Commentary Archives - Page 397 of 517

Zulu Witchcraft and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist)

August 23, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Mary Grabar

Zulus and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist) by Malcolm Allen, Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley and a longtime commiserater with and supporter of Dissident Prof, as well as contributor to Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out. British spellings have been retained–Mary Grabar, Posted August 22, 2016

In odd moments I am reading Donald R. Morris’s The Washing of the Spears (1965), the helpful subtitle of which is The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. Amazon.com no less helpfully tells us that “this unsurpassed history details the sixty-year existence of the world’s mightiest African empire—from its brutal formation and zenith under the military genius Shaka (1787-1828), through its inevitable collision with white expansionism, to its dissolution under Cetshwayo in the [Anglo-]Zulu War of 1879.”

History buffs will remember the names of that war’s two famous battles, Isandhlwana, according to Wikipedia the “single greatest defeat for the British Army at the hands of a native army,” and Rorke’s Drift, a brave British hold-out against an overwhelmingly superior force that enabled the preservation of some national self-respect. It was followed by the awarding of eleven Victoria Crosses, the highest British award for valour in the face of the enemy, an act perhaps having a slightly politic component. Movie enthusiasts will remember Zulu Dawn (1979), a not very commercially successful film about Isandhlwana, and Zulu (1964), a hit about Rorke’s Drift. I am no historian, and am, anyway, presently much nearer the beginning of Morris’s book than the end but it seems superb, a vigorous narration of an absorbing, if finally tragic, tale.

The first chapter, after a “Prologue,” is entitled “The Bantu.” Morris describes what we know about Bantu provenance, which apparently isn’t very much (“No one knows from whence the Bantu came, and by the time modern man turned a scientific scrutiny on the problem a century ago, the layers of evidence were irrevocably tangled”), their social structure (subdivisions divided into clans, and kraals “inhabited by a single family”), and their sometimes self-destructive superstitions (a warrior who killed an enemy soldier had to undergo an elaborate “cleansing process” that involved going back to his own kraal, so military campaigns tended to be short). But what stopped me in my tracks were four paragraphs about Bantu, i.e. Zulu, belief in the strength and ubiquity of witchcraft. The italics in what follows are mine.

Witchcraft was universal. All illness, and indeed all evil, was caused by . . . wizards who made use of primal forces. . . . The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out . . . .

An accusation of witchcraft was fatal; once the wizard had been smelled, no defense was possible, and because the host was quite unwitting, no plea of ignorance, purity of action, or innocence of action could stand. Whenever the presence of [a wizard] was suspected, the chieftain would summon the entire male membership of the clan, which assembled in a large circle with the witch doctors in the center. These worthies . . . paused in front of each man, sniffing and howling, passing on and suddenly darting back to terrorize anew someone just starting to breathe again . . . . The volume [of the witch doctors’ chant] peaked as [they] passed, and died away beyond the suspect. . . . [They] were merely sounding out public opinion, cleverly reinforcing nuances of sound until they were certain their choice met with popular approval—a rich but miserly kraal head, or the transgressor of some social taboo. The witch doctors would pass him and return, until finally they were leaping and screaming before some poor wretch on his knees. Bounding clean over him, they flicked him with a gnu’s tail, whereupon he was at once dragged off to have sharpened stakes pounded up his rectum, while an impi [“regiment” or “army”] was dispatched to exterminate his family root and branch, destroy his crops, and burn his kraal.

Finally, “Witch doctors also waxed fat on private practice. They were called in as consultants for every form of minor crisis, and rarely failed to secure the payment of at least a goat. The vicious grip in which they held the people was made possible by an implicit and universal belief in magic; not even the victim of a smelling-out was indignant. He might register horror or fear or remorse, but not even in his final painful moments did he doubt the existence of the wizard that had possessed him.”

“The Ubiquity of Irrational Fear”: Doubtless you can see where I’m going with this. The ubiquity of an irrational fear, the catastrophic consequences of being found the unwitting host of an evil parasite, the submission of the victims to the onslaught against them, a priestly class that acquires and keeps material goods and power by means of officious intervention. Sounds like the West over the last forty years or so, does it not? It sounds in particular like elite segments of government, the university, and the media.

A few examples. My account of the first is taken pretty closely from Wikipedia, which is trustworthy for this sort of thing at least. Notoriously, in 1999, David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word “niggardly” in reference to a budget. A black colleague heard the word, or claimed to have heard it, as a racial slur, and made a formal complaint. “Howard tendered his resignation, and [the mayor] accepted it” (my italics again). After a public brouhaha, Howard was offered his old job back; he refused the offer but agreed to accept another position with his former boss, “insisting,” in the words of Wikipedia, “that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. ‘I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that’s naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t [sic for “can”] afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.’” It must be conceded that many commentators found the controversy absurd, the head of the NAACP, no less, saying, “David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.” But then again this was seventeen years ago.

Woodstock

Two more contemporary examples, and when I say contemporary I mean occurring over the last month or so (I’m writing this in mid-August). A certain Rohini Sethi, vice president of the Student Government Association of the University of Houston, so far forgot the environment in which she lives and the nature of some of those amongst whom she lives as to post on Facebook, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter” after five Dallas police officers were shot dead during a BLM rally. Blake Neff’s article in The Daily Caller (31 July) reports “numerous UH students denounced [the comment] as incredibly offensive or even hateful,” one of them, Nala Hughes, going so far as to observe, “Just for her to say, ‘forget Black Lives Matter,’ is a punch in the stomach.’” Sethi made an attempt to combine an apology with a justification of her words: “My response has caused enormous pain for many members of our community, and I think it is high time that I clarify my statement. . . . Let’s create the possibility of a culture rooted in open discussion” (Bob Price, Breitbart, 1 August). Although some students defended her, there followed a maliciously careful and detailed attempt to impose upon Sethi a protracted public humiliation. Shane Smith, president of the SGA, was allowed to sidestep the usual procedures and come up with a five-part punishment. I quote Neff again:

• A 50-day suspension from SGA starting August 1. This suspension will be unpaid (she currently receives a stipend of about $700 a month).
• A requirement to attend a three-day diversity workshop in mid-August.
• A requirement to attend three “UH cultural events” each month from September through March, excluding December.
• An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted SGA and the UH student body.
• An order to put on a public presentation Sept. 28 detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”

Furthermore, “If Sethi refuses or fails any of the requirements, she will be kicked out of SGA entirely.” Sethi commented, “I disagree with the sanctions taken against me by my SGA . . . . I have apologized for my words . . . . Even so, I will abide by the sanctions for as long as they are in place.”

Last example. It will be remembered that nine black mothers whose children had died, some in circumstances involving the police, were invited onto the stage at the Democratic National Convention. Bob Goosman, his feelings doubtless exacerbated by the fact that he was then a meteorologist in the Dallas area, took to Facebook: “As many of you have probably noticed, I’ve stayed away from politics on FB. The DNC parading the mothers of slain thugs around on their stage has me furious.” Two days later he was out of a job. I have found two sets of comments made by Goosman about his use of the word “thug,” published within a day of each other. Although this appears second (1 August, gop.usa, but originating in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram), perhaps it was made first: “It was frustration that I believe the DNC party will do anything, like using these mothers, to garner votes . . . . Some have said the word ‘thug’ is a racial term. [But] it means a violent person, as in a criminal. It does not mention color. Anyone can become a thug. If some want to make this statement out to be something else, I cannot control that.” The second (theblaze.com 31 July) is more sensitive to contemporary susceptibilities:

Regarding his use of the term ‘thugs,’ Goosman said he wasn’t aware it carried racial overtones for some.

‘I thought a thug was just a violent person. The definition of thug does not mention any race . . . . I will say that I talked with an African American acquaintance and he told me that he feels like when he hears the word, it is in reference to an African American individual. I had NO IDEA.’

Goosman confirmed his resignation as well but said he would’ve been fired ‘and rightly so.’

‘What I say online, no matter where, reflects upon my station and employer. KRLD is a great station . . . and I am sorry if they have had to deal with all the repercussions.’

Professor Malcolm Allen

Brought to heel. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in the US for twenty-seven years and thought I understood American English. I too had NO IDEA that the word “thug” implies an African American but then “The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out.”

My three examples above all deal with race, a subject of notorious sensitivity in today’s US. A couple of months ago I was in a local convenience store. The guy behind the counter, picking up on my English accent, asked me if I’m interested in soccer. He then immediately assured me that he wasn’t being “racist.” (Oh, and I “happen to be” white, incidentally.) I understood him. Say the wrong thing, no matter how innocently, and you could lose your livelihood, as Bob Goosman found out (he apparently doesn’t intend to try for another job in the media), and perhaps your savings, and your house, and your reputation. Our society’s “witch doctors” are vigilant, and getting far more for their pains than the occasional goat. But I could easily have chosen three, or three dozen, illustrations of the dangers of misspeaking about what I’m apparently supposed to call gender: feminism, homosexuality, and, nowadays, transgenderism. On another occasion, perhaps.

Let’s look on the bright side. Howard and Sethi and Goosman have been taught their place, doubtless a cause of grim satisfaction or even unabashed jubilation to their tormentors. However, they haven’t had sharpened stakes hammered up their arses. But that’s just because the aforementioned tormentors haven’t thought of that yet.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Zulu Diviners. Photo by Wizzy – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Musings of a Muslim father

August 23, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Tabitha Korol

Raising American Muslim Kids in the Age of Trump was a meditative essay penned by Wajahat Ali in the New York Times. During these years of Obama and Hillary, he has been comfortable knowing that no one would question his allegiance to Islamic law (sharia) over the American Constitution. Despite Islam’s record of subversion and violence, he and his coreligionists need not have been overly concerned if their children were caught rioting in the name of Allah, damaging or looting property, or burning tires or American and Israeli flags, For nearly eight years, this has been a Land of the Freedom to Run Amok and cause damage; to join boycotts against a country, Israel, that is falsely accused of the decadence and immorality widespread in Islamic countries; to march and rally against an emasculated police force; to brazenly masquerade an ideology of conquest as a religion of peace, and to be believed!

As Mr. Ali ruminates about his toddler son and new baby daughter, he shares his concerns if Donald J. Trump were to become president, and the extreme vetting that could restrict others’ entry to America, regardless of possible aggression. He fears that his friend’s son might be deported and he muses that his daughter could be sent to a “concentration camp” by the only presidential candidate who expresses his intense loyalty to our laws! Has Ali not studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Has he not heard Trump iterate that he wants America restored and that his favors cannot be bought? Ali fears a president who upholds the Constitution, but would be comfortable with a Clinton-Kaine administration that will continue to promote the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, endanger our homeland security with additional hordes of unvetted immigrants, betray Israel, and grant positions of power in exchange for payments, resulting in the stealthy imposition of sharia into government.

With pensive reminiscence, he speaks of the beauty of celebrating Eid-al Fitr, an elaborate dining festival that ends the Islamic month of Ramadan, and suggests that he could be denied his celebrations and food preparations under new leadership. This is pure fantasy and fear-mongering, as no other religious group has ever been thus denied – unless, of course, he misses the cattle preparation of his forebears, the men who walk in the streets with their cattle purchases, and intentionally stab and torture the docile animals with picks and knives until they bleed out and bleat their last breath. Does he fear being questioned about his loyalty to the Constitution? Does he fear the prospect of living in a country that does not countenance the torture and abuse found in the Koran?

If, indeed, this new father truly hopes his daughter will grow up in a safe country, why not demand and relish the extreme vetting to verify the identity and ideology of the applicants who will walk our streets and encounter our daughters? Under Hillary and Kaine’s continued penchant for multiculturalism from Islamic lands, we might well become an Islamic-majority nation, where no girl or woman is safe – perhaps as Sweden, which has become the rape capital of the world; or Australia and Canada, which share the title of kidnapping capitals of the world, or Germany, where Angela Merkel’s news that one hundred women were raped on New Year’s Eve, 2016, was finally admitted to be as many as 1200 women raped by vicious gangs of 2,000 Muslim men. We could also become as Israel, where knifings, car jammings, explosions and rock-throwings that cause deadly car accidents, along with rocket launchings, are a daily threat, along with boycotts and legal tactics to delegitimize her very existence. Trump has announced his goal of increasing and strengthening our police forces to ensure that our communities are safe, and that America’s daughters will never require a related male escort to leave the house or to cover themselves in full-blown tents – or the latest assault on women, muzzles! Does he find this troubling?

With babe in arms, the writer added a fear about Trump’s extreme vetting might include a database, but there is already an established database of our school children as part of this administration’s imposition of the Common Core curriculum, contrary to the wishes of their parents. American law, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, protects the welfare and security of our citizens and this is in constant need of adjustment so that security is never sacrificed for humanity, and vice versa. A good example is the suspension of naturalization proceedings, and the addition of registration requirements and restricted mobility for Italian, German and Japanese immigrants a day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Islam is at war with America, on par with Nazism and communism. Its declared aim is to destroy Western civilization from within and to ultimately establish a global Islamic caliphate.

Not to be ignored was Ali’s subtle accusation of “bigotry” against Americans for their reaction to 9/11 – a bona fide reaction, I might add, to the sudden, spectacular and tragic death of three thousand people and the ineradicable pain of loss to their families, when 19 Muslims crashed planes into Pennsylvania, the Pentagon, and Manhattan’s World Trade Center, the personification of financial success to the backward Islamic nations. Is it also ‘bigotry” when we see and hear the adherents of Islam proclaim their intent to destroy America, when we see them stoning or hanging or burning people alive, and when we recoil in horror and grief to learn of the 29,065 (8/21/16) Islamic attacks on Americans and the world since 9/11. Is it bigotry when polls show that the majority of Muslims prefer the ideology and laws of Islam over the laws of the land to which they have made the al-hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration?

Ali took this opportunity to enhance the propaganda against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of US Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq in 2004, 12 years ago. Why the choice of this man, and not a more recent military loss, has become clear: Khizr Khan has strong ties to the Saudi government and its huge donations to the Clinton foundation, and he received $375,000 to his immigration law firm for the political tribute he paid his son at the DNC. We are also aware that Khan’s former employer manages the Clintons’ taxes and has a patent on Hillary’s infamous email-filtering program. Khizr’s son’s heroism is not in question, but the father’s integrity is.

A self-described “spiritual nomad,” Ali is nevertheless investing in a project, “Make space” in Virginia, to introduce selected aspects of Islam to their children. We might wonder what the “unmosqued” adherents will use instead of the Koran, with its 109 open-ended verses of commands to violence. America has been home to people of all nations who practice their many religious rites, but being religions, not ideologies, they have been able to assimilate and become part of American society, something that Islam’s ideology cannot do by its very nature. American law and sharia law are profoundly antipathetic to one another and will bring incurable division to America. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and we will lose America if Clinton and Kaine, academia and the media continue their efforts to negate Christianity and Judaism, and further depreciate our freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right of self-protection.

The BBC reported that 95% of its viewers admit that multiculturalism is a failure, and a “leaked German intelligence document” described by The Gatestone Institute says: “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” British police are monitoring more than 3,000 homegrown Islamic extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK, and 80 percent of the 3,000 mosques in America are known to have deep ties to extremism, including to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If Mr. Ali hopes to safely raise his family in America, he has to live and vote so that all may celebrate the holidays of their choosing, and be suspicious of the mother of three who espouses “Islam has to trump them all.” She is not raising her children to be loyal Americans; rather, she is imbuing them with Islamic supremacism – to inspire them to jihad. Muslims are safe here, but statistics prove that Jews and Christians are now targets in America and throughout the world.

The applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and “attached to the principles of the Constitution.” It is neither bigotry nor unconstitutional to enact laws to promote national security and national interests – to keep our citizens safe. Article Four, Section Four, known as the Guarantee Clause, states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Therefore, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

50,000 Children May Starve to Death Due to Boko Haram — Environmentalists Celebrate!

August 22, 2016/in Budget and Finance, Commentary, Satire/by Dr. Rich Swier

The Clarion Project reports:

Close to 50,000 children are in danger of starving to death in Nigeria due to a scorched-earth policy by the brutal Islamist group Boko Haram, according to UNICEF, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

In addition, close to 250,000 people are severely malnourished in Borno state. In total, 4.4 million people are affected by the terror inflicted on the population by the group, an affiliate of the Islamic State in West Africa. Half of those people live in areas inaccessible to relief agencies.

Northeastern Nigeria was once the breadbasket of the entire country, with its fertile ground, abundant water and climate suitable for growing crops all year long. The region produced rice, maize, wheat, millet, sorghum, cowpeas, fruits, peppers, chilies and vegetables. Fish from Lake Chad was sold throughout the country’s marketplaces.

In a column titled NPR: ‘We should protect our kids from global warming — by not having kids!’ Marc Morano reports:

“Philosopher Travis Rieder asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be. “Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

[ … ]

Bringing down global fertility by just half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us,” he says.

In a joint press release the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace USA noted:

It is important that we reduce the native population in order to save the planet. Organizations such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State understand that we all must work together to reduce the overwhelming growth in the earth’s population. Africa is a good place to start.

Culling children is a much needed first step to save us all from the dangers of climate change. We will be partnering with the Black Lives Matter movement to send aid to Boko Haram so that they may carry on their important work to ‘save the planet’.

Hillary Clinton at a campaign stop said, “As Secretary of State, I built Boko Haram. They are doing much needed work in Nigeria to stem the population explosion. If elected I will fund Planned Parenthood facilities in Nigeria run by Boko Haram. That way we can end starvation by aborting the problem in the first place. Time to stop the haram to the planet. No pun intended.”

Al Gore stated,

I agree with Dr. Rieder that “Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” But what do we do with those who are already born? Boko Haram has the solution, starve them to death. This solution, while provocative, is needed. We must think outside the box or all will be lost.

We must act now to stop the population bomb and end climate change, formerly knows as global warming.

A great way to stop the population bomb is to not have children but if you have them then there is the Boko Haram model (BHM) to fight climate change.

I call upon all Democrats to stop having children and if you do have children send them to Nigeria. You kill two birds with one stone, no pun intended. You reduce the population and save on your food bill.

In 50 years we can together stop climate change and end the Democratic Party. I’m with Hillary and George Soros on this.

The George Soros Open Society Foundations in a short statement explained, “We have been funding efforts like this globally to save the planet from undesirables. We are glad that others are taking on this task. We are joining the food fight. Starvation is the new normal.”

The Trump-Pense campaign objected saying, “Killing babies by starvation is horrific and must end. We will save the children from this evil.”

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared in the Islamic State’s Inspire magazine and E–The Environmental Magazine.

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism!

August 21, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Shabnam Assadollahi

Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is building his legacy as the Western leader who promotes Islam as compatible with Western secular societies ¹ and opens the door for massive Muslim immigration. In my opinion, this agenda of Mr. Trudeau and his government might be exploited by radicals to destabilize both the US and Canada and that Canada may develop into a security threat for the US.

One of the centre pieces of the Trudeau Liberals’ policies is its agenda regarding refugees, immigration and citizenship. Space doesn’t allow me to enumerate but it has raised concerns of many people including the Americans. The rapid influx of so-called refugees (perhaps as many as 20,000 are pre-qualified immigrants included in the 25,000 total to make the numbers and timing look good) out of camps in Lebanon is causing some angst because of the manner in which this operation is being carried out. Cost estimates to the Canadian taxpayer are already spiraling out of control and the budget deficit is doubling and tripling as I write this.

Canada is a multicultural society made up of many expatriates from troubled areas who came to Canada to escape tribalism and medieval cultures as well as threats to their personal freedom and safety.

In Canada, we see a government that appears to be encouraging the kind of cultural changes and the promotion of ideologies that many who fled communism, dictatorship regimes, and escaped Sharia law ruled by Islamic constitutional regimes and find it very threatening and hoped to never experience ever again. Changes to the immigration laws definitely pose a threat to women and allow the possibility of abuses and loopholes that the former Conservative government had been trying to close.

Changes to citizenship laws also invite abuses to family reunification laws and security: reopening Iran’s embassy and allowing their diplomats and spies to enter Canada, where they have political immunity and will walk freely in our communities, whereas in the past they had created an atmosphere of horror and fear among the Iranian Canadian nationals; Canada normalizing relations with the current regime in Iran without regard to their daily human-rights violations, executions of juveniles and sponsorship of state terrorism throughout the middle east – disregarding international law violations and the welfare of Iran’s own population and those in it seeking reforms and greater freedoms – not to mention the fact that their embassy opens a door to infiltration of Canada’s own security apparatus.² ³ Canada, likewise is increasing its support of terrorist states and abandoning those who are looking to Canada – like Egypt and Israel.

With Mr. Trudeau opening the floodgates to those whose politics clash with liberal democracies and whose stated purpose is to change our way of life rooted in a Christian Judeo heritage, Canadians are rightly concerned about the impact and possibility of 50,000 people bringing their old way of life and the grievances associated with it to this relatively peaceful freedom-loving nation – especially when as many as 94% of refugees prefer to stay in their own country and Canada can support 12 refugees in Lebanon for the same cost as they can support one refugee in Canada.

Americans, too, are concerned about the Canadian border and the fact that the rapid citizenship process will allow many of these ‘refugees’ to cross into the United States with a simple visa or in some cases no visa.

Mr. Trudeau is also introducing the hated Carbon Tax which cost them a previous election and will cost Canadians the loss of jobs and lowering family income – affecting low income earners the worst.

Trudeau Liberal government is also trying to stop the sorely needed Canadian east, west and south gas/oil pipelines, relying on unethical oil from Saudi Arabia on its east coast and cutting off increased exports via US and British Columbia routes. This has depressed an industry which affects 40% of Canada’s resources and thousands of jobs. The pipeline could add billions to Canada’s economy and change the whole economic picture for Canadians for decades to come – also making Canada more energy efficient and independent.

Mr. Trudeau has been called Canada’s Obama for his lack of experience, socialist philosophy and tendency to circumvent parliamentary debate and approval of the representatives of the people of Canada. His father’s legacy was tax-and-spend putting Canada into the highest debt in history (similar to Obama), from which we have never recovered. Trudeau junior hasn’t fallen far from the tree. His compiled debt will be left to future generations yet unborn to pay – and already Canadians pay a third of their taxes in interest towards the national and provincial debt and that’s at a low debt interest rate. We could well go the way of Greece if interest rates rise.

This short space doesn’t permit me to list the litany of damaging and dangerous activities this government is bent on undertaking so this will have to do for starters.

Trudeau’s multiculturalism – opportunity or threat?

In addition to the urgent political and economic issues, President Obama may want to discuss with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the ramifications of the accelerated multiculturalism in Canada to the security of the US.

In a video message to the annual Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Mr. Trudeau said: “The Reviving the Islamic Spirit [RIS] convention… is also about celebrating our shared beliefs in justice, fairness, equality of opportunity and acceptance. The work you do in communities across the country is what builds the and strengthens our multicultural fabric.” ⁴

Trudeau has won the hearts and minds of Canadian Muslims by joining the ‘maghrib’ prayer in Ramadan, defending women’s right to wear the niqab, portraying the Islamic values as Canadian, opening Canada’s doors to massive Muslim immigration and stating that his mission is to educate Canadians that Islam is compatible with Western secular societies like Canada. No wonder he was called by leading Canadian imam al-Janashi of our era.⁵

American lawmakers are worried. Trudeau’s policy is being interpreted as gullible, mistaken and a golden opportunity for the radical Islamic movements to change the face of Canada forever. Trudeau fails to read the writing on the wall and the American signals. He will probably be asked to answer tough questions.

As to what Mr. Obama might suggest to Mr. Trudeau regarding his Canadian opponents; “do what I do – use executive privilege and ignore the constitution”, in Canada that amounts to greater powers than the monarchy since even the monarchy can’t interfere with parliament.

It appears that the Trudeau liberals neither like free speech or freedom of press nor wish to consult the public on policies they are rapidly changing. Would they soon try to silence the voice of the people? As a Canadian from Iranian origin, I feel I have lost my Canadian identity since Mr. Trudeau won his majority Liberal regime in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared on the Mackenzie Institute for Security Matters website.

‘Sexism’ at the Olympics? How’s This: Why do Women’s Sports Even Exist?

August 20, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy/by Selwyn Duke

My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?

Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!

There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”

Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.

Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?

Yet there’s a simple reason why men are referenced in sports three times as much as women — and if I don’t say it, no one will.

Women’s sports aren’t exactly a quality product.

Oh, female athletes look great compared to a weekend warrior or a feminist scribe’s writing. But how much coverage should they get? And if unequal press and pay are your bugaboo, here’s a cause for you: high-school boy athletes get far less coverage than the women, and no pay at all. Is that fair?

Oh, there’s no comparison? That’s true, as the following illustrates:

In May, the Australian women’s soccer team, the Matildas — ranked five in the world — played an under-15 boys team.

The women lost — 7-0.

Lest you think this a fluke, the U.S. Women’s National Team (ranked number one in the world) lost 8-2 to the under-17 U.S. boys’ team in 2012. And these things actually happen all the time, everywhere, as the women regularly scrimmage with quality boys — and lose.
The world’s best women’s hockey team, the Canadian Women’s Olympic Team, played in the Alberta AAA Midget Hockey League (boys 15-17) during the 2013-2014 season. They finished dead last.
The mile record for 15-year-old boys is faster than the women’s world record.

Other examples abound, but the point has been made.

Now, given the above results, it’s ironic that soccer’s U.S. Women’s National Team actually filed a wage-discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Can the boys file a complaint, too?

As for skill levels, there’s a heck of a lot of daylight between boys whose voices recently cracked and top-tier men’s competition. How many rungs down on the ladder are the women, really?

So with this perspective, let me rephrase my earlier question: how much coverage (and money) should a 10^th-rate sporting realm get? (Is this Farxism {feminist Marxism}: from each according to his abilities, to each according to her moaning and groaning?) Answer: forget comparisons with the men.

It would be far more appropriate if women athletes got the coverage and pay of the 15-year-old boys.

Speaking of which, why is it that people watch women’s sports, anyway (to the extent they do), instead of, let’s say, watching superior high-school boys’ competitions? Shouldn’t better athletes draw bigger audiences than lesser ones?

Women’s sports have the success they do largely because of political correctness. This has three basic effects:

There’s a general feeling that since men have a vibrant professional athletics arena, it’s only fair if the women do, too; this leads to institutional impetus to create, perpetuate and subsidize (e.g., the WNBA) professional women’s sporting opportunities.
Decades of feminism and politically correct portrayals of the sexes have led people to believe that female athletes are far better than they actually are. Do you really think women’s sports would enjoy even their current limited commercial success if the average person knew their athletes paled in comparison to high-level high-school boys?
Owing to the above, professional women’s sports are now institutionalized and, at least for some people, have become “a thing to watch.” It’s as with actors or singers. Commercial success requires not that you be the best (or second, third or seventh best) — only that you have a market. This, of course, also explains the careers of most politicians and journalists.

Any complaint about sex inequality in sports should be met with one simple response: if the women want the men’s press or purses, there’s an easy way to get them.

Compete in — and succeed — in the men’s arena. You’ll be the talk of the town.

Isn’t it a little odd, though, complaining about unequal treatment while supporting a system that’s inherently unequal; namely, having separate and protected tours, leagues and teams for women? It’s a bit like forming a basketball league exclusively for short Jewish guys and then bellyaching that they don’t command the salaries of the NBA stars. As The Federalist’s Denise McAllister wrote last year, “If we’re going to have equal pay, then we need to have equal play.”

Instead, people just play at Equality™. Second-rate pay for a tenth-rate arena may not be “fair,” but not in the way feminists think. And if they still don’t agree, I know some 15-year-old boys they can talk to about that.

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

It Is Time For The Right Direction

August 19, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Religion/by Ron Edwards

The great Frederick Douglas was born into slavery in 1818 and later died one of the major pillars of American history in 1895. He had a natural desire to seek the truth. Douglas also refused to except the bonds of physical, mental, or either spiritual slavery. Unfortunately, today far too many of our countrymen and women have fallen prey to the slavery of self defeat and bitterness, which in turn negatively affects our republic. Meanwhile, the United States as a whole has suffered a major decline because many sovereign individuals are achieving far below their positive potential. I am amazed at how Frederick Douglas focused upon and obtained his own freedom, long before Lincoln freed the slaves. Mr. Douglas lived a full life as an author, statesman and abolitionist. He was arguably the greatest orator of the 19th century.

His skills as a public speaker were so refined that many of his white abolitionist pals became offended. They did so because, although they wanted Blacks to be free, they most certainly did not believe that a Black man should out shine them in the area of public oratory. Some were actually known to say that the excellence of Frederick Douglas as a speaker was just going a bit too far and that he needed to tone it down a bit. Many abolitionists believed blacks to be victims who would always need help. That is the way progressive democrat party liberals views black Americans today. Whereas, Douglas argued that blacks were just as capable as everyone else to fend for themselves. He was certainly proof of that assessment.

Douglas’s mode of thinking offended others who refused to accept the concept of reaching the upper realm of accomplishment. That sort of reminds me of the progressives of today who believe that Blacks and almost everyone else should simply exist under the control of others who want to rule over us from cradle to grave. My belief is that if Frederick Douglas could ascend to the level of success he enjoyed, then today unless one is dead, or totally disabled there is no excuse to simply exist and seek to help destroy America through Black Lives matter monkey business. The only other exception to that rule is if the government throttles the economy into retraction through over-regulation, high taxes or stupid international trade deals. Thus making it impossible to create more opportunities via jobs or entrepreneurship.

I believe that a seed of greatness is placed within each of by our loving creator. Unfortunately, there is an ambitious class of leftist/globalist thinkers who want to stunt the growth and achievement of certain people, especially black men. The founders of our republic had hoped to create a long lasting republic form of government of free men who would sustain and expand the concept of a society that recognized the unalienable God given rights of everyone. Not unmotivated wards of the state, who’s government drones want to tell us what doctor to see, or what we may or may not teach our own children. I personally believe that America will return to her position of greatness. For as my father often said, “that a nation is no greater than the path taken by her people.” I believe many Americans will turn away from the present path of doom for the United States and merge forge a new path of ascension for our republic.

As we remember the importance of and celebrate patriotism, we must not forget morality. In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated,

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society. He, meaning God has taken care to impress it’s precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effected by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, Americans all, with each passing day that our great, but troubled republic drifts just a bit further from the principles rooted in moral strength, courage and God’s living word. We are witnessing a temporary deterioration of affairs both foreign and domestic.

Yes, there is still a lot to be admired, love and be thankful for in being able to call America home. But we cannot afford to allow her to remain on the present dismal course leading away from her Biblical foundation toward utter disaster. Our liberty and right to be able to promote the Bible, Christmas, the Constitution, and traditional marriage has been disintegrating precipitously. Mainly because of our unwillingness or inability to boldly steer the United States away from the grip of those who’s only mission is to fundamentally change our worthy nation into a worthless, Muslim dominated dictatorship.

Government schools, along with the dragon media and even major Christian denominations were handed over to those who do not have our nation’s best interest at heart. As a result, several generations of young Americans have been indoctrinated away from the moral, intellectual and spiritual glue that holds our nation together. So now, for the first time in our republic’s history, most government school and college graduates desire communism more than liberty and capitalism. Our seventh president, Andrew Jackson, also known as Old Hickory said concerning the Bible, “That book sir is the rock upon which our republic rests.” Unfortunately, today America is sinking in a newer foundation of sand.

But we do not have to settle for this. Because as we improve, America regenerates. There is a clear and present course we can embark upon that begins with prayer.

Just as our founding fathers knew the power and purpose of prayer to almighty God. There is a process: within the God given wisdom of our founding documents, we have been granted clear and certain processes for bringing about change concerning what we perceive as wrong for our land.

We must participate: Participating within the process for change is the ultimate key to our success. It is foolish to gripe and complain about what one considers wrong or unjust in our republic and not participate in the process of changing it for the better.

No one said the battle would be easy. But we need to persevere if America is to be great again. Let’s you and I connect every Friday on AM 1180 KCKQ or www.americamatters.us at 2:00 PM PST, 5:00 PM EST. The discussion will be lively, informative and more than worth your time. For more information on yours truly go to theronedwards.com.

This is Why Republicans Need to Stop Hating on Trump

August 18, 2016/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Raynard Jackson

Any member of an organization that truly cares about the group will not hesitate to hold the leadership accountable for the group’s actions, if they deem them to be inconsistent with the mission of the group. This is because they want to see the group succeed in fulfilling its mission.

Many in the Republican Party have criticized Trump’s campaign, not because they want Trump to win, but because “they” don’t want to lose.

They don’t want to lose their “power.” They want to be re-elected to their various congressional and gubernatorial offices strictly for the sake of having power, not because they want to pursue a specific agenda.

We, the voters, have put Republicans in office, but it seems as though before their hand is removed from the Bible, they are giving President Obama everything he wants including funding for Syrian refugees, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), amnesty for illegals, entitlements for homosexuals, increased budget deficits, etc.

So when people like me criticize our party we are told that we are “not being good Republicans.” I have no idea what that means.

If we didn’t give a damn about our party, then we would most assuredly remain silent out of a sheer sense of apathy. But, like a concerned parent, because we do care we are compelled to speak out when we see our party losing its way.

So I find it kind of frustrating when Republicans constantly criticize the candidacy of Donald Trump. The people who are most vocal in their opposition to Trump have never used this same type of energy to criticize Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.

To have so many Republicans actively embrace Hillary Clinton is mind-blowing. Those who have accused me of being too critical of the party all of a sudden have laryngitis when it comes to those who have endorsed Clinton.

I challenge my readers to compare me with those who have endorsed Clinton and been held up as moral heroes of the party.

All of us have impeccable party credentials. We all have proven track records of being “good Republicans.” I will allow you, the reader, to figure out the only difference between them and me. This should be rather obvious and not too hard to figure out.

So, I challenge Trump, and especially his transition team, to put a simple litmus test on anyone who wants to serve on the transition committee and a future Trump administration.

Every person who wants to be on the Trump transition team should be required to publicly endorse and support the Trump campaign. If they are not willing to do so, they should be barred from serving in any capacity.

The liberal media is practically throwing money at anyone who is Republican and will to talk badly about Trump. All of a sudden Black Republicans are in great demand on CNN and MSNBC, but only for those who will savagely criticize Trump and all things Republican.

The ironic thing about all these Black Republicans, who have suddenly been filled with righteous indignation over Trump, is that they have not lifted their voice one iota about the lack of Black staffers in congressional offices and throughout the Republican Party.

These Black Republicans who are bashing Trump rarely help Black college students get an internship on Capitol Hill. They have little to no relationship with the Black community. In other words, they had laryngitis during the past decades of the party simply ignoring Blacks; but Trump, who has utilized more Blacks in key positions than the sum of the sixteen candidates he beat during the primary, they want to get rid of.

One criticism I will lay on Trump is that he has hired more Black Democrats than Black Republicans and that I have a major problem with. But, again, where are these Black Republican puppets on CNN and MSNBC on issues like this?

They are getting their thirty pieces of silver and are neither concerned with the greater good of the party nor our community.

Very few of these Black Republicans even acknowledged the RNC’s recent move to hire Shannon Reeves as a consultant.

In the words of “Pookie an’ dem,” Shannon is a real OG (original gangsta). For the uninitiated, he is an experienced pro who knows what the hell he is doing and has street cred. Most of these jokers on TV have no idea who he is.

Reeves was the former National Director of State and Local Development for the Republican National Committee (RNC). He is a lifelong member of the Church of God In Christ (COGIC). He is the only person ever to serve simultaneously as an elected NAACP President and an elected officer of the California Republican Party.

Reeves is one of the smartest political operators in the country, bar none. He will be creating a national database of Blacks that will be used for future elections. Reeves is the gold standard by which all future hires must measure up to.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Black Press USA.

Islamic Roulette: Like Russian Roulette but with Six Bullets

August 18, 2016/in Commentary, Satire/by The Peoples Cube

From the team that brought you Living with Moderate Muslims, the Board Game, comes a special package for Muslim Appreciation Month:

ISLAMIC ROULETTE

How to play:

Load a revolver with six bullets.
Aim it towards your head.
Say “It has nothing to do with Islam” and pull the trigger. This ends the game.

We also have versions customized for various world cultures:

The German version:

The French version:

The Canadian version:

The Darwin version comes with an automatic entry into Darwin Awards contest.

And, of course, the international Marxist version:

Special thanks to Comrade Minitrue for the idea posted in one of his comments.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A weird makeover trick Hitler wished he had known

Courts rulings make every Democrat voter a SuperVoter™

Nazis are Bad

Hillary beats Trump’s Purple Heart with more, bigger medals

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

Donald Trump just overtook the Democrats on Gay Rights

August 17, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Milo Yiannopoulos calls Trump’s plan to introduce a screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S. brilliant. Milo also does a superb job in candidly explaining how the left does a hatchet job on Trump to try to cover their own ineptitude and treasonous actions against the American people in their endless corruption, and are putting the population at risk before jihadists.

Milo Yiannopoulos

“Donald Trump Just Overtook The Democrats On Gay Rights”, by Milo, Breitbart, August 16, 2016:

“The madman has actually done it. God-Emperor Daddy — known to the rest of you as Republican presidential candidate Donald J Trump — has just outflanked Hillary Clinton on the Left and announced what can only be described as an ultra-progressive immigration policy.

I don’t mean progressive as it has come to be used, of course — nannying, language-policing, Muslim-pandering. I mean it’s a policy that could actually make things better for minorities.

Trump’s plan is to introduce a screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S., testing their ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism. It’s a brilliant plan. I’m especially inclined to say it’s brilliant because it may have been partly inspired by me.

The test will apply to all immigrants, yet its obvious target is Muslims, who, as we know, get a bit bomby in the presence of gays, a bit rapey in the presence of women who wear skirts shorter than their ankles and generally a bit hostile and violent around anyone who doesn’t have their bum in the air five times a day.

The media won’t portray this policy as progressive, of course — they’ll portray it as stupid, bigoted, and reactionary. The Washington Post, little more than a Hillary mouthpiece this election cycle, has already started, branding the proposal “crazy” and “outlandish.” But it isn’t. Actually, it’s about the most pro-gay policy I’ve ever heard from a presidential hopeful.

Trump has also promised to deport hate-preachers in the U.S. His specific wording (“send them home”) again suggests that he’s targeting Islam. Go Daddy!

“Those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home immediately.” – Trump pic.twitter.com/UGAAZIuBj0

It’s odd that leftists are already starting up the outrage machine. After all, isn’t this what progressivism is supposed to be about? All around the world, Muslims are oppressing women, murdering gays, and exterminating non-Muslims. Progressives claim to want to protect the rights of gays, women and minorities, yet are silent on the greatest threat to them in the world today.

Somehow, I doubt they would be outraged if Trump threatened to deport the Westboro Baptist Church. This, despite the fact that the Westboro Baptists haven’t killed anyone, whereas a Muslim, Omar Mateen, carried out the greatest act of homophobic violence in U.S. history.

The Left, of course, think Orlando was a tragic incident of workplace violence, enabled by toxic masculinity and a lack of gun control.

I’m comfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, as long as they don’t want to kill us, maim us or throw us off rooftops. (Permission for lesser violence is available upon application.) For leftists, the reverse appears to be true — they’re uncomfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, unless they want to kill us and maim us and throw us off rooftops.

Thus, decline to bake a cake for some lesbians and you are a heinous bigot. Murder 50 fags and injure 50 more and you’re a tragic victim, probably reacting to islamophobia, whose dad will be invited to stand behind Hillary Clinton at a rally.

There’s no diplomatic way to put it. In this historic announcement, Donald Trump has dramatically overtaken the chronically Muslim-friendly Democratic Party on gay rights. I predict conservatives across the west will soon follow suit. The right is quickly realising that, thanks to the silence on Islam, it is they and not the left who are destined to safeguard women, gays, and minorities from the barbarians of the East.

As the body counts — and rape counts — in Europe rack up, gays — and others on Islam’s kill-list — will realize that in a world of Muslim migration, conservative immigration policies are actually the most progressive. Meanwhile, the claims of self-proclaimed leftists to champion the rights of women and minorities will ring increasingly hollow.

Voters are starting to take notice of all this.

Throughout this election cycle, Trump has been attacked as a bigot and a reactionary on immigration. With this new plan, though, he has proven beyond doubt that he’s the only person running for President who can stick up for chicks and queers.

Face facts, guys. It is the political Left that wants to flood America with violent homophobes and misogynists, not Trump. No-one with a clear-eyed view of Muslim culture can believe otherwise….”

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary found guilty of supporting the Islamic State

Palestinian Authority teaches kids: “Don’t be afraid to die martyrs’ death”

A Video Personal Message from Phyllis Schlafly

August 17, 2016/in Commentary, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Eagle Forum

To Whom It May Concern:

Seldom have we had so many victories to report as we do now. I spent two weeks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and it was a great success. Not only did we get our candidate nominated, against the powerful forces of the kingmakers; but we also got the best platform in the history of the Republican party.

This week, I celebrated my 92nd birthday with family and friends. I so appreciate the many messages and good wishes I received from so many of you.

This month I began the 50th year of my Phyllis Schlafly Report. It’s been quite a run: 600 consecutive monthly issues. I believe my reports are setting a high standard for reliable information on the problems facing our Nation.

It was 50 years ago that I adopted the eagle (the American bald eagle) as the symbol of my leadership in politics. I worked with a jeweler to design this pin which is worn by thousands of women (and a few good men) across our country.

Fifty years ago, I established the Eagle Trust Fund to publish the Phyllis Schlafly Report, which includes an eagle on the masthead. And I called together the first of what eventually became Eagle Council, an annual meeting of conservative activists.

And so, when it came time to start a national organization, 40 years ago, the founders chose the name Eagle Forum because they wanted to align themselves with me — because my work, my writing, speaking, and my leadership in politics were already well-known under the Eagle banner (or brand, you might say).

But now, we have so much more work to do. And so I have a special message to those who consider yourself Eagles, who have been associated with me, or with any of our Eagle organizations.

I am asking each one of you to contact me now, if you’ve been using my name, my image, my writings — of course, all of that is my personal property. And if you’ve been using my eagle as your logo, or if you’re using the word Eagle as part of the name of your organization — if you wish to continue to collaborate with me, by using my name, image, writings, or the eagle — I’m asking you to request my permission for your activities and your organization.

Please let me know whether you wish to continue associating with me and my work, using my name, image, writings, or the Eagle logo or Eagle name, and if you do, please ask for my permission for the use of my work and my approval of your organization.

Thank you for all you do and God bless you.

Faithfully,

Phyllis Schlafly

In My Opinion: President Obama a man of his ‘word’!

August 16, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics/by Reverend Bob Armstrong

It is hard to believe that a “Barry Goldwater” Conservative is claiming that President Obama is a “man of his word.” But it is true! Please read on.

My perspective is absolutely unique. TWICE a year I travel to Islamic State (ISIS) – controlled borders to oversee the rescue efforts of women and families who are held against their will by ISIS. I literally RESCUE them from ISIS! Then I sponsor intense rehabilitation efforts for them.

As I witness first-hand the unbelievable effects of ISIS control, I now totally understand how the West must, I repeat, MUST defeat ISIS at every turn. I’ve spoken personally to women (former sex slaves) and families who are now “survivor of ISIS” and understand the vulgarity of the beast.

It is against my personal backdrop, that I genuinely oppose the Obama/Clinton narrative about ISIS!

Obama is a “man of his word.”

But let me refresh you about the “word” that Barrack Obama made just before assuming the presidency.

Let’s refresh our memory to a September 7, 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet the Press” . Then, Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, was asked about his stance on the American flag.

Senator Obama commented:

As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression… The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.

The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song, ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing’. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.

It is my intention, if elected, to DISARM America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren. If we, as a nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails…perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments…

When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom of disquieting oppressive thoughts. We, as a nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which my wife disrespects the flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.

…I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this nation, and offer the people a new path.

My wife and I look forward to becoming our country’s first black family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.

Well. Mr. President, judging by what is happening around the world, you sure are a “man of your word!”

In my opinion from ISIS borders…

Political Correctness Taints the Rio Olympics

August 15, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Paul R. Hollrah

The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games are always a breathtaking spectacle. With each Olympic experience, one wonders what great technical and artistic miracles special effects technicians will produce for future Olympic ceremonies. This year we were told that we could also look forward to seeing the greatest Olympian of all time, Michael Phelps… the winner of 19 gold medals in previous Olympics… marching at the head of the U.S. contingent, proudly carrying the stars and stripes.

But when the U.S. team entered the stadium we were immediately distracted. There, in the first row of athletes, just off Phelps’ left shoulder, was a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab. What were the chances that, of the 554 members of the U.S. team, the one Muslim athlete on the team would end up marching in the front row? Was it an accident… pure chance? Or was she purposely placed in the front row by U.S. Olympic officials in an excess of political correctness?

It didn’t take long for the young woman, Ibtihaj Muhammad, to answer that question for us. In an interview with the Associated Press, she said,

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States. I’m hoping that with my first time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.” She went on to say, “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family, and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

A report in the August 8, 2016 edition of Frontpagemag.com, titled “Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country,” explained that, while Michael Phelps was elected by his teammates to carry the American flag, he was pressured to decline the honor in favor of Ms. Muhammad. According to the report, a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, suggested, “America has enough tall, successful rich white guys hogging the spotlight,” and that, “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

One wonders whether Ms. Muhammad has ever expressed concern over the difficulty of everyday life for Christians living in countries with Muslim majorities… assuming they are even allowed to live there. It is difficult to avoid the thought of what fate might have in store for a young Christian or Jewish woman who might go to a Muslim country and complain publicly about her “treatment.”

It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad’s sport. Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast? We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events. Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body. Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an “honor killing” for bringing shame upon her family name.

As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad’s sport of choice is fencing. This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it’s only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition. Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.

If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here. She is certainly free to live in any one of the many majority Muslim countries of the world. She would likely be unable to drive an automobile, go to college, marry the man of her choice, participate in sports, or leave her home without being accompanied by her father or a brother. But what the heck… if that would make her happy then she should go for it. Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.

Like most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society. It has apparently escaped her attention that, when Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians arrived in America, they made no demands that the people already here must become Lutherans. She is apparently unaware that, when Italians and the Spanish arrived here in large numbers, they made no demands that all Jews and Protestants must convert to Catholicism. And when the British began arriving here in the 16th century, they made no demands that all Native Americans must swear allegiance to the Anglican Church or forfeit their lives. Yet, in the late 20th century and the early 21st century, Muslims emigrating to America arrive here fully convinced that it is their duty to ultimately convert all non-Muslim Americans, and that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.

In a July 14, 2016 article in the Washington Times, titled “Deport all Muslims who support shariah law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quoted as saying that, while all Muslim mosques should be monitored, the American ruling class is afraid to do so. He said, “This is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary… We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.” He concluded by suggesting that we should identify all Muslims who believe in Sharia law over U.S. law and deport those who do.

Gingrich’s politically incorrect suggestion created a firestorm of criticism from liberals and Democrats, much like Donald Trump’s suggestion that all Muslim immigration should be put on hold until we find a way to adequately vet them. What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.

For example, every Muslim immigrant who obtains U.S. citizenship though the naturalization process is required to take the statutory citizenship oath, as prescribed by Congress. The oath reads, in part, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. Saluted Hawaii Statehood on September 17, 1959

August 15, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Politics/by Hawaii Free Press

EDITORS NOTE: As Hawaii this week celebrates its statehood, it’s worth remembering that the archipelago was once staunchly Republican territory. In fact, it was southern Senate Democrats who blocked its statehood for decades over fears that the minority-majority state would elect two senators who would tip the balance in the civil rights debate.

Therefore, Hawaii’s prospects at statehood were tied to Alaska’s, which many thought would be more Democratic. They would only be admitted as a package deal – a modern day Missouri Compromise of sorts. As Hawaii Free Press reporter Ryan Yasukawa explained in a 2009 article, “The state of Hawaii being the 50th state and not the 49th is no coincidence.”

“With a Republican President Eisenhower and Democratic majority in Congress, Democrats first sent an Alaska bill to the president to see if he would sign the bill admitting a state which at the time was expected to elect two Democrat senators. If Eisenhower signed the Alaska bill, a Hawaii bill would be sent up thereafter.”

It was an unjust reality for the island territory. Hawaii had 499,000 people in 1950 (more than Wyoming’s 290,000 or Nevada’s 160,000) while Alaska had only 128,000. “Hawaii also had a competent private sector economy (tourism) while Alaska’s economy was government-dependent,” Michael Barone told me an email. “Nevertheless, Hawaii subordinated its case to Alaska.”

With fervent opposition from leading Democrats such as Sens.William Fulbright (Ark.), Albert Gore Sr. (Tenn.), Sam Ervin (N.C.) and Richard Russell (Ga.), it’s understandable that Hawaii favored Republicans. But Barone explained that southern Democratic segregationalists were not the only reason why Hawaii was traditionally Republican.

The following remarks were made by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Thursday, September 17, 1959 at the Hawaii House of Representatives 1959 First Special Session:

“Mr. Speaker, distinguished members of the House of Representatives of this great new state in our Union, ladies and gentlemen:

It is certainly a delightful privilege and pleasure for me to have this great opportunity and, I shall say, it is a great honor to come before you today and to have the privilege of saying just a few words to you about some of the pressing problems confronting our nation and our world.

I come to you with a great deal of appreciation and great feeling of appreciation, I should say, for what has been accomplished in this beautiful setting and in this beautiful state of our Union. As I think of the struggle that we are engaged in in the South land, we look to you for inspiration and as a noble example, where you have already accomplished in the area of racial harmony and racial justice, what we are struggling to accomplish in other sections of the country, and you can never know what it means to those of us caught for the moment in the tragic and often dark midnight of man’s inhumanity to man, to come to a place where we see the glowing daybreak of freedom and dignity and racial justice.

People ask me from time to time as I travel across the country and over the world whether there has been any real progress in the area of race relations, and I always answer it by saying that there are three basic attitudes that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations. One can take the attitude of extreme optimism. The extreme optimist would contend that we have come a long, long way in the area of race relations, and he would point proudly to the strides that have been made in the area of civil rights in the last few decades. And, from this, he would conclude that the problem is just about solved now and that we can sit down comfortably by the wayside and wait on the coming of the inevitable.

And then segregation is still with us. Although we have seen the walls gradually crumble, it is still with us. I imply that figuratively speaking, that Old Man Segregation is on his death bed, but you know history has proven that social systems have a great last-minute breathing power, and the guardians of the status quo are always on hand with their oxygen tents to keep the old order alive, and this is exactly what we see today. So segregation is still with us. We are confronted in the South in its glaring and conspicuous forms, and we are confronted in almost every other section of the nation in its hidden and subtle forms. But if democracy is to live, segregation must die. Segregation is a cancer in the body politic which must be removed before our democratic health can be realized. In a real sense, the shape of the world today does not permit us the luxury of an anemic democracy. If we are to survive, if we are to stand as a force in the world, if we are to maintain our prestige, we must solve this problem because people are looking over to America.

MLK and other civil rights leaders wear lei on 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

While on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, marchers wore leis to symbolize their peaceful intentions.

Just two years ago I traveled all over Africa and talked with leaders from that great continent. One of the things they said to me was this: No amount of extensive handouts and beautiful words would be substitutes for treating our brothers in the United States as first-class citizens and human beings. This came to me from mouth of Prime Minister Nkrumah of Ghana.

Just four months ago, I traveled throughout India and the Middle East and talked with many of the people and leaders of that great country and other people in the Middle East, and these are the things they talked about: That we must solve this problem if we are to stand and to maintain our prestige. And I can remember very vividly meeting people all over Europe and in the Middle East and in the Far East, and even though many of them could not speak English, they knew how to say ‘Little Rock.’

And these are the things that we must be concerned about – we must be concerned about because we love America and we are out to free not only the Negro. This is not our struggle today to free 17,000,000 Negroes. It’s bigger than that. We are seeking to free the soul of America. Segregation debilitates the white man as well as the Negro. We are to free all men, all races and all groups. This is our responsibility and this is our challenge, and we look to this great new state in our Union as the example and as the inspiration. As we move on in this realm, let us move on with the faith that this problem can be solved, and that it will be solved, believing firmly that all reality hinges on moral foundations, and we are struggling for what is right, and we are destined to win.

We have come a long, long way. We have a long, long way to go. I close, if you will permit me, by quoting the words of an old Negro slave preacher. He didn’t quite have his grammar right, but he uttered some words in the form of a prayer with great symbolic profundity and these are the works he said: ‘Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but thank God, we ain’t what we was.’ Thank you.”

At the conclusion of his address, there was much applause.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Our American Triumph: Civil Rights and Hawaii Statehood

Pearl Harbor, Civil Rights, and Hawaii Statehood

Prince Kuhio: The bridge from Kingdom to State

Hawaii Statehood: Tiny 1959 opposition was anti-Japanese, not anti-American

EDITORS NOTE: Photos: MLK in Hawaii 1959. PDF: Hawaii House Blog.

After the DOJ’s Report, Where are the Calls for Baltimore’s Mayor to Resign?

August 13, 2016/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Raynard Jackson

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a scathing report on the state of the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) as a part of its civil rights investigation following the death of Freddie Gray.

The press release about the report stated,

“The Justice Department announced today that it found reasonable cause to believe that the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as federal anti-discrimination laws. BPD makes stops, searches and arrests without the required justification; searches and arrests; uses excessive force; and retaliates against individuals for their constitutionally-protected expression. The pattern or practice results from systemic deficiencies that have persisted within BPD for many years and has exacerbated community distrust of the police, particularly in the African-American community. The city and the department have also entered into an agreement in principle to work together, with community input, to create a federal court-enforceable consent decree addressing the deficiencies found during the investigation.”

I have been stunned by the muted reaction by both the Black community and the media.

Let me remind you that at the time of Gray’s death last year, Baltimore had a Black mayor, a Black police chief, a Black prosecutor, a Black president of the city council, a Black congressman and an almost fifty percent Black police force.

Juxtapose that with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., a few years ago. The Justice Department, led by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, went to Ferguson and did a similar investigation and found identical results to Baltimore. The Ferguson reports are very similar to the report issued about the Baltimore Police Department.

The media narrative about Ferguson was that the police force was racist. White cop kills unarmed Black man. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Blacks make up roughly 70 percent of the population in Ferguson and more than 20 percent live in poverty. When Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, the mayor was White, there was only one Black on the six-member city council (.096 percent) and only three Blacks out of 53 policemen (5.6 percent) and was listed as the sixth most segregated city in the U.S.

The NAACP’s president and CEO, Cornell Brooks basically copied and pasted the statement he issued after the Ferguson reports and reused it for the Baltimore report.

The NAACP is “supposed” to be the nation’s premier civil rights organization, but time after time they have been shown to be huge hypocrites. Upon the Justice Department’s release of their damning report on Ferguson last year, Brooks said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “the mayor needs to resign.”

Strangely enough, Brooks never called for the resignation of the Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who is a Black Democrat.

I am really trying hard to understand what is going on here. Ferguson and Baltimore were both run from top to bottom by Democrats, both cities had an unarmed Black male killed at the hands of their police and both cities erupted in violence after the incidents. The Justice Department came to the same conclusion about both cities: that the cities and their police forces were incompetently run and employed policemen who violated a plethora of federal and civil rights laws.

The only difference between the two cities comes down to race. Ferguson was run by all Whites and Baltimore was run by all Blacks.

So, if Ferguson was a “racial” issue, what do you call Baltimore? Why have our Black civil rights leaders and activists reacted differently to the Justice Department’s report on Baltimore’s police department?

Where are the cries for Rawlings-Blake to resign? She also serves as the secretary of the Democratic National Committee and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Why is she not being asked to resign from those positions?

Most of the violations listed by the Justice Department happened during her time as mayor. Is she not also a racist? Americans, in general, and Blacks specifically must be consistent in their calls for justice and equality, whether the mayor of a city is Black or White.

If they preside over a law-breaking, corrupt police department and allow that type of culture to fester, shouldn’t that elected official be forced out of office?

We, as Blacks, lose the moral high ground when we are not consistent in our quest to make America a better nation. Whites lose the moral high ground when they constantly try to minimize the role that race plays in our society. Both approaches are equally as wrong, but we both must strive to be equally right.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Someone’s Loss is Someone’s Gain

August 13, 2016/in Commentary, Economy, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Elizabeth Cuevas-Neunder

Being a Spanish speaking American by birth gives me a very unique stage to see the political area in three dimensions; as a native Puerto Rican, as an American citizen by birth, and as a woman. It is not logical to me that my Republican Party that I have served for more than 26 years don’t get it as yet. They continue making the same mistakes over and over again. I have been part of races from National, State and local. Also have been a very strong advocated for education, juvenile justices our seniors as well as a candidate.

Being trained in Public Relations and International model, I was trained to learn how to read candidates body language; their hand shake is enough for me. Candidates who are first time runners because they have not been mold by the establishment ideology or corruption.

This is the case with Donald J. Trump, knowing of him from the Miss America and Universe Pageants and Puerto Rico winning 5 tittles, the man is a household name. The amount of young women he has opened the doors to phenomenal futures and the dreams for little girls he has imprinted in their brains are the testaments of this man love for women and their future.

The man is a true genius in his own right. When years ago were rumors of him to running, I was ready to fold my sleeve and get to work. But it did not happen, and Romney came to be the one. Was great disappointment for me and many others not having Trump in the race. To me being involved in Romney’s race and see a winner-able race to a loser race was heart crushing, just because the people he surrounded with did not reach out to those who knew the ground game.

Florida is a very special animal, with 67 counties and not two are the same is a great mistake not to include the leaders instead of elected officials. This brings me to Trump’s Campaign; is Trumps campaign making the same mistake? The Tampa rally where the Puerto Rican community continues growing the lack of volunteer and respectable leaders was not visible, last night event in Kissimmee, the heart of the Puerto Rican community paraded speakers who has no knowledge of the terrain, also big mistakes. How dreadful that Spanish speaking Americans were not able to be part of a historical moment, because the lack of Spanish speaking Americans and advertising. It’s very sad when the supposed campaign workers, staff and volunteers do not understand the state makeup because they are from others states or counties.

Why the Florida Puerto Rican community is the make it or breaks it in these elections? Puerto Rico is a territory of USA, we are citizens by birth, we are legal citizens and we are not able to vote for the Presidential elections but yes for the primaries in Puerto Rico. As soon a Puerto Rican cross the ocean to the main land are able to immediately register and vote. Puerto Rico has a very serious problem when the democrats (PPD) infiltrated the REPUBLICANS (PNP) and now both parties are the same. It is a big disservice to the inhabitant of the islands, the future and the economy.

Upon arrival because the Democratic Party, they think that is democracy and we love democracy, so they register democrat. The soul of Puerto Ricans is Republican, we love family, we love the entrepreneurial spirit, and we believe the marriage between a man and a woman, WE LOVE GOD, NATION and FAMILY.

The event in Kissimmee was a great lost opportunity not to bring the right speakers who can and will make a difference, and bring aboard the Puerto Rican voters with the message of prosperity and small business, and the returned of companies which have left the island, with a commentary of empty buildings and an economy of bankruptcy. Trump has been defamed even by people who were supporters of Jeb’s and Rubio in our island. Today you see them been part of Trumps Campaign.

My question is are they to help win or to sabotage Trumps opportunity to “Make America Great Again” Those of us who do work in the Path the Peaceful Warrior are concerned with Agenda 21 One World Government.

ALGUIEN PERDIO Y OTRO GANO

“ser un americana de habla española por nacimiento me da una única tarima para ver el arena política en tres dimensiones; como una nativa puertorriqueña, como un ciudadana americana por nacimiento y como mujer. No es lógico para mí que mi partido republicano al cual he servido por más de 26 años no la adquiero todavía la responsabilidad de instruir a los Puertorriqueños la diferencia de los partidos. Siguen haciendo los mismos errores una y otra vez. He sido parte de las carreras políticas de los nacionales, estatales y locales. También he abogado con fervor por la educación, menores, nuestros ancianos y como candidata.

Adiestramiento en relaciones públicas y modelo internacional, fui entrenada para aprender a leer lenguaje corporal de los candidatos; su movimientos son suficiente para mí. Los candidatos que son primerizos me interesan porque no han sido moldeados por la ideología del establecimiento o la corrupción.

Este es el caso de Donald, sabiendo él de la Miss América y Miss Universo concursos y Puerto Rico tiene 5 títulos de ganadoras, Mr. Trump es un hombre de nombre familiar en nuestra isla.

Puerto Rico es un territorio de Estados Unidos, somos ciudadanos por nacimiento, legales y no somos capaces de votar para las elecciones presidenciales en la isla pero sí para las primarias en Puerto Rico. Tan pronto un puertorriqueño cruzar el océano a USA tienen el derecho de registrarse y votar de inmediato.

Puerto Rico tiene un problema muy grave cuando los demócratas en Puerto Rico (PPD) se infiltraron con los republicanos (PNP) y ahora ambos partidos son lo mismo demócratas (dos manos izquierdas no pueden aplaudir). Es una gran pérdida para los habitantes de las islas, y el futuro y la economía. A su llegada piensan que el partido demócrata, es democracia y amor democracia, se registran demócratas. El alma de los Puertorriqueños es republicana, amamos a familia, nos encanta al espíritu emprendedor, y creemos en el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, amamos Dios, nación y familia.

El evento en Kissimmee fue una gran oportunidad que se perdió no llevaron los altavoces de la comunidad Puertorriqueña que puede hacer una gran diferencia y llevar a bordo los votantes puertorriqueños en Florida con el mensaje de prosperidad y una economía abrumadora para la isla y la verdad, porque Trump es el único que puede ayudar a resolver la economía de Puerto Rico primo. Porque con Trump América y Puerto Rico serán grandes otra vez.