This past year Massachusetts began to enforce its mandate that public schools fully accommodate the concept of “transgenderism” and cross-dressing by children. Now, a powerful campaign has been ramping up in the local mainstream media to normalize “transgenderism” and even sex-change operations for children in the eyes of the public.

As we reported last year and in our recent post on the “War on Children,” schools in Massachusetts are now directed to allow so-called “transgender” students — children who decide to “identify” as the opposite sex — to wear opposite-sex clothes to school, use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms, and be called by an opposite-sex name. (California now has also mandated “transgenderism” in the public schools, and several other states are not far behind.)

This boy was marching in the state-supported “Youth Pride Parade” in Boston in 2013. This is what happens when homosexual and transgender adult activists are allowed to push their agendas in the schools.
[MassResistance photo]

But this has been happening relatively quietly. The general public still knows very little about it. But even in Massachusetts, seeing children involved in this makes people disturbed and outraged.

Thus the radical movement felt the need for a slick, effective PR campaign to change the public’s attitudes. In other words, the current stream of articles and radio spots is no accident or coincidence. Like similar homosexual-themed PR campaigns, this has the fingerprints of the well-funded and well-connected homosexual-transgender groups all over it. These groups have long worked hand in glove with their allies in the mainstream. Their activists and hand-picked “experts” appear in almost all of the articles.

Softening up the public

Not long ago this concept was considered so fringe and demonic that no even the homosexual newspapers would barely touch it. But the public is now being softened up to believe that this is an everyday occurrence — and even a “normal” part of life. There’s even the constant use of the opposite-sex pronoun (i.e., “he” when referring to a girl) to play not-so-subtle tricks with your mind.

Just a few examples over the last month:

A four-part series by National Public Radio in Boston about “Nate,” a girl who has decided she wants to be a boy:

* Jan. 22 – National Public Radio/Boston:
 “Living Transgender – Part 1: Battling perceptions and pronouns.”
 Local NPR affiliate WBUR explores the “challenges facing transgender teenagers through the story of Nate, a 16-year-old transgender male” (i.e., a female).

* Jan. 22 – National Public Radio/Boston: “Living Transgender: Frequently Asked Questions, Resources” This is very frightening. It is mostly a collection of junk science, “queer theory,” and the opinions of radical “experts.” But it’s an example of what is being told to children as fact.

* Jan. 23 – National Public Radio/Boston:
“Living Transgender – Part 2: As A Transgender Teen, Nate Finds Acceptance At His School”
 The undertone is that normalizing transgenderism in schools is like integration and the Civil Rights movement.

* Jan. 24 – National Public Radio/Boston: “Living Transgender – Part 3: “Uncertainty Surrounds Medical Treatments For Transgender Youth.” A very distressing piece about medical procedures and body surgery to “change” a teenager from one sex to the other.

National Public Radio’s Boston affiliate, WBUR, did a four-part series celebrating this girl, who now calls herself “Nate” and dresses as a boy. She’s “uncomfortable” being a girl, and the radio report explores the “challenge” of getting people to call her “he.”
[Photo: WBUR]

* Feb. 9 – Boston Globe: “Transgender Revolutionary.” Article about a “male” teacher and coach at a boys’ private boarding school who is actually a woman with facial hair, who is “married” to a lesbian. She has written a book about a distant ancestor, a woman in the Revolutionary War who also dressed as a man, though later married and had children.

This woman, dressed as a man and taking testosterone to grow facial hair and lower her voice, coached the boys’ cross-country team at a private boarding school in Rhode Island. She is “married” to a lesbian, according to theBoston Globe article.
[Photo: Boston Globe.]

* February 18 – Boston Globe: “Transgender student takes national stage” One of three identical female triplets has taken hormones to grow facial hair in “his brave effort to become truly himself.”

The Boston Globe celebrates this girl’s so-called “transitioning” into a boy. This includes continually taking male hormones and an upcoming operation to have her breasts removed, according to the article.
[Photo: Boston Globe]

It’s also happening in California, which also passed a “transgender” school law:

* February 21 – San Gabriel Valley Tribune: (Also reported in the Los Angeles Times.“Azusa High transgender student-athlete Pat Cordova-Goff attends first practice.” A boy who “identifies” as a girl is allowed to play on the school’s girls’ softball team, because of new California law.

A boy (right) who says he now “identifies” as a girl plays on the girls’ softball team, as mandated by California state law.
[Photo: Watchara Phomicinda]

A particularly disturbing aspect is the tone of all of these articles: They arecelebratory of this horrible situation, as if it were a great social triumph. They include no substantial opposing viewpoints. And they are completely dispassionate about the destructive nature of the medical procedures done to these kids to “improve” them. It is pure propaganda meant to normalize something that is profoundly abnormal.

Ignoring the damage

Unfortunately, the Left only thinks about its political agenda. It has no interest in the horrible trauma and sometimes suicidal feelings down the road when a person who went through “gender change” procedures realizes that he/she made a terrible mistake that may be unrecoverable. (Among other things, some of the medical procedures given to youth cause permanent sterilization.) It doesn’t “fix” the underlying problem of gender dysphoria, it only prolongs it. This has been documented at length by people like Walt Heyer and others who had hormone treatments and surgical procedures.

MassResistance fights back on national radio

On Monday February 17, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was featured on the national radio show “Crosstalk”, one of the most prominent Christian radio shows in the US. The show is broadcast on 97 radio stations across the country on the VCY America network.

The daily Crosstalk show is broadcast on 97 stations across America on the VCY America network.

Most people across America are completely unaware of the extent of the homosexual and transgender assault on children in the schools — particularly in the East Coast and West Coast where it’s at its worst. But Camenker laid it out for the radio audience. It was pretty shocking to a lot of people. Afterwards, MassResistance got a lot of emails from around the country with very emotional reactions.

Listen to radio interview with Camenker HERE (33 min.).

The propaganda will continue

Unfortunately, you can expect to see more of this in the mainstream media, even beyond Massachusetts and California. They understand that this is necessary for acceptance by the public. Like homosexuality itself, every generation normally finds these concepts unnatural and repulsive unless there is a heavy dose of propaganda and social pressure to conform. We’ve seen that the homosexual and transgender lobby is prepared to provide that.

Unquestioned acceptance by the liberal establishment

But in our observation, probably even more difficult and frightening for conservatives to deal with is how readily the liberals in the press, the schools, and elsewhere unquestioningly accept this complete lunacy. There appears to be no lower limit to what those people will embrace as fact, no matter how ludicrous, if it falls within the realm of political correctness.

One wonders if this is how the horrors of the 1930s in Europe and later in China and other communist countries took place so easily. It makes it all the more necessary for good people to speak out as loudly as possible.

There must be no compromise

And unfortunately, we’re already seeing many pro-family groups cave in on the “transgender” issue. They disagree with it in principle but invariably refuse to challenge it with anything stronger than polite opposition to the use of “gender identity.” They’ll argue that “privacy” rights should be respected in restrooms and locker rooms or that “special rights” should not be granted in schools. That way, by arguing at the edges, they avoid a direct confrontation with the transgender lobby. But it’s the coward’s way out and in the long run hurts children terribly.

MassResistance doesn’t compromise on these issues. Neither should you. This can and must be derailed.

Pushing the transgender agenda to kids.These two men had a booth at the “Youth Pride” event in Boston last year. They were inviting middle school and high school students to a “Drag Gospel Festival”.
[MassResistance photo]

A closer look at the “Drag Gospel Festival” poster.


Rhode Island pro-life / pro-marriage activists put their words into real action: Marriage and now a baby!

And finally some GOOD news!

During the heat of the culture war battles in Rhode Island over the last few years two of the most prominent pro-marriage and pro-life activists in the state have been Kara Russo and Chris Young. We’ve worked with them a lot.

Sometimes the battle tends to spur us on to bigger things. As we reported back in September of 2012 Chris and Kara decided to collaborate on their pro-marriage activism by . . . getting married!

Well, they didn’t leave their pro-life work behind. On December 22, 2013 their daughter Immanuel Mary Katherine was born. On Feb. 2, she was baptized by at St. Mary Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Galilee, Rhode Island, the same church where they were married.

Chris Young, Kara Young, and Immanuel Mary Katherine Young at the baptism on Feb. 2.

Now THAT’s what we call dedicated activism!!

Pardon My Paranoia

An organization, Patriots for America, is calling for millions of Americans to descend on Washington, D.C on May 16th for Operation American Spring whose purpose is to demand that President Obama and others in his administration be removed from office.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Ddg7fYtdGUY[/youtube]

Among the rules of engagement set forth on their Internet site include (1) no weapons, no ammunition. “The Communist forces that control Washington, D.C. do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you.” (2) Follow all rules of the road. (3) Comply with all constitutional requests of local authorities. And (4) travel in groups of four or greater.

Geoff Ross is identified as the senior chief of the organization that wants participants to be prepared to stay as long as it takes for Congress to take action. The event suggests that he and many supportive groups think the U.S. is at risk of losing its constitutional government so long as Barack Obama is President.

The worst possible scenario to the event would be if some element of the law enforcement authority is ordered to fire on the gathering, but I recall that in July 2008 presidential candidate Obama said that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

America does not need a civilian national security force.

We have the military whose job is to protect us against foreign invasion and we have state and local police authorities in our towns and cities to address riots and large protests. The force the President wants would exist solely to intimidate and control Americans who he deems his enemies.

What we do have in the wake of 9/11 is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and it is not intended to be a military force although it does include the Coast Guard. On March 23, 2013, Capt. Terry M. Hestilow, U.S. Army retired, wrote to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warning that DHS is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the DHS that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.” He expressed his concerns over “recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems.”

“One needs only look to the rise of Adolf Hitler,” wrote Capt. Hestilow, “and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.”

In a February 5, 2014 article on Infowars.com, Kit Daniels reported that “The U.S. Postal Service is currently seeking companies that can provide “assorted small arms ammunition in the new future. The U.S. Postal Service joins the long list of non-military federal agencies purchasing large amounts of ammunition.”

What has a growing number of Americans concerned is this arming of government agencies we do not associate with the need to be heavily armed. “Since 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has been building a massive arsenal through purchases orchestrated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” reported Daniels. “Back in July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also purchased 72,000 rounds of 40 Smith and Wesson, following a 2012 purchase for 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point by the National Weather Service.”

One might assume that the DHS needs to be armed to some degree, but there is no logical reason for the Post Office, the Department of Education, and NOAA to be heavily armed. Reportedly DHS spent over $58 million to hire security details for just two Social Security offices in Maryland and $80 million for armed guards to protect government buildings in New York and more guards for federal facilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. “Even the Environmental Protection Agency has its own SWAT teams conducting raids on peaceful Americans,” wrote Daniels.

DHS has been engaged in a program to provide military-style weapons and vehicles to local police forces around the nations.

My most profound fear, my paranoia, concerning the May 16 protest, despite its instructions to participants not be armed, is that some incident would escalate to a point where shots were exchanged. One can conceive of that serving as the reason to initiate an “emergency” proclamation and/or to declare martial law.

One gets the feeling that this government, under the direction of President Obama, is preparing for a national insurrection against his often lawless administration. The May 16 event would provide an excuse to initiate actions that would put us all under the gun.

I no longer believe “it can’t happen here.” We have a President who sees no reason to work with Congress and who recently “joked” that he can do whatever he wants.

I worry that members of our military and others would obey orders to impose governmental control to the extent that we might see widespread resistance by millions of armed Americans. I regard the surge in the purchase of weapons by private citizens during Obama’s terms in office as a reflection of the paranoia that I am feeling these days.

But is it paranoia? Or is it a reasonable assumption that a President who feels free to ignore the Constitution might have plans that do not include peaceful elections or his departure from the office?

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMNS:

Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Unrest In Venezuela And Ukraine Coming To America?

Victory For Ukrainian Revolution

VIDEO: Yulia: ‘I Am A Ukrainian’

Inside Obama’s Head

In the August 18, 2011 edition of The American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

Patterson wrote, “Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?”

He continued, “Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a ‘community organizer;’ a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.”

Looking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book Dreams from My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therin, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just sixteen years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander in chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House rose garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as Dr. Samuel Vaknin has described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Obama appears to see in himself.

When Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008 nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guiders his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hofer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

The Bloody Boomerang of Stalinism

Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin, March 1919

The recent Olympic Games in Russia have opened the country to the world — As if a Pandora Box — the secrets held by the Russian regime for a long time have been discovered, revealing the reality of life in Russia. Reporting on Olympics in Sochi our media, for the first time, was using negative terms and images to depict: the unprecedented corruption, terrorism, yellow water, a disaster, and others. To grasp the reality of life in Russia, we ought to return to the discussion we had in the previous article published on January 27, 2014.

The ideological fireball unleashed by Marxism had a dramatic impact on life in Europe. Aggressive mob leaders fed on the public disorder and violence and their leadership produced the first socialist revolution in France.  This was the period of the “Paris Commune.” The revolution produced enormous casualties and then failed very quickly.  These events were followed by socialist revolt in Hungary and German Bavaria.  Both of those revolts failed, as well.  Western civilization rejected violent and destructive ideology–capitalism continued its development in those countries. I agree with Nietzsche that the envy of the poor is the main impulse to revolution. Furthermore, history shows that the leadership of any political movement plays a crucial role in shaping the outcome of revolt–Lenin is the prime example of that concept and victory of the first Socialist revolt in Russia…

There had been one earlier revolution in Russia in February 1917 (the February Revolution) that enjoyed widespread popular support. That revolution had a platform of fundamental social and constitutional reform that would move Russia toward western-style democracy. The February Revolution took place in St. Petersburg (Petrograd at the time) and led to the abdication of Russian Tsar Nicholas II on his own and his son’s behalf and the establishment of a Provisional Government in Russia.

Delegates_VIII_Congress_of_the_RKP(b)

Group picture of the delegates at the VIII Congress of the RKP. Click on the photo for a larger view.

The first successful socialist revolution took place in Russia in October 1917 (November 7 by the new calendar). Its official name in Russia was the Great October Socialist Revolution. The Bolshevik Party and its leader Vladimir Lenin seized power under the banner of Marxism—“proletariat of the world, unite!” Yet some historians today consider the Great October Socialist Revolution a meticulous and very well organized coup d’etat against a Provisional Government of Russia by the parliamentary manipulations and tricks. By the way, Ayn Rand was agreed with the concept of a coup d’etat. Lenin’s leadership in the revolt is not questionable; however we are currently talking about Soviet Socialism—that entire model of social organization has been created by Stalin and his global design later.

To grasp the perspectives Stalin envisioned for Russia and the world, we have to know the character, personality of the man and the circumstances of his life. Unlike Lenin, Stalin was not a highly educated individual, yet he was smart-street, which was more significant at the time. He was born in 1889 in the Russia’s Christian province Georgia, on the Caucasus, surrounded by the Muslim world. Proximity of the Muslim culture had a strong effect on Stalin’s personality for the rest of his life, his attitude to women testified to that. You can see it throughout his entire reign of power—no women in the government .His personal life and mysterious death of his second wife, a young and active Allelueva, telling us a tragic story…

His real name was Joseph Jugashvili, his nickname he took from Russian word steel–Stalin. If I tell you that Stalin was a bank-robber in his revolutionary career you wouldn’t believe me. Therefore let me give you an opinion of others about Stalin: “He became one of the Bolsheviks chief operatives in the Caucasus, organizing paramilitaries, inciting strikes, spreading propaganda and raising money through bank robberies, ransom, kidnappings, and extortions.” (Wikipedia). I would add: he was imprisoned five times, three of them for bank robberies—violence, lawlessness, and a Muslim Neighborhood  had been his real parents…

Every word, written about Stalin’s characteristic is only a part of the real true character of the man. Today you would call such a man a thug, mobster, or con. He was a brutal, manipulative, and maniacal, deceitful intriguer; he acquired power by moving up on the corps of others. He was an extraordinary liar and hypocrite. Two other features of his character stood out: The first one is that Stalin hated the Russian Orthodox Church and the Christian religion. The second one was his vindictiveness that had no barriers.

Stalin grew up in a shoemaker’s family, his father systematically beat him. His Mother, a devoted Christian, wanted him to be a priest, so she sent him to a church school in Georgia, he learned Russian there. After church school, he was admitted to an Orthodox Seminary, which had widened his horizon: The Orthodox Church had been highly respectable authority in the Russian Empire—the Emperor Nicholas was the “Messenger of God.”  The education there was the best in Europe. When Stalin protested against the imperialist and religious order, he was expelled from the Seminary, yet the knowledge obtained there had tremendously help him to manipulate the West later on…

640px-National-Bolshevik-Party

Bolshevik Party flag.

Shortly after being expelled, he joined a revolutionary movement, became a convert to Marxism. In 1903 his Marxist group had become the Bolshevik Party, and Stalin got an assignment to begin organizing Bolshevik Party in the Caucasus Mountains area that was well known to him. It should be noted that Caucasus Mountains, a location with predominant Muslim culture and many different ethnic groups. Stalin was surrounded by the Muslim world in his entire childhood. He loved and knew the Muslim culture pretty well; his proclivity to lie perhaps came from Koran, which is allowing to lie if it benefits Islam. This rule of Koran is called Tajak (the spelling can be wrong). Stalin learned that Islam was divided on Sunnis and Shiites; he found out how to use both.

While organizing Marxists of the Caucasus, Stalin had the opportunity to go over the border. As a matter of fact, Azerbaijan was divided, one part in Russia and the other in Iran. The language was the same and Stalin could propagate Marxism in both countries. He had maintained his interest in Iran since then… In 1911, by the money obtain through bank robberies, he helped to establish Pravda, later the official daily of the Communist Party of the USSR. Living in St .Petersburg, Stalin played an important secret role in guiding the Bolshevik deputies in the Duma (Russian parliament) and in directing the Bolshevik Party press against the Provisional Government…

Stalin served the Bolshevik and then Communist Party pretty well. The sense of ambition and desire for prestige has always been a driving impulse for Stalin. His first official post in the Soviet government was the People’s Commissar on Nationalities. In 1922 he became the General Secretary of the Communist Party, the post he held to the day of his death in March of 1953. He stigmatized the rich, cultivating the hate and revenge to create an envy and resentment. Under the condition of secrecy, overwhelming fear, and intimidation Stalin had created a centralized system and his ideology that brought an enormous suffering to the people–he killed more people than all Russian Tsars combined.

Unlike Lenin, Stalin had no educational background, but persistently implemented his own vision of the country’s future in building a, so-called, Communist society. Since his childhood, violence formed his personality: and. throughout his entire life, force, violence, and ferocity had prevailed in his behavior. He began building his Communist, or Soviet Socialism, according to the personal features of his character. Only through the prism of his personality you can grasp the entire essence of the Stalinist Soviet Socialism. 

The first thing he did was dispose of any and all opposition. He immediately started building his cult of personality. According to Encyclopedia Britannica Online “[a] cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.” Stalin promised “to lead the country out of poverty into a bright communist future.” Instead he dedicated his efforts solely to concentrating ever greater power in his own hands.  The Stalinist cult of personality portrayed him as larger than life itself and endowed him with unrivaled wisdom. . As a result, Stalin became the best writer in the country, the best poet, the best diplomat, the best scientist, and the best military commander, friend and Father of the people.

Stalin used Lenin’s words to boost his cult of personality and to create a political machine within the Communist Party as a collective leader of the country. Lenin’s words were also used to identify the tasks and agenda of the Soviet government — The goal of Socialism is Communism, and Unions are the school of Communism.  In just this way had the Soviet state been created and functioned for seventy years. The Soviet government and all the unions worked together to control and operate the country—Big Government of unprecedented size wielding unassailable power over the population. The industries were field with people loyal to Stalin and he piled them with all special privileges.

Stalin’s personal agenda included, in first order, disposal of his opponents. He started eliminating them by demonizing and smearing their reputations. As a community leader of the Caucasus Mountains knowing the history of sectarian power struggle and the leadership of all ethnic groups, Stalin started a systematic liquidation of the leaders there. Just ask the people of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Chechnya, and others how many their leaders had been shot and how many thousands of people been perished during deportation to Siberia and central Asia … Then, Stalin had begun smearing and building accusations against the country leaders.

The first victim was Leon Trotsky, a hard-line Bolshevik but a very smart man and a respected leader.  He had been exiled and later assassinated by Stalin’s order in Mexico.  The next target was Sergey Kirov, a beloved leader from Leningrad (St, Petersburg) who was murdered by Stalin’s henchmen. The next were the series of purges and Show Trials that Stalin used to remove all the old Bolsheviks from the Communist Party in the 1930s. He chose to replace them with an army of loyal Stalinist yes-men. By the time he completed this first phase, he had attained his goal of absolute power built on a foundation of overwhelming fear. It is helpful to grasp Stalin’s chief motivation and the agenda by knowing the fate and the life of the people there.

Unlike the politically agile Lenin, Stalin was a pedantic and loyal Marxist who believed in world revolution. His ultimate goal was one of titanic agenda: the spread of Socialism throughout the entire world and create a global government under the auspices of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s reign of power started with a global double-game in which Stalin never played by the rules and never lost sight of his global strategy. Stalin deceived and misled the entire world, talking about socialism within one country while spreading his Socialist model throughout the world.  In fact, Stalin unleashed an undeclared war against capitalist western countries through insurrection against western civilization. And again, you can see the fraudulent intentions of the Communist ideology—Stalin has quadrupled it by creating a system of big lies under an Iron Fist to perpetrate a fraud further.

Stalin was dishonest with regard to ideology, because although he preached Marxism-Leninism, he practiced his own religion of Stalinism. Only through the prism of Stalin’s geo-political objectives can we comprehend the world’s predicament in the 21st century. Stalin’s war was real and had multiple fronts and many targets. It was both a domestic war and a war abroad. Only now, after being acquainted with Stalin’s character and personality we can begin understanding of the extent of his war against Western civilization. You can ask how it was possible that one man established a model of social organization, so dangerous for the entire world, yet which survived for two centuries. There is an explanation.

Stalin’s first concern was the constant aggrandizement and preservation of his absolute power, his cult of personality, and the leadership role of the Communist Party which was his personal fiefdom.  A mighty security apparatus was built on the foundation of the first Soviet security agency named the Cheka. During Stalin’s reign the name of the agency has been changed several times to cover up the crime committed. It finally appeared under the title—the KGB, three letters familiar to the people worldwide—the doer of Stalinism. A bloody boomerang of Stalinism, its dreadful ideology has the same form and shape, but different geography: yesterday it was Georgia on the Caucuses and the Middle East, today it is Venezuela and Ukraine. Who is next? To grasp the concept of the Stalin’s security apparatus and his war against humanity, please read What is happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, by Simona Pipko, Xlibris, 2012.

To be continued: www.simonapipko1.com

The World’s Volcanic Past and Future

While Americans coped with massive snowfalls in the South, Midwest and Northeast, a dramatic volcanic eruption occurred on February 13th in Indonesia when Mount Kelud in the province of East Java erupted so loudly it could be heard 120 miles away.

It is one of 130 volcanos in the world’s fourth most populous nation, located on the “ring of fire” volcanic belt around the shores of the Pacific Ocean. About 200,000 people were affected and more than 76,000 had to be evacuated according to Indonesia’s National Disaster Mitigation Agency. The effect was dramatic, shutting down an airport in Indonesia’s second largest city, Surabaya, a major industrial center, along with those in five other cities as well as a major oil refinery that provides more than a third of Indonesia’s total output of refined products.

Earlier this month, the eruption of Mount Sinabung in the north of the island of Sumatra was credited with the death of eleven people. It had been spewing lava and ash for months and forced thousands to flee the area.

There are about 1,500 active volcanoes worldwide with the majority on the Pacific “ring of fire.” Some fifty of these erupt every year, An estimated 500 million people worldwide live near active volcanoes.

While environmentalists are forever blathering about carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from cars, plants that produce electricity, and all forms of manufacturing, volcanoes produce from 145 million to 255 million short tons of CO2 every year.

Large, explosive eruptions, in addition to CO2, put large amounts of water vapor, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and ash, pulverized rock and pumice, into the stratosphere to heights of 10 to 20 miles above the Earth’s surface. Sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid condense rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols that reflect the Sun’s radiation, cooling the Earth’s lower atmosphere or troposphere while also absorbing heat radiated from the Earth. In the past century, several eruptions during the past century cooled the Earth by up to half a degree Fahrenheit for periods of one to three years.

I cite this to drive home the fundamental scientific fact that, as opposed to all the nonsense about human control or effect on the Earth’s temperatures, volcanoes by comparison render the human component infinitesimal.

Moreover, CO2 plays virtually no role in the Earth’s overall temperature. Shutting down coal-fired electrical plants and preventing the construction of new ones has no basis in science. The outcry against CO2 ignores the fact that all life on Earth depends on it to provide the “food” that all vegetation requires. More Co2, not less, is good for the Earth.

What Americans need to worry about is the eruption of a super volcano with a large caldera such as the Yellowstone Caldera in Yellowstone National Park and the Valles Caldera in New Mexico. Both have been dormant for thousands of years.

The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years compared to its human component that only began to create what we call modern civilization for about five thousand years. Its volcanos, potential earthquakes, floods, blizzards, and other natural hazards pose some serious threats. Massive eruptions such as those about 250 million years ago are believed to have been the cause of the “Great Dying” that is estimated to have killed 90% of the species existing at the time.

When I read and hear about people speaking about how humans are causing major species declines or industry threatening the climate, I am reminded of how Nature, the action or inaction of the Sun, volcanoes and other natural events dwarf anything that is attributed to human activity.

Thanks to the environmentalists, we are crippling and denying the ability of this nation to construct the pipelines, expand our industrial base, and provide the housing needed for an expanding population.

Look around you. Pretend you’re a dinosaur Then remember they dominated the Earth for thousands of years until Nature eliminated them.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Is America ready for Common Law Divorce?

In the course of human events we as a People need to divorce ourselves from statutes and regulations and bring justice to what has become a legal system. I have been studying Common Law and have learned that this union of States never had a legal system but a Justice system in place when it was founded. A legal system taxes you for making errors in what some legislator says is bad for society. In country known as the “land of the free and the home of the brave”, I ask you are free or brave enough to make a stand?

What is Common Law? It is the Law of the Land.

Our judicial system has you tricked in traffic court, or some planning and zoning employee telling you that your shed is too tall or has too many square feet and they file a complaint against you in Admiralty court. Did you know, you do not need to consent to Admiralty court or that you were even in Admiralty court?  Did you know that by pleading you have agreed to be ruled statutes and regulations in Admiralty court? That is not the Law of the Land but you have waived your rights by not challenging the jurisdiction of the court. Judges will object to your demand to know the jurisdiction and threaten you. This is just to keep you thinking they have power over you but they do not. You may even be lead out of court in handcuffs for challenging the jurisdiction. The people with cases behind you will not attempt to do the same by seeing this; it is just a power play.

A study of Common Law, and just 2 friends in the court as observers from the gallery, can bring back the justice system to ever case and every challenge of jurisdiction for every statute and regulation violation. Statutes and regulations are not Law.  You, a People in the land of the free and the home of the brave, will accomplish this by exposing the legal system hoax and its fraud upon the People. Those brave enough to help your common law friend in his case by signing an affidavit of an unconstitutional act against them by a judge a prosecutor or even a defense attorney appointed by a judge is the cure.

All IRS code, yes all 74,000 (plus) pages of it are not allowed in your Common Law Court of record, if it is your wish. You cannot defend against IRS code, because you have entered into Admiralty court. You need to file your complaint in your Common Law, court of record case and your case is a higher court then the IRS’ s court.

Imagine that no attorney has ever told you such a thing and many ask why?

It is simple that attorney can never pay for his “Law Degree” loan because he cannot represent you in a Common Law court of record. You have to stand on your own two feet and represent yourself. It is true you have a fool for an attorney if you represent yourself in Admiralty court but you are not attorney you are a People and you do not practice Law you perfect it in your court of record.

Common Law is common sense and has no written code but it allows a jury of your peers to judge it and nullify your bad complaints and remedy you good complaints. NO JUDGE RULES A CASE IN COMMON LAW. So many people today complain that judges do not give justice. That is not the job of a judge, they are in Admiralty court seeking monetary judgment for a party or denying monetary judgment to a party. Equity is all an Admiralty court does. Justice is from your action in court and your remedy sought to rectify you for your loss by a jury of your peers. Yes it is just that simple.

Corpus Delicti means with no injured party, you have no crime. When a government employee makes a complaint against you like a ticket for parking to far from the curb you must ask, who was harmed?  You own the road, the curb, the car and the officer is paid out of your pocket, which makes him your subject and employee.  In Common Law you cannot sue yourself but these Admiralty courts have you doing just that. It is a revenue generator that harms you and just by pleading you have an agreed to the Court’s authority. Do not plea; ask the court to see the complaint from a People, not one of your employees. Demand to see the International Contract that allows them to force you to make a plea in Admiralty court.

When a judge makes a plea for you learn to object. When judge denies your challenge to jurisdiction and has entered a plea for you as “not guilty” say the magic words “ let the record show the judge has ruled me not guilty” in Admiralty court.  A judge cannot practice law, from the bench, by entering a plea for you. He can rule you not guilty. Once spoken by a judge and my objection is disregarded by the judge and the prosecutor I may even add, “further proceedings will show the prosecutor is impersonating an officer of the court” and demand his arrest. Your friend in the court as observers can verify all things that may not be recorded by the court recorder. All they need to do is file an affidavit.

The courts will resist these measures and We the People of our states need to take these actions. It is not civil disobedience it is civil obedience that our founding fathers had in mine when they wrote the US Constitution and your State had in mind when in adopted its Constitution as a republic in this union of 50 republics. Since we have been fooled for so long it is time to make these truths self evident to the people that think they are Law makers. They are only statute and regulation makers. Know the difference and make a stand for Liberty. I see no need to correct the Law I only see the need to remove the corrupt people, by ignorance or intent, to deny the People what is the Law.

These things were taught to every kid that passed the 8th grade before 1900 and we do not even hear about Common Law unless someone is using it for a marriage agreement that was never made before a justice of the peace or clergy. We need the American People to know they can demand a Common Law Divorce from government Statutes, Regulations and Code. It does take about 100 hours of study and that is about the average amount of time people watch television in a month.

Turn off your TV, study Common Law. Never pay income tax again? This sounds like an affordable idea to most people.