The repulsive stench of liberal hypocrisy by Allen West

Little Haiti Al Sharpton 1992

Vintage Sharpton circa 1992

There’s a chapter in my book, Guardian of the Republic, called, “The Hunt for the Black Conservative.” In it I address how the liberal progressive Left will spare no efforts to demean, denigrate, destroy, and discredit black conservatives. The interesting hypocrisy is that if you are an acceptable black person — namely a liberal progressive — all manner of protections will be afforded regardless of how disgusting and heinous your offenses may be.

Take for example the abhorrent past and behavior of one Rev. Al Sharpton. If you don’t remember his Tawana Brawley episode, you can read about it here. FYI, this was during his obese, tracksuit phase. However, MSNBC is so proud of this charlatan, they gave him his own show.

In contrast, liberal progressives recently have attacked former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice claiming she is not qualified to be the commencement speaker at two universities, Rutgers and Minnesota.

Without a doubt the greatest evidence of liberal progressive socialist hypocrisy is the shielding of Barack Hussein Obama. Here is truly the most unqualified person ever to hold the office of president. He is indeed the nation’s first affirmative action president — considering the abject dismissal of his lack of accomplishments and papering over of his formative years.

Obama’s voting record as a state and US Senator is replete with votes of “present.” And his empty rhetoric and bumper-sticker slogans have resulted in America’s worst economic recovery and diminished global standing as a result of failed foreign policy.

Obama lies and deceives the American people at the drop of a hat — if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period. And we all know 7.1 million Americans didn’t magically sign up for Obamacare — whatever sign up means.

But most despicable were his abandonment of Americans under terrorist attack to die in Benghazi and the use of a government agency, the IRS, to attack Americans who oppose his radical socialist agenda. But what do he and the Left say? These are just phony scandals.

It is unconscionable to me that the black community as a whole follows these white liberal progressive masters and the orders of their black overseers to remain on the new economic plantation and support the lies and deceit. And then they join in attacking their black brothers and sisters who are conservatives and have managed to escape this political servitude. Shameful.

I care not what liberal progressive socialists and their media accomplices think of me. Liberal hypocrisy has a repulsive stench. If they ever own up to the highest levels of honor, integrity, and character they’ll earn some respect. Unfortunately, that appears to be an unachievable goal for progressive socialists.

Take the plank from your own eye before you consider examining a speck in mine.

RELATED STORY: DETAILS: SHARPTON WAS FBI MOB RAT…

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

Gay Intolerance versus Corporate Integrity

I am going to draw on decades of having been a public relations counselor to corporations and other organizations for some thoughts about the resignation of Mozilla’s co-founder  Brendan Eich, after his donation to support a California proposition banning gay marriage eight years ago became an issue for the company less than two weeks after he became its CEO.

Despite the passage of the ban, voted upon by a majority (52%) of Californians who believe that marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court ruled against it. Same sex marriages in California resumed after the U.S. Supreme Court restored the federal district court’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Heeding the will of the people is not the California way.

At the end of 2008, same-sex marriages were legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Today seventeen states, including California, allow such marriages. The gay, lesbian and transgender population of America is about three percent, but they are among the most vocal special interest groups in the nation.

From a PR point of view, Eich’s decision was a very bad one. Other corporations have found themselves targeted by the gay community. Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta based company has opposed gay marriage based on its commitment to Christian values, but most corporations regard any vocal opposition with more fear than courage. It has a lot to do with being in the business of selling products and services as well as being answerable to their investors.

It also explains, for example, why most embrace environmental demands in some fashion, including Big Oil and Big Coal. It’s no accident that BP Oil has a television advertising campaign going these days emphasizing the way drilling for oil in Alaska generates thousands of jobs elsewhere in the nation. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is fading into the past as well it should. Simply said, accidents happen.

I suspect that Eich’s decision was based in part on the fact that its corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco. A Reuters news article noted that “Gay rights are widely embraced in the San Francisco area” described as “long known for its thriving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Silicon Valley’s tech culture reflects that sensitivity and its companies rely on their CEOs to set that kind of tone.”

The curious thing is that Eich’s “views about gay marriage had been known within Mozilla for nearly two years…” His appointment as CEO put him in the limelight and a call for a boycott by OkCupid opened the doors to a decision to stand by his views or leave, presumably in the interest of the company. The company chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, said of his resignation that “you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

After freedom of religion, free speech is the next one cited in the Constitution’s First Amendment. It’s not hard to stand for it if you have the courage to do so.

Largely unknown to most Americans is the growing matrix of laws at the state level that grant a special status to the GLBT community. This is particularly true in Massachusetts. At the federal level, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” has passed the Senate and is headed for a vote in the House. Critics say it would create a federally-enforced special employment status for homosexuals and transsexuals. Such a law would create a privileged inequality, not equality in the workplace.

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay blogger, showed the kind of courage that Eich should have. “You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christians?” asked Sullivan. “You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.” From a PR point of view, Sullivan is right.

“If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out,” said Sullivan.

Christian views are not the stuff of “fanaticism” but rather reflect deeply held spiritual values and a definition of marriage that goes back 5,000 years or more. Those views should be defended.

Reuters noted that Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor, “said Eich’s case was another example of how religious conservatives who only support heterosexual marriage are being victimized for their views. Now that the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer.”

Therein is the reason why Eich’s swift departure was a mistake. He could have and should have allowed the controversy to rage for a short while and watched it disappear.

Polls about gay marriage reveal how sharply divided Americans are on this issue. It goes well beyond being “Christian” or any other religious affiliation. It goes to the issue of whether members of the same sex should be granted the legal rights associated with marriage. For as long as civilization has existed, opposition to same-sex marriage has been a central element of what is deemed moral behavior.

It isn’t, as the courts have ruled, an issue of “equality.” Heterosexual marriage goes to the core of what a society requires to maintain itself. It is the heart of a healthy society and redefining it because a minority whose sexual orientation demands it can only weaken society and the nation that bows to their demands.

Gays could have accepted civil unions, but they choose not to. Now they are out to transform America by employing an intolerance that endangers it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

My Congressman asks me to sign his re-election petition

I received a letter from my congressman former Democrat converted to Republican Jeff Miller (FL District 1). Miller was an executive assistant to Democratic state Agriculture Commissioner Doyle Conner from 1984 to 1988. He was a lifelong Democrat until he switched parties in 1997 to run for the Florida Legislature

This is the first time he ever bothered to contact me and it was only to benefit him. He wanted me to sign a petition to put him on the ballot for the 2014 election. Jeff Miller is a good family man. He has been in office for almost thirteen years and that means I have been contributing to his government paycheck all that time.

But what has he done for us here in District 1 and for our nation?

He did manage to introduce a non confrontational bill that passed called the TSA Loose Change Act (H.R. 1095; 113th Congress). The legislation forces the TSA to hand over all the loose coins they find at the airports and give it to provide aid and comfort for veterans while they travel. Thanks, much appreciated. But perhaps Congressman Miller what you should have done is introduce a bill to abolish the TSA and allow private security companies to assume control at US airports?

Congressman Miller what else have you done besides support bills? How about write some bills. Mark Levin asked me once what have you done in regards to proactive legislation vice kicking back supporting the bills of others. I told Mark none that would put this nation on a new course. He said well its time for you to go Jeff.

I have lost faith in the Republican Party and its current membership. In order for me to return to the GOP I expect the following bills to be written by my Representative Jeff Miller and then be co-sponsored by his fellow Congressmen.

(1) Defund all taxpayer money to the United Nations. Return the building being used by the UN in New York back to the hands of private enterprise and the American people. Donald Trump would be in to buy it. He did mention to me once he was interested.

(2) Defund and abolish the Dept. Of Education. The US Constitution doesn’t permit taxpayer money to be collected to fund a centralized control of our education. Its up to the states to do this. Currently the Communist Michelle Obama thinks she can tell school districts that take Dept. of Education money what the kids can eat. Toss that miscreant Communist out of these schools and STOP taking money from the Jimmy Carter created Dept. of Education. Common Core, the UN inspired Marxist dumbing down of our kids paid for by stimulus money borrowed from Communist China now gives Obama control of the curriculum and standards in the states that signed up for this crap funded via Jimmy Carters’ Dept. of Education. Get rid of the Dept. of Education. Write the bill Jeff!

(3) Defund and abolish the Internal Revenue Service and abolish the 16th Amendment. Congressman Miller how long will it take you to write this bill ? Yesterday I wrote a check to the IRS for $13,400.00. WHY? Who gives the IRS authority to tax my hard work and the fruits of my labor and the risks I take? Do you know what I can do with this money? What will the IRS do with it, cover a round of golf at Pebble Beach for President Obama? Fund Nancy Pelosi’s tax payer funded jet? It would buy Michelle Obama a nice dress. Congressman Miller write the bill and I will support you.

(4) Defund the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and give control back to the states as per the Tenth Amendment. It should take you 20 minutes to write this up.

(5) Defund and abolish the Department of Energy. How much energy has the Department of Energy drilled for? How many barrels of oil have they dug out of the ground? How many cubic feet of natural gas have they extracted? How many oil tankers have they built? (ZERO) Defund and abolish it. It should take you 30 minutes to write the bill Jeff.

(6) Write a bill that restores the constitutional rights of Americans to carry a concealed weapon onto military bases. You support the NRA right? Big deal. What good is that? We all support some form of pro-Second Amendment gun groups. Your job, sir, is to change the direction of the nation not sit back in your big comfy office chair in DC and rub your NRA lapel pin. Anyone can do that. Write the bill, sir. Clinton thinks I am not responsible to carry my 9mm onto military bases. Do you think I am Congressman Miller? Fort Hood is a double tragedy but the biggest tragedy was disarming the military folks and preventing them from defending themselves from these lunatics. I spent 30 years in the US Navy. I carried M-16’s AR, a Glock 9mm, a .45 pistol and shot guns to protect you sir. But I am denied the right to protect myself. Why don’t you fix this? WRITE THE BILL!

Congressman Miller in closing my column, I wish you well and much luck in your campaign for your continued never ending career as a lifelong Congressman funded by Florida taxpayers paying you over $15,000 a month to work maybe seventy-five days a year.

And to end my correspondence to you sir. The next time you visit my friend Colonel Bud Day’s grave site in Pensacola please don’t pose for pictures at his grave for publicity pictures for your web page. Colonel Day is not a pawn for your political advancement he was my friend. I visit his grave many times privately and I share my thought with him privately. I miss his dearly. I expect you to do the same. Leave your camera at home.

The Antichrist Revealed

Since the early days of our world’s short history there have been debates on who the Antichrist is as mentioned in the Bible. I have given this some deep thought and although I am far from being a scholar on the Bible, I do believe I am a decent investigator.

Based on my experiences the vast majority of people believe the Antichrist is a person. There have been conspiracy theories that the Antichrist will be a person with such a character as to draw in billions of people to their fold. I suggest the true Antichrist has been around for approximately 1400 years and is not a person but rather an ideology.

This is the Islamic ideology. For centuries this evil ideology has brought billions to their knees in worshiping a belief that is based solely on deceit, hate, and violence. Could the Antichrist then be an ideology and not a person of flesh?

Allegedly the Antichrist will be so powerful that world leaders will bow to it. Are there not world leaders who bow to the Islamic ideology even though many are not Muslim? This ideology has had a magical hold on very intelligent (and some not so intelligent) people for centuries.

There is an abundance of evidence clearly showing the Islamic ideology is pure evil. We must remember Islam uses as their prime example of character and pureness a false prophet (Mohammed). The Islamic ideology does not hide the fact that Mohammed was a child rapist. Mohammed hated the Jews and Christians. This same hatred was taught 1400 years ago and in 2014 it is still being taught across the world.

Islamic leaders will tell you they respect Jesus Christ, but it doesn’t take any amount of digging to know Islam does not recognize Jesus as a Christian. The belief of Muslims is that Jesus was actually a Muslim even before the formal ideology of Islam was conceived.

James Neuman wrote:

” It is supposed that God created man in His own image. Prophet Muhammad did God one better. Muhammad created God in his own image and bestowed upon his god – Allah (the AntiGod) – his own characteristics, personality, desires and ambitions. Muhammad made up the Allah of the Quran (the AntiGod) and all the Quranic teachings to create a perfect totalitarian system. How could the word of God be challenged? Muhammad was Allah and Allah was Muhammad”

“Islam is a cesspool of literally thousands of teachings contained in the Quran and Sunna of ‘prophet Muhammad’ that amount to hate crimes.Just as Hitler laid the moral and intellectual foundation for the extermination of Jews in Mein Kampf,so Islam creates the moral, intellectual and religious justification for the various hate crimes of extermination, murder, torture, terrorization, looting, pillaging, rape and enslavement directed at “kaffirs” (non-Muslims), apostates from Islam, gays and kafir women and children”.

SUNNA OF EVIL PERFECTION

The following are a short-list of the evil Sunnah of Muhammad, recorded in the Hadiths of Bukhari:

  • Child sexual molestation and Pedophilia is Sunna in Islam.
  • Murder, even Mass Murder, is Sunna in Islam.
  • Extermination and ethnic cleansing of communities is Sunna in Islam.
  • Rape is Sunna in Islam.
  • Sex Slavery is Sunna in IslamBeheading is Sunna in Islam.
  • Stoning to death for sexual deviation is Sunna in Islam.Beating one’s wife is Sunna in Islam
  • Murdering Kafir children is Sunna in Islam.
  • Murdering Muslims’ own children is Sunna in Islam.
  • Murdering Jews is Sunna in Islam
  • Murdering Christians is Sunna in Islam
  • Slavery is Sunna in Islam
  • Booty is Sunna in Islam
  • Whipping is Sunna in Islam
  • Torture is Sunna in Islam
  • Terror is Sunna in Islam
  • Maiming is Sunna in Islam
  • Jihad is Sunna in Islam
  • Extortion is Sunna in Islam

The list goes on and on and there is little doubt that the Islamic ideology is the most evil of all evils.

“But in Islam, they represent the Sunnah, the sacred “path”. And quite desirably this is the Sunna that Muslim men were emulating at the Kenyan, Boston, World Trade Center and all the other Jihad massacres across the globe. Since the Muslim perpetrators of those Jihadi terror attacks were simply modeling their behavior on Muhammad, they are good, moral Muslims – not deviant fanatics. Far from the naïve thinking that their violence and intolerance are alien to inherently peaceful Islam, they are directly rooted in Muhammad’s example.The above catalogue of Muhammad’s evil Sunnah would obviate that he was among the rare instances of evil persons ever walked the earth, not the person of moral perfection as claimed by Allah. And when Allah picked such an “evil incarnate” as his best representative to mankind, then Allah could not be a loving and merciful creator of the Universe but a “Monster of Evil”.

I encourage readers to review some of the articles and books written by James Neuman.

Do we need more proof that the Islamic ideology is evil? If the Antichrist is not Islam itself, then God help us because I could never imagine anything more evil.

Can we defeat the Antichrist?

The Bible is the best reference to use to answer this question. Most people are waiting for an Antichrist to appear and then begin the fight to defeat it. It is my firm belief the Antichrist reared its ugly head 1400 years ago and we are far from defeating this evil, but at least the innocent people around the world should consider Islam as the true Antichrist.

In order to defeat any enemy one must first know who the enemy is.

RELATED STORIES:

New York: Woman converts to Islam, shocked to discover she’s now considered inferior to men

Accomplice? Boston jihad murderer’s widow refused to cooperate with FBI

Is Islam a race? Birmingham trial will tell

California politician who tried to broker arms deal for jihad group escapes terrorism charges

Silver Star holder Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.), Speaks to the Nation

harry riley

Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.)

The following are comments from Colonel Harry Riley, the man behind Operation American Spring:

The lawless in control of our American government are tightening their grip, reining in our freedom, and pushing us toward servitude. It’s just a matter of time, and that won’t be long, until we are tied to the back of the wagon and dragged along by thugs whether we like it or not. Kick and scream all you want, but it won’t help any of us, that is unless we do something about it now?

Patriot members have been pleading with America since December 2013 to join Operation American Spring, a peaceful, non-violent, unarmed gathering, as we descend on Washington, D.C. beginning May 16, 2014 to begin Constitutional restoration.  Our “movement to action” is a grassroots movement by non-partisan Americans committed to Constitutional principles, responding to an unresponsive and dismissive cabal of duly elected, but oath-breaking officials, who ignore the Constitution, in fact are purposefully destroying the US Constitution.

Our demands and grievances are quite common. Everything that’s wrong in America is basically tied to government leadership violations of the United States Constitution.  The majority of America understands those currently in leadership positions are lawless, violating their oath, ignoring legal process, presenting an appearance of tyrants, self-serving personal agendas, and leading the United States toward a socialist, Marxist, totalitarian form of slavery. It must stop.

Every member of Congress (525) will be presented by mid April 2014 with a personal copy of Operation American Spring Declaration of Revision (Demands/Grievances) as well as a researched, prepared, and provable Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama. Congress will have approximately one month to review the documents prior to millions arriving in D.C. for answers.

These documents won’t mean anything unless they are backed by millions of American patriots, in the streets of Washington, D.C.  Millions of citizens will validate, confirm the message that cannot be ignored. Those, of every political party, that ignore our demands will pay a heavy consequence.

Operation American Spring mission calls for the replacement of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder. This group has disgraced the United States of America, subjected our nation to ridicule, kneeled and bowed to nations that have proven to harm us, and worst of all, treated the American people with disdain, scorn, deception, betrayal, and disrespect.  We demand these lawless individuals to voluntarily resign.  Will they?

The answer to the above question is “not likely”, unless, “we the people” display an attitude of “enough is enough”.  The time to use the excuse “let someone else do it” is past. For the sake of our nation, we must  put boots on the ground by the millions in Washington, D.C. and plan to stay until we get an acceptable resolution. The Arab Spring, Ukrainian Spring, and other “mass” gatherings brought corrupt, lawless, arrogant power seekers to their knees, and American’s can do it also. 

Every American is invited to lock arms, stand shoulder-to-shoulder in unity, even at the expense of sacrifice, at this most grave time that threatens the longevity of our nation.  God is the wind behind Operation American Spring, may each of us feel it in our hearts and respond.

We believe this may be our last opportunity to turn our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, as  ordained by our Creator. We pray that every freedom, liberty loving organization in the United States will lay agendas aside for a brief period, announce support, unite as one nation under God, and storm Washington, D.C. in massive/gigantic numbers for one principle every patriot can live with – Restoration of the US Constitution as the law of the land. From there we begin again.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret.
Operation American Spring

For more information; visit our website at www.OperationAmericanSpring.org or www.oas2014.com.

Gross Dereliction of Duty

Obama administration political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been recruiting and appointing many pro-amnesty lawyers in key management positions throughout DHS. The goal of the Obama administration in placing those pro-amnesty lawyers throughout DHS was to dismantle the deporting infrastructure it took 12 years for the US government to create. Those pro-amnesty lawyers have been preventing ICE Agents, Border Patrol Agents, and CBP Inspectors from enforcing the Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold.

Those pro-amnesty attorneys have instructed ICE Agents to “walk away” from hundreds of thousands of cases that should be prosecuted. They eventually directed ICE Agents to release 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” into the general public, thus completing the corruption of that once proud Federal Law Enforcement Agency. The “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” were not in jail because of driving infractions—-they were felons who had been tried and convicted in Federal and Superior Courts because of serious criminal infractions, or had been convicted of very serious misdemeanors. Traffic violations like driving under the influence of alcohol or even vehicular manslaughter do not count toward ICE’s description of “Criminal Illegal Immigrant.”

The 68,000 serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” released by the Obama administration will pick up where they left off, and continue with their very serious crime sprees, committing murders, rapes, burglaries, car theft, drug dealing, drug smuggling, human trafficking, armed robberies, attacking law enforcement officers, and much more that they were previously arrested and convicted for.

The pro-amnesty attorneys at DHS could have deported the 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” to Mexico, but opted instead to release those dangerous convicted criminals into the general public.

American citizens who are concerned about the safety of their sons, daughters, grandchildren, sisters, wives, mothers, grandparents, small businesses, etc. will have to be on high alert to protect them from this new and very dangerous threat foisted upon them by the Obama administration.

The “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” releases occurred without the required formal notification of local Law Enforcement Agencies (law enforcement has a need to know whenever dangerous felons are released prematurely, so they can alert police officers of the perceived spike in criminal activity in their jurisdictions), and those dangerous felons were released without notifying the victims of those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” who will be in fear of their lives because they testified against those felons in court, in order to get them convicted. The political appointees at DHS simply unlocked the jailhouse doors and let 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrant” walk free. Those “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” will now prey on American citizens, and will seriously complicate the task of law enforcement officers in their attempt to protect law abiding American citizens.

That unlawful release of those serious “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and the complete corruption of DHS by Obama’s appointees into key management positions, is further proof that Obama continues to violate the US Constitution with impunity, as well as violate Federal Immigration Laws of the United States.

In an interview on WBEZ-FM in Chicago on September 6, 2001, Obama said “The US Constitution reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day” and said “the US Constitution has deep flaws, and the Founding Fathers had an enormous blind spot when they wrote it.” He also implied in that interview that the US Constitution was outdated, because he said, “it only reflects the time period of the Colonials and our Founding Fathers.”

Obama raised his right hand twice sworn on a bible to uphold the US Constitution when he was inaugurated in 2008 and 2012; he swore “I, Barack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”—–we know by his actions over the past 5 years, that his two sworn pledges were two more lies to add to:

  1. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” and “Your health care premiums will be lowered by $2500.” and
  2. “The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk before I sign it.” and “I knew nothing about the IRS targeting conservative groups before the 2012 election.” and
  3. “I knew nothing about the “Fast and Furious” gun running operation to Mexican drug cartels.” and
  4. “I will have the most transparent administration in history.” and
  5. “I will restore trust in government.” and
  6. ”In a speech at the UN two weeks after he knew four Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Al Qaeda terrorists, Obama told the entire world; “The attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was the outgrowth of a demonstration against a YouTube video that went bad.”

American citizens are now used to witnessing one lie after another by the occupant of the Oval Office, yet the left of center liberal media establishment continues to cover up the lies emanating from the Oval Office.

You will be able to read the details of the illegal release of the “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” in the below listed news article. We have information that although 870,000 Illegal Immigrants have been ordered to be deported from the United States, following their conviction in trials in US Federal Immigration Courts, that the pro-amnesty attorneys in key management positions at DHS have ignored those court orders, and those 870,000 Illegal Immigrants remain in the United States; ICE has been told to leave them alone, to “walk away” and “not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.”

Over 40 million unemployed Americans citizens are searching for employment in the 5th year of the worst economic recovery in 70 years, yet their search for employment continues to be undercut by nearly 20 million Illegal Immigrants being paid very low wages under the table with no taxes deducted from their cash payments by US employers. There were over 11 million Illegal Immigrants in the United State when I was recruited as an Armed Federal Law Enforcement Officer in the newly established Department of Homeland Security in 2002—DHS knows that over 800,000 Illegal Immigrants continue to enter the United States thru the wide open borders each year, and for the 12 years since 2002 approximately 9.6 million Illegal Immigrants have come across the wide open borders (you might find it interesting to learn that a DHS official testified that US authorities are not “routinely” notified when foreign sex offenders enter the United States.). So the 11 million Illegal Immigrants figure that the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment has kept referring to for 12 years, is more accurately 20 million Illegal Immigrants, not the 11 million figure that were illegally in the US in 2002. It is interesting to note that US military personnel are employed to secure the borders of South Korea, Afghanistan, and the Sinai, and are not employed by the US Congress or the occupant of the Oval Office to secure US borders.

The American people are wondering, whether the Republican leadership of the House and Senate, intends to do anything about the violation of Federal Law by Obama’s civilian appointees at DHS in the unlawful release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” many of whom are violent criminals. The Speaker of the House John Boehner has control of the purse strings and funds DHS. He could have put pressure on DHS’s by threatening to only approve very low salaries for the pro-amnesty lawyers who are aggressively corrupting enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws at DHS.

The current Republican leadership could have done something to stop the release of 68,000 “Criminal Illegal Immigrants” and could insist that the DHS deport the 870,000 Illegal Immigrants who were ordered deported by US Federal Immigration Courts.

It was always the primary responsibility of every one of the previous 43 US Presidents to enforce all Federal Laws passed by Congress, to protect and defend the US Constitution, to enforce Federal Immigration Laws, and to ensure that American citizens were protected from the threats of foreign convicted felons who had been preying on them. The current occupant of the Oval Office, by his actions over the last 5 years, has been intentionally shredding the “Rule of Law” and preventing Federal Law Enforcement Officers from “ enforcing the “Federal Laws” of the Republic that the 43 previous US Presidents upheld in the execution of their office.

SSA Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) provided the below listed information from Senator Jeff Sessions, and highlights how Obama continues to “shreds the Immigration Laws” that he swore to uphold, and cites examples of how Obama “refuses to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution”:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently released a critical alert about the status of immigration enforcement in the United States. In it, he writes, “DHS has blocked the enforcement of Immigration Law for the overwhelming majority of violations – and is planning to widen that amnesty even further.”

Put another way, “At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”

Senator Sessions’ alert continues:

“Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”

What we have is an Administration that is creating a de facto amnesty and encouraging more Illegal Immigrants to illegally enter the United States, granting employment authorization to “DREAMERS” and other illegal aliens, all the while American workers continue to struggle to find employment.

SSA Michael Cutler’s most recent commentary for California for Population Stabilization (CAPS) addresses the serious damage being done to America, and Americans by the ongoing expansion of the use of what the Obama administration claims is “prosecutorial discretion” but which, in reality amounts to “Gross Dereliction of Duty.”

RELATED STORY: REPORT: Obama Admin released tens of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals

Talking About Ideas with Friends: Lessons from Graham Greene by JAMES M. HOHMAN

A Spanish priest and a Marxist mayor walk into a bar . . . and teach you a lesson in civil discourse.

Graham Greene’s novel Monsignor Quixote is filled with lessons about how to share your worldview with people who have a different outlook. The main characters treat their opposing views as a model for addressing difficult questions directed at your own ideas and applying the same intellectual rigor on the views of others.

Graham Greene was a popular twentieth century author whose writings often dealt with the moral conflicts of his characters set among political conflicts, and Monsignor Quixote fits this mold. The story follows a Spanish priest, Quixote, and the recently ousted communist mayor of his town (appropriately nicknamed Sancho), as they travel the countryside of post-dictatorship Spain. The setting offers exploration between the priest and the mayor by morality and politics. Indeed, the heart of the novel is their exploration of each other’s ideas.

Getting a chance to honestly discuss ideas with a friend with a different viewpoint is an experience requiring rhetorical skills inappropriate for other kinds of discourse. For instance, your goal in a public debate is to persuade your audience using the strongest and most thorough argument you possess. Even in a discussion with the same person sharing the same ideas, your comments in a debate would be much different from those in a private conversation. These conversations are about explaining your views and considering your friend’s.

Dialogue like this is tough because we care about our views—they fill us with meaning and help us understand ourselves and the world around us. Likewise, our views color our understanding of opposing worldviews, giving us good impressions of some ideas and creating disgust with others.

But those discussions with friends are important. You get asked tough questions and ask tough questions, and you attempt to show the truth of your views. The goal, however, is not to embarrass or contradict. It’s about getting to know something both familiar and foreign. It’s familiar because you know the person and have some understanding of their outlook. And it’s foreign because you are exploring ideas that are not your own.

Monsignor Quixote gives a number of lessons to get the most out of those instances.

There’s a Difference Between Contradiction and Inconsistency

“Mockery is not an argument, Sancho.”

If you’ve ever seen political commentary on Facebook, you probably have recognized how much of what passes for political discourse is mockery disguised as argument. Especially popular is mocking by pointing out a contradiction.

For instance, an anti abortion bill was introduced by a generally market-friendly politician and a friend posts that it was “brought to you by the ‘Less Government’ people.” No one likes intellectual contradiction, so this is a generally effective technique to point out publicly to solidify support for your thought.

True contradiction, however, is rare. What is mostly pointed out is seeming inconsistency. Inconsistency is a contradiction that exists only in the mind of the person who observes it. There is often an easy explanation that shows that this seeming inconsistency derives from a consistent worldview. It’s only when looked at from a different point of view that it appears to be a contradiction. This is a fault of the person raising the objection rather than a fault of the person for whom the objection is raised. Thus, pointing out a problem that is easily explainable is unconvincing.

I asked my friend about his post to see if he could think of why opposition to abortion could be consistent with limited government views. Unfortunately, he was unable to do so. (He gave a good-faith effort, though, and I appreciated that.)

I’m not sure whether my friend is a rare case or not. If you’re too attached to your ideas, you may not understand the context or nuance that explains away what you thought was a contradiction. We view the world differently from our opposition and the important things to him may seem quaint, silly, stupid, or even hurtful to others.

We like to point out contradictions and inconsistencies because they’re often both fun and pointed. In the rare conversation with a friend on ideas, feel free to challenge him when you believe you’ve found theargument that shows his errors. Or even pokes fun at his ideas. But be aware that he may have a perfectly rational explanation to the point you make.

There’s no need to avoid humor in deep conversations. Just know that you’re dealing with issues that cut to the heart of how a person understands themselves and the world around them.

While these seeming inconsistencies may be funny, you should use them only with caution. As Monsignor Quixote tells Sancho, “I don’t like to offend anyone who takes a thing seriously. Laughter is not an argument. It can be a stupid abuse.”

Stay Away from Stereotyping

“Why are you always saddling me with my ancestor?”

In the novel, Sancho often attributes ideas to his friend based upon his namesake, Don Quixote, treating it as a game to try to predict how Quixote would interpret their situations. It sometimes works because both Quixotes view the world as an unfolding epic. But the priest eventually gets frustrated with the endeavor.

Just because you know something about your friend’s views doesn’t make you an expert in their opinions.

You know something about the ideas your friend holds. You’ve heard about it and even likely know why you don’t buy into those ideas. You probably have a rudimentary understanding of some of the basic precepts, viewpoints, and main arguments of the outlook. Still, your understanding will be less than that of an expert. So ask questions and share your concerns. And listen to the response.

Likewise, don’t lump your friend in with everyone who holds a similar position. If your friend considers eating fast food a moral shortcoming, it doesn’t make them a nanny-state totalitarian. He might be. But assuming he holds the views of everyone else that has similar sentiment does not do your friend justice.

It’s easy to mistake labels in politics, such as conservative or liberal or even feminist. We like labels since they can make discourse simpler and quicker to understand. Yet there remain nuances between people who adopt the same label. The environmentalists at the Property and Environment Research Center are committed to free market environmental protections that the environmentalists at the Michigan Environmental Council could not care less about. Knowing the differences is essential to a consistent outlook, and labels can lack the context of a master practitioner.

The use of labels as shortcuts also becomes challenging in private conversation because people identify with multiple labels.

You can score a cheap shot by pointing out an extreme view that seems untenable to a reasonable person. But that may not be the essential problem that you identify. As the joke (which I read in Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism) goes: “You libertarians are the types that would allow fornication in public parks!” which prompts the response: “What do you mean, public parks?”

Or as S. I. Hayakawa put it, “To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That’s why mousetraps work.” Don’t get snared by mistaking your understanding of the ideas with your opponent’s understanding of the ideas.

Exchange Literature

“In return for Father Jone I will lend you Father Lenin.”

You do not need to solve all the world’s problems in one night, nor are you likely to completely persuade your friend of the truth of your views instantly. You should lend them a book and offer to read one of their recommendations. In the novel, Sancho reads a book of Roman Catholic moral theology while Quixote reads The Communist Manifesto.

Convincing your friend that reasonable people can have different views is a big first step. It’s an even larger step to convince your friend that other views can be defended. Thankfully, there exists classic literature reflecting your own ideas that have won converts, shed fundamental insights, and changed the minds of thousands.

There’s no substitute for the basics or the insights of the masters of your worldview. Committing your time and energy to understand your friend’s point of view is also a sign of good faith. Committing yourself to understanding your friend’s point of view should build trust for him to extend the same courtesy, especially when you take time and effort to go through the literature underpinning a worldview.

But be careful: The book that you select should keep the same tone that you’ve set with your conversations. Not all the important works that share your understanding explore their findings with good-faith argumentation. Rand loved to mock. Mises was merciless. Disdain for your friend’s ideas is a quick way for him to lose respect for your ideas.

Nor do your works have to explore all of the issues. There are excellent, targeted arguments on smaller issues.

Address the Positives of the Opposite Literature and Respectfully Note Your Concerns

“It’s the work of a good man. A man as good as you are—and just as mistaken.”

When you practice goodwill, there’s a positive thing you can say about most anything. Take that approach when addressing your friend’s suggested literature. Disregarding his ideas is a quick excuse for him to reciprocate. Extending goodwill, however, does not mean that you have to accept the views of the person, just that you address the text respectfully.

The novel gives an excellent example of goodwill compliments and criticism. After reading The Communist Manifesto, Quixote connects Marx’s lament for the older, structured society with Don Quixote’s love of chivalry. But he quickly pivots to the argument that some of Marx’s predictions were incorrect. The workers of the world became better off under markets, as evidenced by the lower-class British people who were vacationing in their area. It’s a good case of leading off with respect, yet pushing back.

While finding things to agree with or admire in the literature, also find ways where your worldview offers a better explanation. It doesn’t always have to be contradictory.

Why It’s Important

When presented with a new fact, view, or observation, we ask ourselves, “Can I believe it?” Frequently you can and will believe it. When that new fact challenges you, ask, “Must I believe it?” Rarely will you have to. (This observation comes from Jonathan Haidt.) You need to fight this tendency when engaging in discourse with your friend.

Such conversations can open your respective minds to outlooks neither of you considered. They can change how you approach those ideas. You might stop rejecting the ideas immediately and think of your friend. You move a step closer to civil discourse.

Not everyone is a level-headed exemplar of the ideas they hold. People can hold kooky ideas that are neither justifiable nor defensible. Some people are just disconnected from the rest of the world.

If you hold views that are out of fashion with your friends, peers, or those engaging in broader political discourse, conversations such as those outlined above are even more important. There are many ways to get ideas to seep into the public debate. Discourse is richer when we take our opposition seriously and extend them goodwill. Given the sheer amount of talking past each other, the continuous mischaracterization of opinions, and the animosity we have toward opposing views, these private discourses can do a lot to change the national character if we take them seriously.

ABOUT JAMES M. HOHMAN

James M. Hohman is assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

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

Americans are Drowning in Lies

In the April 1st edition of The Wall Street Journal, an editorial took note of President Obama’s announcement the previous day that sign-ups for Obamacare had passed seven million.

“Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.”

I usually don’t quote from other newspapers for the simple reason that most just repeat Obama’s lies. To an old journalist, that’s very depressing.

It’s depressing, too, to contemplate the list of Obama administration scandals, not the least of which is the September 11, 2012 attack on our Benghazi consulate that took the life of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel. The claim that it was a spontaneous response to a video has been completely discredited.

“The Benghazi Report” of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been published by Skyhorse Publishing. It documents a complete lack of truth and morality regarding the event and it has cascaded through the entire administration from the day Obama first took office in 2009. It was summed up by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s now classic response, “What difference does it make?”

What historians will likely find astonishing is the way Hillary Clinton is the only person mentioned as the Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2016 elections. I find it distressing that former Governor Jeb Bush is being touted as the Republican choice. With the exception of Obama who defeated Hillary in the 2008 primaries, the U.S. has had a Bush or Clinton as President since 1989.

We fought a Revolution to rid ourselves of such monarchies or in this case political dynasties.

There’s something fundamentally wrong with such lines of succession, but worse is the notion that the Democratic Party would even consider someone—Hillary Clinton—whose character, let alone her policies, have been so seriously flawed and documented for so long.

The most current and obvious demonstration of the lies with which we have been living since Obama was first elected is Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act that was passed solely by Democratic Party votes and by legislators that never even read it. This has been compounded by the now famous lies of the President concerning it.

Obamacare is so toxic that Democrat candidates up for election or reelection in the November 2014 midterms have fleeing their votes or support, now claiming that it merely needs revision, not repeal. Even the Republican Party has taken this position and both are wrong to do so. It puts the government in control of one sixth of the economy and the lives of all Americans. Some will die as a result.

Most revealing is Sen. Dick Durbin’s April 1st statement that “The free enterprise system is a strong system” but that it “created unfairness and injustice when it came to health care, which we are addressing with this Affordable Care Act.” Free enterprise is what made America the most powerful economy in the world. There is no system anywhere that does not suffer from some degree of unfairness because all are the product of human invention. Life is not fair.

The only “injustice” Durbin could be addressing is whether one could afford the health care insurance plans formerly available from many sources. Now the injustice is embodied in a government that requires its citizens to buy something they may not want and threatens to fine them if they don’t. This is so monumentally unconstitutional that the Supreme Court had to define Obamacare as a tax to enable it. That too is a lie.

We used to be able to depend on the U.S. Constitution to guarantee our freedoms and maintain the nation’s moral values but it has been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn since the 1970s. There are lawsuits before it to protect the freedom of religion because of Obamacare. The assaults on our freedoms and moral values never end.

And now the nation is drifting toward the legalization of marijuana, a gateway drug to harder ones. We have a President who was a former “pot” smoker. If driving while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to kill thousands annually, this new intoxicant will increase those numbers.

Epitomizing the lies with which we are living these days—other than Obama’s—is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has reached the point of lying about his lies even though there are ample videotaped examples of them. Adding to this is his claim that those relating horror stories about their loss of health care insurance are all lying. Reid is one of the most powerful figures in our government these days and utterly devoid of the truth.

One has to have some confidence in one’s government, but that feeling is in decline and that is well worth worrying about.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jordi Payà. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Death of Obama: Payback for Pushing “Peace” on Israel, Jerusalem’s Destruction and War with Iran?

Obama mocked the Bible as America’s heritage and favored Islam and a “Holy Qur’an”?  The Bible suggests his soon-coming fate in the only book recommended by Christ when asked about the end of the world—the book of Daniel.

The Savior urged our understanding of the book of Daniel, Matthew 24:3,15. The book of Daniel was sealed until the time of the end, Daniel 12:4. The angel, Gabriel, told Daniel that his vision [chazon of ram and goat] “is at the time of the end.”

Historians recognize the defeat of the Medes and Persians by Alexander the Great at the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC as fulfilling Daniel 8:7,8,20,21. But that was not “the time of the end.” This begs an understanding that there is an end-time application to this vision AND probably to Daniel’s whole book that was “sealed until the time of the end.”

In Daniel 8:7, the ram had its horns broken. They represented the kings of Media and Persia. But those areas today are Iraq and Iran. We have already seen the horn of Saddam Hussein broken. If we can trust the Bible, we should see trouble coming for Iran as it has pledged itself against Israel.

But Obama’s love for Islam has led him to press Israel for concessions that make them vulnerable to attack. The Bible says God “will gather all [Arab] nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken and the houses rifled and the women ravished and half of the city shall go forth into captivity… Then shall the LORD go forth to fight against those nations.” Zechariah 14:2,3.

The “going forth to fight against those nations” is also seen in Daniel 8:7 where the ram is stomped and then the goat becomes great. This sounds good for the United States until we see its great horn broken in Daniel 8:8. The Bible says that horn represents the king of Grecia, Daniel 8:21.

But remember, Daniel has an end-time application and Alexander wasn’t “the time of the end.” This is about Obama as Commander-in-Chief responsible for the U.S. attack on the ram of militant Islam as it “flies from the west on the face of the whole earth and touched not the ground,” Daniel 8:5.

Daniel’s description had to fit both the historical war of Alexander and the end-time application in order to be “sealed” till the time of the end. When we see the geographical areas of the Medes and Persians being broken by a western power, we can understand “touched not the ground” as an air war and coming “from the face of the whole earth” represents a coalition. Neither of these fit Alexander’s time.

After the defeat of Muslims militant against Israel, the goat becomes great, but its horn (king/Obama?) is broken. In history, Alexander died prematurely at the age of 33. This suggests early death for Obama, as does the broken horn of Saddam Hussein.

After the “great horn” is broken, four horns spring up toward the four winds, Daniel 8:8. The margin refers to Daniel 7 where four winds strove upon the sea and Daniel saw four beasts come up. It is significant that the Bible represents nations and govenments as fierce beasts of prey. True also today.

The first was like a lion with eagle’s wings. God “declares the end from the beginning,” Isaiah 46:10. The United Kingdom is often represented as a lion. The United States is represented by an eagle.

The second beast was like a bear that has three ribs in its mouth, and it’s told, “Arise and devour much flesh,” Daniel 7:5. “Arise” because it has been down. The three ribs could be Georgia, the Ukraine and?

The third beast was like a leopard with four heads. An Asian coalition of China, Japan, Korea and Thailand could fit this description.

The fourth beast was like a dragon with 10 horns. In the historic application, the Roman Empire was represented, and as it fell, the 10 horns represented 10 tribes that roamed Europe, but one of these horns became great. The Protestant Reformers were united in their view that it was the papacy, the “Holy Roman Empire” that grew out of pagan Rome and dominated Europe for many centuries.

In the end-time application, it is not hard to see this beast as the European Union, and again we may expect the papacy to dominate as Daniel 7:20-25 describes. This author is indebted to information from Charles Wheeling and his website.

When these things happens, everyone should turn to Scripture for a better understanding of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13 reveals the Old World Order as an amalgamation of the four beasts from Daniel 7. It has a mouth like a lion, feet like a bear, looks like a leopard, but has the total of seven heads and 10 horns from Daniel 7. Amazing imagery that begs our understanding.

My urgent concern is for the people in Jerusalem who should consider further information at http://ezinearticles.com/?Could-Judgment-Be-Impending-on-Jerusalem?-A-View-of-History,-Bible-Prophecy-and-Current-Events&id=8395758    In addition, everyone should have a better understanding of http://AmericaInProphecy.me

April’s Fools: The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

On March 31st the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. You probably read something about it in your paper; almost certainly, you heard about it on the evening news from ABC, CBS, or NBC. But, why pay attention to the small fry, like Diane Sawyer or Brian Williams? The Secretary of State, John Kerry, tells us that “the costs of inaction are catastrophic.” Mr. Kerry apparently still believes “climate change” is the greatest weapon of mass destruction we face.

This report was brought to us by the same people who, last September, admitted their climate models tremendously exaggerate warming, as shown in the below graph.

models-vs-datasets

For a larger view click on the graph.

There are thousands of balloon observations of the atmosphere daily, going back to the 1950’s. Since 1980, there have been millions of satellite measurements of the temperature of the mid-troposphere (15 – 30,000 feet). And, as the IPCC (and NASA, and NOAA, and the UK Meteorological Office) admit, there has been no global warming for over 17 years.

Think about that. Science is based on formulating a hypothesis about the cause of a phenomenon in nature, conducting an experiment to test that hypothesis, and then modifying or rejecting, or – rarely – accepting the original hypothesis (at least until you can conduct a more definitive experiment).

UN “climate scientists” – the sort accepted by the UN and John Kerry – have been observing an ongoing experiment in the atmosphere for over seventeen years. Throughout that time, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing, by about 10%. The hypothesis is that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere and warms the Earth. But no warming has been observed. How to explain this? Other than to admit the experiment demonstrates the hypothesis is false?

I personally accept that the hypothesis is false. In a previous article, I pointed out that, of infrared radiation emitted from Earth, and absorbed by a greenhouse gas (water vapor or CO2), at least half is re-radiated toward space. The other half (or less) is radiated downward; that’s the “greenhouse effect.” It acts like the insulation in the roof of your house, which helps the furnace keep the house warm, but it won’t set fire to the house. It won’t even heat the house by itself, in the absense of a furnace. You can live in a house with a furnace and no insulation, but a house with no furnace and lots of insulation will still be cold – at least some of the time.

But there are several excuses on offer for the lack of warming, such as the sun is getting colder, or the missing heat is hiding in the oceans, or there’s a lot more volcanic dust in the atmosphere than we thought, or oceanic winds are stronger than modelled, or we just don’t have enough observations in the right places….all excuses that were never mentioned before. Until the last six months, carbon dioxide was the one and only climate control. Now the story is changing; the models were just incomplete, and, as soon as they get their models improved (i.e., keep the “climate scientists” funded), they will figure out what the climate is really doing.

You should not believe this argument, for a fundamental reason. Models of the atmosphere are not reliable beyond about a week. A year? A century? Give me a break! Not a chance.

I’ve been musing over this for a couple of days – the impossibility of modelling the climate. I’m pleased to see that Lord Monckton of Brenchley has written on the same topic. You can read his description of why climate modelling is impossible as well – or you can simply write or call your local weather forecaster. None of this is a secret.

I became a student of meteorology in 1962, at Florida State, and I learned that scientific meteorological forecasting was becoming possible, through the ability of smart meteorologists (i.e., my professors) and the advent of very high-speed computers. The smart meteorologists would write the necessary non-linear partial differential equations in spherical coordinates on a rotating earth and initialize the boundary conditions from the thousands of surface and upper air balloon observations (with satellite observations yet to come) and run (i.e., find the solution that satisfied) the equations and out would come the forecast. Note the word initialize.

The next year, 1963, it all went to Hell. A very smart meteorologist, Ed Lorenz at MIT, started his computer and stepped away for a cup of coffee. When he came back, to his annoyance, he found the computer had stopped for some reason, only part way through. No reason to redo all the calculations, so he restarted the computer, and initialized the calculations with some of the values partway through. This time the calculations ran as far as he wanted, several days into the future. Much to his surprise, when he compared his partial results with the full results, they were very different. Much to everyone’s surprise, the solution to a set of deterministic non-linear partial differential equations depends very much on the initial conditions. Slightly – I mean infinitesimally – small initial condition differences can lead to wildly different forecasts. As Lorenz phrased it, “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could lead to a tornado in Texas.”

So, how does a meteorologist know the initial conditions – always a little uncertain – won’t turn the forecast into nonsense? The National Meteorological Center runs the model several times, with small random variations in the numerical values of the initial conditions, to be sure the forecast doesn’t change drastically. But, over a few days, the inevitable errors – noise – in the initial value data will swamp the valid solution. The forecast always goes wrong.

As I said, every forecaster who has to face real customers in TV land, or the newspapers, or at the airport, or in the Air Force or Navy, is aware of this. That’s one of the reasons most real weather forecasters don’t believe the ivory tower “climate scientists” who offer prognostications of the climate a century from now. Have you noticed the “climate scientists” don’t bother to offer a forecast for next month? Or next year? Gee, I wonder what their verification statistics would look like?

Ed Lorenz discovered a new field of mathematics, called Chaos Theory, a major scientific development. It also includes fractals and fractal art, such as the Mandelbrot set. And the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock (I’m told) contain fractal characteristics. I guess meteorology’s loss is art’s gain. If you wish to know much more about Chaos Theory, The Great Courses (www.teach12.com) offers a very nice 24-lecture course by Professor Strogatz of Cornell.

curry

Ann Curry

Breaking news: the propaganda campaign to control your life and take your money, in the name of saving our children from climate change, will get a fresh hour of nonsense from Ann Curry (NBC News) on Sunday evening, April 6, 7p/6c. Curry will assure us that 2013 was “a year of extremes” that proves …well, I’ll wait to see.

RELATED STORY: Report: Global Warming Causes ‘No Net Harm’ to Environment or Human Health

Queer happenings: Mozilla CEO forced to resign because he supported traditional marriage?

2014-04-03-EichMB

Brendan Eich

Rob Bluey reports, “The chief executive of Mozilla resigned yesterday amid protests over his $1,000 donation in support of California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.  Brendan Eich’s 2008 donation was first revealed two years ago while he was serving in a senior role at Mozilla. But it was after his appointment as CEO last month that half of Mozilla’s board quit and company employees publicly voiced their disapproval. Others launched a public campaign seeking his ouster.”

In the wake of yesterday’s news, Andrew Sullivan, a leading advocate for redefining marriage, said the episode “should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

Heritage Foundation scholars weighed in with their reaction.

Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, warned that “bullies” were poisoning democratic discourse by attacking anyone who doesn’t share their view:

The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser—have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?

When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.

Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow, said the episode was an example of how the disclosure of political contributions served as a means to intimidate and harass an individual for his personal views:

Before Eich resigned, he pointed out that he had kept his personal beliefs out of Mozilla and that they were not relevant to his job as CEO. He was exactly right, although that did not prevent him from resigning.

In a startling display of irony that was obviously lost on her, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who approved of Eich’s resignation, said it was necessary because “preserving Mozilla’s integrity was paramount.” She seems not to recognize that forcing a founder of the company to resign because of his personal beliefs that have nothing to do with his qualifications as a corporate officer is the exact opposite of “integrity.”

Eich is certainly not alone in his predicament. As the Heritage Foundation previously pointed out, other supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, death threats, and anti-religious bigotry. All committed by individuals claiming they are simply trying to gain “acceptance” and who complain about the supposed intolerance of society over their lifestyle.

RELATED STORY: “Eich Is Out. So Is Tolerance.

A Real Man: Further Insights into My 86-Year Old Black Dad

Rev-Lloyd-Marcus-232x300

Reverend Lloyd Marcus

In 1946, Dad and Jackson were the only black Merchant Marines on their ship and the first “coloreds” to land at the base in St. Petersburg Florida. Dad came close to being hung by an angry mob simply for being there.

Dad had a tough beginning. The product of an extra-martial affair, Dad was raised by his aunt, Aunt Nee.

Aunt Nee was a pretty remarkable woman. Though she never graduated high school, Aunt Nee (Rev. Anita Bethea) was extremely articulate, well read, a great singer (reminiscent of Mahalia Jackson), a gifted speaker, student of the Bible and pastor of her own storefront church in Baltimore, Maryland.

I asked Dad what kept him, growing up as a fatherless black child, on the straight and narrow, not getting into crime or drugs. Without hesitation, Dad replied, “Aunt Nee!”

I knew what Dad was talking about. Aunt Nee had this way about her. Her approval felt important. Aunt Nee babysat me. “Lloyd Marcus, you should be ashamed of yourself.” A spanking for my naughty behavior would have felt less painful.

She was a born teacher; no lazy or sloppy speaking was tolerated. Aunt Nee sent me to the corner store. “Ask the grocer for U-nee-da Biscuits”. She distinctly pronounced each syllable.

When Dad was a teen, he was really excited about the latest fashion craze, the zoot suit. Despite his pleas, Aunt Nee refused to allow Dad to purchase a zoot suit because she thought only hoodlums wore zoot suits. That is called parenting, folks.

An entrepreneur since age ten, Dad shined shoes at the bus station on weekends; proudly hauling in a bountiful $1.25 from shoe shines and tips. Dad paid rent to Aunt Nee, treated himself to a day at the movies with popcorn and purchased his first article of clothing; a t-shirt. Dad bragged to his buddies, “I’m buying my own clothes now.” You can not get such a feeling of self esteem, confidence and pride from cradle-to-grave welfare.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Lloyd Marcus, Merchant Marines.

Dad said he and a buddy were misbehaving once on a public bus; nothing serious, but a bit annoying to passengers. A woman said, “It’s how they were raised.” Dad said her comment cut like a knife and stopped him in his tracks. He knew Aunt Nee had raised him better.

Aunt Nee and Dad had a tradition of beginning the new year on their knees in prayer. As a young adult partying in bars on New Year’s Eve, Dad would run home just before midnight to begin the new year on his knees in prayer.

Dad recalled, as a young Merchant Marine, flirting with a much older woman. The beautiful 31-year-old was sitting on his lap, and everything was going great until he accidentally replied to something she said with, “Yes Ma’am”. Overhearing, a fellow sailor chuckled and said, “It’s hard to break way from that home training.”

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Dad was a typical young person, but never strayed too far from the foundation Aunt Nee instilled in him.

I asked Dad, “With no role model, what made you pursue things not typically pursued by blacks?” Dad replied, “I don’t know. Whenever a door opened, I walked through it.”

In the 1950s, Dad was one of a few blacks who broke the color barrier to become a Baltimore City Firefighter.

Dad was Baltimore City’s first black Firefighter of the Year, two times.

Dad was Baltimore City’s first black paramedic.

Dad was the Baltimore City Fire Department’s first black Chaplain.

An exclusive country club offered a special reduced membership rate to “all” firefighters. Dad noted the word “all”. He joined the club. Dad took my younger brothers Jerry and David for a swim in the pool. A stunned black staffer approached Dad in the locker room, “How on earth did you get in here?” When Dad and my brothers got into the swimming pool, the white members exited the pool. Dad kept coming back and eventually the behavior of the white members changed.

After the passing of the Civil Rights bill, Dad took our family to a whites only drive-in-movie. Dad said the ushers directed our car, “That’s it, that’s it, keep going”. Upon realizing that the ushers had guided our car through, out of the drive-in-movie, and back to the main road, Dad and my mom erupted into laughter. As Dad was telling me the story he had difficulty containing his laughter. He still thinks the incident was quite funny.

That is who my dad is, an easy going, good-hearted and upbeat remarkable man.

Years ago, I wrote a tribute song to Dad tilted, “Real Man”.

At 86, Dad’s mind is as sharp as ever. He still pastors four churches. Praise God! I am extremely grateful for every day, I have him in my life.

The Joy of Thinking: Shmuel Trigano

Denmark has banned “ritual slaughter.” Why? Both Muslim and Jewish authorities had already accepted non-penetrating stunning prior to halal or kosher slaughter. There are no kosher slaughterhouses left in Denmark. But that’s not the issue. Agriculture Minister Dan Jørgensen justifies the ban, enacted on February 13th and effective on the 17th, on the grounds that “animal rights come before religious rights.” Similar bans have been imposed in Poland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the Netherlands. What next?

What can explain this seemingly endless wave of hostility against Jews, Judaism, and Zionism either singled out or, as in this case, lumped together with Islam? Confused do-gooders, adding animals to their exquisite concern for the welfare of living creatures, are tearing at the body of Western civilization. The gullible multitude swallows the hype. What is the future of Jews in such a world?

Intense debate has been underway since the dawn of the 21st century, nowhere more fertile than in France, at the European epicenter of the international storm. Our survival depends on our capacity to think! To think clearly, precisely, profoundly, and coherently. High on the list of the Jewish thinkers who have risen to the challenge, Shmuel Trigano gives us keys to understanding our predicament and, hopefully, averting catastrophe. Sociologist, philosopher, academic, prolific writer, he sheds light on the perverse process that leads to the lumping together of Jews and Muslims (as foreign bodies), the damning of “ritual slaughter” (the term is a horror in itself), and the smug conclusion: “animal rights come before religious rights.”

The subject was at the heart of an international Colloquium “L’Union européenne et les nouvelles forms de la question juive” [New forms of the Jewish Question in the European Union], held in Paris on January 26th under the auspices of l’Université populaire du judaïsme and founding director Shmuel Trigano, who introduced the Colloquium with a few words about the newly created Université Populaire, “an alliance of heart and mind.” The aim of this open program of Jewish studies is to examine the Jewish message—eternal Israel—in conjunction with the contemporary situation of Jews, individually and collectively, and the dangers facing the Jewish state in a post-national Western world. In the 20th century, Jews that had been living as individual citizens of European nations were collectively rounded up and exterminated. Subsequently, Jews were chased out of the Arab-Muslim world. Jewish population today is concentrated in Israel, the United States, Western Europe, and Russia.

The first speaker at the Colloquium, Bruno Fiszon—chief rabbi of Metz and a member of the French Veterinary Academy—who defends shechita with scientific precision, gave an inside view of the ferment that led the European Commission to assimilate male circumcision with female genital mutilation, and “ritual slaughter” with savagery. Eurodeputy Marlène Rupprecht, reporter of the commission on circumcision, deplored practices that reveal “the dark side of your religion.” Her colleague Sylvie Goy-Chavent, who also sponsored the resolution discriminating against products from Israel’s “occupied territories,” claims the proceeds of kosher slaughter finance Israel’s army. Something other than animal welfare is at play.

Nine speakers, including Robert Wistrich—author of the recently cancelled UNESCO exhibit on the 3500 year connection between the Jewish people, the Book, and the land of Israel—addressed the “Jewish question” from every angle. Jean-Pierre Bensimon stepped out of the European framework to voice stinging criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry’s misguided peace initiative. Bat Ye’or traced current developments in the Eurabian project she has thoroughly documented: Palestinianism and its anti-Zionist corollary, the peace process as a jihadist plan for the destruction of Israel, replacement of French identity and population, the rejection of rational European civilization in favor of Koranic doctrine, the 2006 Berlin Conference decision to politicize European culture…

Shmuel Trigano outlined the new anti-Semitism that has developed within a new world order: To restore the belief in its own bounty after the Shoah, Europe invented a religion of compassion in a borderless EU consecrated to the defense of The Victim. The victims of the Shoah, bleached of their Jewish specificity and interchangeable with new models, are an object of worship. The nation-state is blamed for the evils of the 20th century and Israel is execrated for its retrograde nationalism, leaving the Jews exposed once more to the danger of extermination if robbed of the protection of the sovereign Jewish state. (A video of the Colloquium is available online. )1

At the end of this day-long studious exercise, participants discovered what had been going on in the streets of Paris: The Day of Rage, billed as a spontaneous coalition of gripes against the Hollande government, the EU, global finance, and a long list of etceteras, had brought forth a vociferous chorus of Jew hatred from one end to the other of the political spectrum. “Jews, Jews, France isn’t for you!”2

The juxtaposition of the insightful Colloquium and the real life manifestation of Jew hatred in distressed French society is a fitting example of the brainspan of Shmuel Trigano, stretching from an inspired interpretation of the founding texts of Judaism to a sharp intuition of the clear and present danger that threatens flesh and blood Jewish people.

Like many others, I discovered Trigano in 2001, with the publication of a quarterly bulletin, l’Observatoire du Monde Juif, that broke through a government and media blackout on attacks against Jews and Jewish property. Each issue of the Observatoire listed anti-Semitic acts (8 full pages in the first quarter of 2001) along with essays by Trigano and astute collaborators, focused on specific themes—media bias, Islamism and the Jews, the New Left and Israel, Israel the pariah state…  Trigano traced the sociological twists by which a long-standing well-integrated Jewish community respectful of the laws and the spirit of the French République was accused of “communautarisme” (clannishness) for coming together to defend itself from the violent anti-Semitism of a recent Muslim immigrant population, hostile to the host country and its values. Later, when the reality could no longer be denied, unprovoked attacks on Jews were travestied as inter-ethnic clashes.

Trigano gave a comprehensive analysis of repercussions of the “Al Aqsa Intifada” in France in La demission de la République/Juifs et musulmans en France [resignation of la République/Jews and Muslims in France], published in 2003.3 There is nothing ideological, emotional, essentialist, or ethnically competitive about his reflection on national identity under the pressure of an unprecedented influx of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan African nations that have been historically in conflict with the West. A population that rejected modernity—experienced “in reverse” as colonization—and practices an unreformed religion that remains inimical to European values will inevitably acquire political clout in a democratic nation that makes no demands on them and shirks its own identity.

Integration, says Trigano, is impossible in the absence of national identity. The current situation, which makes life impossible for French Jews, will create chaos in society at large. The short-lived “victory” of Muslim immigrants, allowed to assert their theoretical domination and claim their rightful place without accepting national values, will inevitably create a prejudicial backlash. He concludes with hopes for a positive outcome based on a pact similar to the agreement made between Napoleon and Jewish authorities that led to the granting of citizenship rights to French Jews. An Islam of France (as opposed to an Islam in France) would formally renounce precepts such as jihad, death to apostates, dominion over infidels, polygamy, oppression of women… No simple task! And Trigano does not toss out the idea like a politician on the campaign trail. Events since “La demission” was published have confirmed the diagnosis and potential solution. The alternative—multiculturalism—is producing exactly the backlash he predicted.

Impressed by Trigano’s lucidity, coherence, integrity, and foresight, I went out of my way to attend any colloquium he organized—including a notable one on the al Dura hoax—read his essays on current events, contributed to the review Controverses he edited from 2006 to 2011, thick handsome volumes that expand the depth and scope of the Observatoire. One issue, for example,4 explored the phenomenon of “alterjuifs,” a term coined to replace the misnomer “self-hating Jews.” In 2010 Trigano short- circuited an attempt to create a European version of J Street: the Raison Garder [be reasonable] petition garnered twice as many signatures as the heftily backed JCall.

This year I am following Trigano’s course at the Université populaire. Ah! If only we were taught Judaism that way when we were young. One evening, as the class ended, he tossed out this pithy idea, like someone offering you a second helping of cake:  “The soul, I think, carries the flesh.” Yes! And his soul carries a generous unpretentious presence with a warm smile on the face of a hidalgo who stepped out of a Spanish painting. “When I’m in the States, strangers address me directly in Spanish.” We sat down together recently for a friendly conversation about his life and work. From details about his youth in Blida (Algeria), where he was born in 1948, to an explanation of his quest for an authentic “Hebrew philosophy,” Shmuel always makes sense! If you had to sum up his thought and his being in one word, you would say: coherent. He has no nostalgia for the Maghreb where he lived as a French citizen in a modern French-speaking family. His parents were afraid to send him to Talmud Torah in those times of revolutionary violence that led to their inevitable flight in 1962. He remembers tenderly their tragi-comic departure: “My father didn’t want to leave. We went to Vichy for a 20-day ‘cure’ at the baths, and when the time was up, we wandered here, there…”  They ended up finally in Paris, like tens of thousands of Jews forced to leave Muslim lands in a context of betrayal, persecution, loss of status and material possessions. The reception was chilly to say the least. But the Sephardic population that would invigorate French Jewish life seized every opportunity to make a fresh start.

Shmuel Trigano is first and foremost a writer. Not a philosopher trained in the discipline, but a thinker who reaches the philosophical level through the dynamics of writing creatively, with utmost honesty and intuitive confidence. After a brief excursion, at the age of 15, in “a Camus style fiction, the beach, the cruel Mediterranean sun…” he embarked on his life’s work, a highly original inquiry that began with the brutal expulsion from the land of his birth. From the youthful question—why did this happen to me—he has traveled, by writing, from the personal to the general to the essential. What happened to Jews, what is happening to us, who are we, what do we bring to humanity, how do we survive?

Picking up at the lycée in Paris the studies he had left in Blida, Trigano passed his baccalauréat, learned Hebrew and set out for Israel, immersed in the kibbutz, the landscape, Zionism, and studies at Hebrew University, graduating with a BA in political science. But the coherence he hungered was not yet on the program. The dichotomy between “thought” and “Jewish thought” existed in Israel as in the Diaspora as in Western civilization. “Israelis,” says Trigano, “speak a European language with Hebrew words.”

He returned to France to pursue a quest that seemed to require linguistic duality, using French to cast light on the stunning dimension of Biblical Hebrew. With a Doctorate in Sociology, he began the university career that has allowed him to write while exercising his authentic talent as a teacher. He took a six- month leave of absence to compose Récit de la disparue, an essay on Jewish identity, sent the manuscript “over the transom” to numerous publishers… and had no response until, one year later, he learned that Pierre Nora, an editor at the prestigious house of Gallimard, had decided to publish the manuscript after getting the approval of Emmanuel Lévinas, Henri Meschonnic, and Maurice Blanchot. The book came out in 1977.5

Thirty-seven years later, Shmuel Trigano finds himself once more in a linguistic-cultural-geographic conundrum. The French language, which has lost nothing of its vibrant beauty and capacity for expression, is losing its territorial scope. And Jews in France are tottering on the edge of a familiar precipice. The same Muslim population that forced them to flee Arab lands has now created such a hostile environment in France that many envisage another exodus. The French language once practiced by fine minds all over the world is becoming a backwater, a trap for thinkers whose work is not easily translated and marketable. We who are enduring this difficult period in contemporary French history have the privilege of reading their works in the original; it isn’t a golden age, but there’s some silver in it.6

The outburst of violence against Jews triggered by the “Al Aqsa Intifada” awoke, in the depths of Shmuel Trigano’s soul, hidden memories of the exodus from Algeria. As if he could finally experience the pain and distress and know, once again, the sinking feeling that the state cannot protect you. After more than a decade of intense writing and activity centered on this new anti-Semitism often disguised by an anti-Zionist cloud, Shmuel Trigano discovered, as if it had written itself, his magnum opus, Judaïsme et l’esprit du monde.

Acclaimed by Roger Pol-Droit7—“an exceptional endeavor…. remarkable coherence imposed on a dizzying diversity of themes…”—this monumental work reveals the erudition that underlies Shmuel Trigano’s every intellectual gesture. Jacques Tarnero, reviewing Trigano’s most recent publication, Politique du people juif, praises his extraordinary intellectual creation, a tireless quest, the matrix of his thought: what is the question that Israel raises in a world relentlessly determined not to hear it? “Judaism,” says Trigano, “is a concept of the world, a vision of the universe and the cosmos, not a narrow province…”8

“The world, the void, nothingness, creation are not mysteries, they can be the subject of Man’s comprehension. No magic is possible in this perspective….  The intellectuality of Judaic spirituality is touched with grace, informed with a poetic sensitivity. The language …is not dry rhetoric; it is the contours of a natural landscape… The Land of Israel is that land and that language.” Judaïsme et l’esprit du monde [p. 196]

image001EDITORS NOTE: Nidra Poller’s book is Karimi Hotel is now available in English and Al Dura: long range ballistic myth is available on Kindle.

[1] Video of colloquium http://www.akadem.org/_articles/342/57342.php . An English version will eventually be available.

[2] http://www.d-intl.com/2014/02/10/frances-united-front-of-jew-hatred/?lang=en

[3] La Démission de la République/ Juifs et Musulmans en France. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2003.

[4]  http://www.controverses.fr/ N° 4, Feb. 2007

[5] Le récit de la disparue/ essai sur l’identité juive. Paris, Gallimard, 1977, Folio-Gallimard, 2001

[6] English-speaking readers can discover  Shmuel Trigano in: Philosophy of Law Shalem Press, 2012

The Democratic Ideal, the unthought in Political Modernity SUNY Press, 2009.

Texts http://www.shmuel-trigano.fr/texts-english.html] and

Interviews  http://www.shmuel-trigano.fr/interviews.html in English on his site.

Shmuel Trigano’s “intellectual confession” will appear in Jewish Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century: Personal Reflections, edited by Aaron Hughes and Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Brill Academic Publishers. http://www.brill.com/

[7] [Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2011/02/03/shmuel-trigano-voir-le-judaisme-du-dehors-et-du-dedans_1474367_3260.html]

[8] [http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jacques-tarnero/politique-peuple-juif_b_2581932.html]

Saving Civilization Means Killing Equality

If a famine befell us and you couldn’t save everyone, would you withhold the food you had and let every citizen starve rather than endure the inequality of just saving some? If recent history is any guide, certain leftists just might say yes.

A good example of this phenomenon involved a multiple sclerosis patient in Gothenburg, Sweden, who was denied a more effective and expensive medication — even though he was willing to pay for it — because, wrote columnist Walter Williams in 2009, “bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.” No wonder Winston Churchill said that socialism’s “inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

And another example just reared its ugly head in Plymouth, Michigan, where the locality’s high school is tearing down newly constructed bleachers in deference to the equality police. MyFoxDetroit.com reports on the issue, writing:

A new set of seating is being torn down outside the Plymouth Wildcats varsity boys’ baseball field, not long before the season begins, because the fields for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal.

A group of parents raised money for a raised seating deck by the field, as it was hard to see the games through a chain-link fence. The parents even did the installation themselves, and also paid for a new scoreboard.

So what happened? Some unnamed malcontent lodged a complaint with the feral government, at which point U.S Education Department Office for Civil Rights overlords decreed that the seating must go. Ain’t equality grand?

Except that equality is simply a ruse. And think about it with respect to this issue:  the principle is that facilities “for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal,” but are boys’ and girls’ athletics equal? The striking contradiction in these male/female sports equality controversies is that calls for “equality” are deferred to within the context of the acceptance and promotion of an inherently unequal system. That is to say, if equality is the guiding principle here, why have separate leagues, teams and tours — protected from the best competition — for girls and women?

The solution, whether it’s the Plymouth situation or calls for equal prize money in tennis, is simple. If a lightweight boxer wants the purses the heavyweights get, he needs to fight and succeed in the heavyweight class; likewise, if feminists want what the boys/men have, they should try to compete in their arena. And I do advocate this: eliminate separate categories for women, and let the sexes compete together on a level playing field. After all, to echo what Lincoln said about laws, the best way to eliminate bad social policy is to enforce it strictly. If you believe in equality, practice it.

Live it.

And live with it.

And since the boys’ American high-school mile record is considerably faster than the women’s world record — and since this gap appears, with some variation, across sports — my proposal would provide some necessary “policy clarification.”

The education department’s decree is also an attack on charity. The message is that pursuing good works just might be a waste of time because, inevitably, they’ll conflict with some government regulation or mandate. It’s in addition a quasi-Marxist assault on the market. After all, the Plymouth community’s interest in building new baseball bleachers was no doubt driven by there being greater fan turnout for the boys’ games. And the market renders such verdicts all the time. It’s said that female fashion models earn three times what their male counterparts do, bars may offer women free drinks or entry without a cover charge, and no one troubles over women-only health clubs. It’s only when market determinations seem to benefit boys or men that the equality ruse is trotted out.

The truth is that equality dogma is a fiction of modern times. As for the timeless, the word “equality” appears in only 21 biblical verses, mostly referring to matters such as weights and measures. There’s good reason for this, and don’t blame it on the supposed “backwardness” of religion because a devout evolutionist would have to be the staunchest believer in hierarchies born of natural inequality. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, “[I]f they [people] were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” Look around you at the world of nature and man, which, if the evolutionists are correct, are certainly one and the same. How much equality do you see? Rams butt heads, and one ram wins and the other loses; wolves have alphas and one male lion dominates and leads a pride. Then, there are 3.1 billion possible combinations when a couple has a child. And, oh, what combinations they can be. How many of us can play golf like Tiger Woods, defy gravity and shoot baskets like Michael Jordan or compose music at four years of age as did Mozart? People have greatly varying IQs, physical capabilities, personalities, inclinations toward virtue and gifts. Equality is a pipe dream.

This variation exists among groups, too. Ashkenazi Jews have the world’s highest average IQ, while Asians enjoy that status insofar as major groups go. And disease and conditions have no regard for equality, either: the Pima Indians have the highest rate of diabetes on Earth, breast cancer afflicts mainly women, the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease is highest among Jews, black men suffer from prostate cancer at twice the rate whites do, while sickle-cell anemia is found almost exclusively among blacks. I guess reality is “racist.”

Reality is actually this: it’s completely illogical and contradictory for a person to claim on one hand that he believes in classical, cosmic-accident evolution, but on the other that all groups somehow, quite accidentally, wound up the same in capacity, inclination and worldly abilities. After all, since evolution holds that groups lived and developed separately for millions of years — subject to different environments, stresses, adaptive requirements and to the luck of the draw — their winding up “equal” was, for all intents and purposes, a mathematical impossibility.

Earlier evolutionists recognized and accepted this reality, mind you, and in fact became eugenicists. Note here that the term “eugenics” was coined by Charles Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton. Also note that the concept greatly predates the term: Greek philosopher Plato advocated murdering weak children, and the Spartans had actually done it.

This doesn’t mean I embrace eugenics or classical evolution (my views on the latter are found here). The point is that whether you believe we’re accidentally different or that, as St. Therese learned, there are even divinely ordained hierarchies in Heaven, equality is certainly not a thing of this world.

This helps explain why entities prescribing “equality” — such as the early French republic and all the Marxist killing-field regimes — become the worst tyrannies. Since equality is wholly unnatural, its mullahs must violate man’s nature, must trump it and twist it, in an effort to pound their sinister square peg into the round hole of reality. And woe betide he who defies their self-deified will.

Cries for equality are today the second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel (shouts of “racism” are the absolute last). Contrary to what Churchill said, however, they don’t actually visit upon us an equal sharing of misery. Rather, the pigs more equal than others will dispense the ever-diminishing pork to the peons, as they feed at the trough of modern man’s sloth, envy and error.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Josephou. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Selling Envy: How governments promote the worst in us to redistribute wealth by TERREE P. SUMMER

The current fuss over inequality has a classic feel to it. For one thing, it’s one of the oldest plays in the Progressive playbook. But it’s a well-established maneuver for governments everywhere. The idea is to appeal to the age-old feelings of envy and guilt that arise in virtually every person: Why should some have more than others? Is it fair that some people or whole countries have greater wealth and higher incomes while others struggle?

History is rife with examples of politician-induced envy in order to attempt to justify redistribution. Those who fomented the Russian revolution in the early twentieth century tempted the proletariat with the property of the affluent. Hitler enticed the populace toward envy of the Jews, many of whom were economically successful in Europe, to help construct his national socialist empire. Miquel Faria, in his book,Cuba in Revolution: Escape from a Lost Paradise, states, “As in all socialist systems, Castro uses envy, class hatred, and class warfare.” Much the same has been true of Peronist Argentina.

It pits us against each other, letting politicians leverage an instinctive reaction to gain power. It’s an effective tactic and the rhetoric of inequality remains an effective cover, which is why politicians still trot it out routinely. But the policies it perpetuates will end up impoverishing any country.

Wealth redistribution inevitably robs every person of their freedoms. Equality is never achieved; the wealth is mostly shifted to those currently in power, who administer and derive political support from redistributive programs. The masses remain impoverished, and those in power remain, for as long as they can, the supposed champions of those masses, struggling for a fair redistribution.

This process was diagnosed some time ago by Helmut Schoeck, in his 1966 book Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior. According to Schoeck, “The revolutionary movements in South American republics, Bolshevism in Russia, the resentful Populists in the United States (today the Progressives), all were supported by those circles who would clearly be the first to take a malicious delight in the levelling of society. But without exception, and sometimes in the course of a few decades, the new ruling caste has become a bourgeoisie or a plutocracy.” Inevitably, those promulgating envy as a means to levelling, in the end become the same class they earlier despised.

History has shown us that the result of trying to enact income equality is that you achieve a society where all the citizens are poor together. Ludwig von Mises, in Socialism, wrote,

Most people who demand the greatest possible equality of incomes do not realize that what they desire would only be achieved by sacrificing other aims. They imagine that the sum of incomes will remain unchanged and that all they need to do is to distribute it more equally than it is distributed in the social order based on private property…. It must be clearly understood, however, that this idea rests on a grave error. It has been shown that, in whatever way one envisages the equalization of incomes this must always and necessarily lead to a very considerable reduction of the total national income and, thus, also, of the average income. For we have then to decide whether we are in favor of an equal distribution of income at a lower average income, or inequality of incomes at a higher average income. [emphasis added]

European countries moved toward socialism and levelling in a big way during the twentieth century, partially in order to decrease income equality in monarchies in which only a few had wealth and the rest lived in poverty. But what has been the result?

According to Richard Florida, co-founder and editor at large at The Atlantic Cities, “The U.S. accounts for about a third of all high-net-worth people (60,657), and Europe is home to 54,170.” The actual numbers are not starkly different. In 2012, 24 percent, or 120 million people, of the 500 million people in the European Union were listed as at risk of poverty. In the same year, the U.S. poverty rate (out of 318 million people) was 15 percent, roughly 46.5 million people. Socialist policies that attempt to level the economic playing field are repeatedly unsuccessful. As Winston Churchill stated, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,” and “The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

A society that encourages envy in order to “level the playing field” for its citizens is a society that will implode from within. Oppressive government spending programs requiring high taxation and controls on individuals can lead to economic stagnation or even collapse. There is something particularly sordid about politicians who play on our envy. It is a game of power and control and it can lead people to justify using violence to take the property of others. Citizens of every country should learn to recognize whether politicians are manipulating them by playing on their envy. Only when we learn to aspire and admire those that are economically successful, and not be envious of them, will we see our economies flourish.

ABOUT TERREE P. SUMMER

Terree P. Summer is an economist and author specializing in healthcare and the federal budget. She is the author of What Has Government Done to Our Health Care? published by the Cato Institute (1992).

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