After conducting an extensive study on homosexual behavior, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that those involved in such lifestyles experience a far greater amount of violence from one another than those in heterosexual relationships.
The results show that men and women involved in homosexual behavior undergo much higher rates of sexual violence than men and women who are heterosexual.
Surprising to many, homosexual women experience more violence than men. According to the study, a whopping 44 percent of lesbians were either raped, experienced physical abuse, and/or were stalked by their intimate partners during their lifetime. Even more shockingly, 61 percent of bisexual women endured such violence from their partners.
It is also reported that 37 percent of bisexual women indicated they were stalked, which is more than double the rate that heterosexual women experience from their male partners.
Furthermore, the CDC found that 37 percent of bisexual women were injured during the rape, physical violence, and/or stalking that they experienced at the hands of their sexual partners.
I was attacked and injured by a Muslim Iranian woman in Ottawa in front of the Parliament Hill in 2009 for waving the Real Iran Flag (image of the Lion and Sun right) in my hand. Identifying the attacker took than over 3.5 years for Ottawa police. Actually, I found her by chance in Tony Young’s website, where she and her family were invited at Tony’s open house Xmas party in December 2011.
The Muslim woman who attacked me admitted the assault and told the detective in charge of my case that she became very emotional and upset when she saw the old Iran flag waving in my hand and could not control her anger and storm toward me to vanish the flag.
But despite her confession, the Ottawa Police decided not to press any charges against her.
FYI , after she was identified, we were informed that the woman held American Green Card but lived mostly in Ottawa with one of her daughters whose immigration case was rejected by Canada due to failing her medical test where it was given so much publicity by Mainstream Media for. But non of those MSM were interested in interviewing me and giving publicity to the assault.
I do not have anything personally against my attacker but since we live in Canada, under the rule of law, we should all be treated equally without given favoritism. I did not leave Iran to come to Canada to be accosted and persecuted by the same law that victimized me in Iran. In Canada, under Mr. Trudeau’s power, if someone verbally says something that a Muslim might find it ;’offensive’, she/her will be charged on the Spot by the Police. Ottawa. Hope you realize my point and I am sure if Christ was to judge me as a Christian, He would want me to speak up for my rights.
Shortly after reading my incident report, the Ottawa police Crown Prosecutor told the police detective that there may be a bad blood between the women!!!
I told the detective, “what Bad Blood, I never saw that woman in my life before, how could be there any bad blood?” And after 3.5 years. I found who she was…
Please read the following email sent to me by the Ottawa Police detective:
From: Detective XX
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:01:29
To: Shabnam Asassadollahi
Subject: RE: Case # XX _The assault_ 2009 in front of the Parliament Hill
Hello Ms. Assadollahi, I have interviewed the people involved in this incident including the older woman. After considering all the aspects of the matter, including the nature of the incident, the emotions and circumstances surrounding it, the absence of a continuation or repetition of the offence, the administration of justice, and directives from the court and crown attorney, no criminal charges will be laid in this matter. It will be finalized by another measure which will indicate that the subject could have been charged but was not. I am currently away from the office at the moment but will likely check my e-mail before I officially return. Feel free to contact me by e-mail of by leaving a message at extension.
I am curious to know that if the above assault was vise-versa, how would the Ottawa Police conduct their judgment?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ottawa-police-shoulder-patch.jpg357635Shabnam Assadollahihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngShabnam Assadollahi2015-12-14 07:32:532015-12-15 04:00:35The double standard of the Ottawa Police and Canadian Mainstream Media
There seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims. At the same time, Islamic operatives enlist liberal support for their anti-liberal goals.
After a recent trip to Israel, former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann reportedly called upon Christians to step up efforts to convert the Jews. Her pronouncement was met with indignation from across the Jewish political spectrum – and deservedly so, as it displayed a patronizing and flawed understanding of Jewish scripture and history. But as misguided as it certainly was, it was not a call to pogrom or massacre; and while Jews have every right to be offended, such comments are benign, albeit insulting, and pose no threat to Jewish life, limb, or belief.
Ironically, few of those who criticized Bachmann would ever chastise those Muslims who preach doctrinal supremacism or reject the very concept of a Jewish state. Nor would they denounce leftist ideologues who defend progressive anti-Semitism as political speech or delegitimize Israel. The question, then, is how they can reconcile assertive condemnations of Christian missionary zeal with apologetic attitudes towards radical Islam and a refusal to acknowledge the religious basis for much of today’s terrorism.
As suggested by ongoing dialogue between the nontraditional movements and dubious Muslim advocacy organizations, and by liberal support for progressive groups like the New Israel Fund, there seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims. There is also a tendency to express admiration for Islamic values while ignoring troubling dogmas that discourage free speech and demonize Jews.
Jewish progressives are quick to praise Islamic culture as peaceful and tolerant, yet few have actually read the Quran, Hadith, Sira, or classical legal commentaries. Fewer still have any concept of the stringent nature of Sharia or how “infidels” are treated thereunder. They overlook the history of Jews in Islamic lands, where subjugation, massacres, segregation, pogroms, and forced conversions were the rule, not the exception; and they rationalize Muslim Jew-hatred as a modern consequence of the Arab-Israel conflict.
In denying the existence of traditional anti-Semitism in Islamic society, these sophists also claim that the Quran and Hadith are no different from the Torah and Talmud. But Jewish law does not command the subjugation of Gentiles and has no jihad-like tradition of holy war. Whereas Halakha applies to Jews, Sharia purports to bind non-Muslims, whom it regards as infidels to be conquered, taxed and converted.
These issues were discussed at a recent program in Massachusetts entitled, “Western Media and Sharia Law: A Fundamental Misunderstanding,” featuring Daniel Akbari, an ex-Muslim and former Sharia lawyer from Iran, and Lt. Col. Roy White, a retired U.S. Air Force combat pilot and Gulf war veteran.
Before renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity, Mr. Akbari defended clients accused of capital offenses in Sharia courts. He was jailed and tortured for apostasy before coming to the United States, and is the author of many articles and two books, “Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources,” and “New Jihadists and Islam.”
Lt. Col. White served in various Air Force command positions for twenty years and now heads the San Antonio, Texas chapter of “ACT! for America,” which is at the forefront of the counter-jihad movement. Through the “Truth in Texas Textbooks Coalition” he spearheaded a review of books being considered by the Texas State Board of Education for use in its public schools, which exposed more than 1,500 errors regarding, among other things, Jewish history, Christianity, and the historical use of violence against non-Muslims. As a result, hundreds of errors were corrected or deleted, and many of the textbooks were rejected altogether.
One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within.
Mr. Akbari and Col. White discussed the spread of Islamism in the West, which they see as a consequence of doctrinal supremacism combined with a western failure to discuss it or acknowledge its existence. They explained that jihad can be violent or nonviolent, and that in the absence of sufficient power to dominate infidel society by force, it is permissible to advance the faith bytaqiyya (deception).
Propagating the faith covertly is the modus operandi of many extremists posing as moderates in the West. The principles of “civilizational jihad” were articulated in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” reportedly written for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was entered in evidence by federal prosecutors in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a terror financing trial in 2009. One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within. They commonly use political correctness to portray themselves as a minority (despite a global Muslim population of approximately 1.6 billion) and to characterize their opponents as bigots.
According to Mr. Akbari, the term “Islamophobia” was created to chill discourse by equating critical discussion of Islam or Sharia with unwarranted prejudice, adopting the strategy of gay rights activists who coined the term “homophobia” to describe opposition to their cause. Stealth Islamists understood how quickly the term “homophobic” became synonymous with “bigot,” and endeavored to manipulate language to similar effect. The irony is that in so doing they emulated the strategy of a group that suffers greatly in Sharia states.
It’s equally ironic that their operatives in the West have enlisted progressive support to advance an agenda that contravenes liberal principles. According to Akbari, they have beguiled western progressives by claiming only to be protecting a minority culture while downplaying supremacist religious doctrine. He believes the distinction between culture and religion is artificial, however, and that in evaluating the long-term goals of civilizational jihad it is necessary to determine those of Sharia.
In assessing the nature of Sharia, Akbari said one must analyze its rules and determine whether harsh applications can be militated by interpretation. Informed by his experiences growing up in Iran and practicing law in Sharia courts, he opined that punishments such as crucifixion, beheading and amputation reflect a body of law that is anti-western. Moreover, the prevalence of honor killings of women and girls who adopt western manners or refuse arranged marriages cannot be ignored. These killings have occurred in North America and Europe without comment from apologists who so freely characterize critics of Sharia as racists and bigots.
Mr. Akbari believes that many Muslims who came to the US and Europe a generation ago were nominally religious and had little understanding of Sharia law and doctrine. Indeed, many were fleeing persecution and had no interest in forcing their beliefs on others. But as first generation children began to assimilate, their parents often encouraged them to attend Islamic centers run by fundamentalist clerics, or student groups under the aegis of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is in fundamentalist environments where youths from acculturated homes become radicalized and learn the use of dissimulation. Mr. Akbari noted that a sure sign of taqiyya is the claim that the word jihad does not mean war, but instead means “fighting evil temptation,” a definition that he said is not found in Islamic scripture. According to Akbari, this interpretation requires a suspension of orthodox belief, which itself could be considered heretical. There is nothing heretical, however, in claiming to be moderate to advance jihadist goals. And no expense is spared promoting such efforts, particularly in public schools and on college campuses.
Both Akbari and White expressed concern about the prevalence of Islamist propaganda in American schools. White’s work in vetting textbooks is a response to the proliferation of educational materials from questionable sources that seek to indoctrinate schoolchildren. At a time when organized prayer and moments of reflective silence are banned in American public schools, many districts are using materials that teach Islamic principles, and parents who complain are often branded “Islamophobic.” Sometimes it takes interventions by activists like Col. White to force schools to reassess their counterintuitive – and perhaps unconstitutional – use of such materials.
The problem is especially acute on college campuses, where groups with ties to organizations like the Brotherhood are accorded respect and credibility, and where anti-Semitism is pervasive, Israel is vilified, and free speech is denied those who disagree with the agenda. Universities boasting anti-hate speech codes only seem to enforce them when progressive or Muslim sensibilities are offended, not when Jewish students are abused or conservative students are penalized for voicing their opinions.
The divide between western enablers and critics of radical Islam is reflected in the debate over Syrian refugees. The left advocates relaxing immigration restrictions and admitting refugees with little scrutiny, while the majority calls for a cautious approach in light of the skewed demographic profile of the refugee population, seventy to eighty percent of which consists of single men of fighting age. Furthermore, many are non-Syrians with fake passports or are suspected of having terrorist sympathies or affiliations. This is especially troubling in light of reports that at least one of those responsible for the recent carnage in Paris entered France as a refugee.
Through it all, progressives refuse to identify the problem, and their critics tend to limit the danger to extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. But western society would be better served by recognizing the dogmas that motivate extremism and the existence of civilizational jihad. If Americans and Europeans are to prevail against today’s terrorism, they will need to discard their stupefying political correctness, acknowledge the doctrines that sanctify violence, and assert those values that are under attack. Falling short will only facilitate submission and defeat.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/radical-islam-behead-e1635678281818.jpg366640Matthew Hausman, J.D.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMatthew Hausman, J.D.2015-12-13 07:44:432015-12-13 07:45:07The Continuing Failure to Confront Radical Islam
My 87 year old black dad is a baby conservative. After several years of me printing out my articles and mailing them to him, Dad finally realized his loyalty to Democrats was not only misguided, but was actually destructive to blacks. Thus, I have become Dad’s Conservatism coach.
He phoned me with a chuckle in his voice, “What do you think about Donald Trump?” Dad was referring to Trump’s comment about restricting Muslims from entering our country for awhile.
Despite my efforts to guide him to conservative media, Dad still gets his news from the MSM; a fan of Don Lemon at CNN. Consequently, Dad has been taught by the MSM that all opposition to Leftists implementing their liberal socialist/progressive agenda is racism or hate.
While on the stepping machine at the gym, one of the TVs was on CNN. CNN featured numerous panel discussions purposed to portray Trump as a racist ignorant SOB for suggesting a temporary ban on Muslims entering our country. The truth is there is historical precedent for Trump’s proposal. It is a common sense precaution to protect Americans. Still, the MSM foolishly hoped Trump’s Muslim ban proposal would be the final nail in his presidential hopeful coffin.
I offered Dad a parable. Imagine that you were starving. A gruff burly un-bathed biker comes along and gives you food. You would ignore the biker’s rough-edges and foul odor, right? Dad said, “Yes, I would say praise the Lord.” I said, “Dad, the American people are starving for a renewal of America’s greatness.” I recited a list of Obama’s lies and anti-American policies. I informed Dad to how voters have been betrayed by Republicans, reneging on their vow to push back against Obama’s lawless implementation of his socialist/progressive agenda.
So along comes Donald Trump promising starving Americans a feast of renewed American greatness. Starving excited voters with forks in hand ready to eat, crossing all demographics, have taken a seat at Trump’s table. I explained to Dad that Ted Cruz is Donald Trump without the slightly unpleasant smell. Please do not get me wrong folks. I am not dissing Trump. I am merely interjecting a bit of humor. I would enthusiastically give Trump my vote if he became the GOP presidential nominee.
All I am saying is Ted Cruz is a true conservative who offers all the boldness, fearlessness and promises of Trump but with presidential gravitas and moral authority.
Confronting the arrogance of Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch, Cruz has once again proven he will take no prisoners when standing up for liberty and the American people.
In a nutshell, despite the most recent Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino in which 14 Americans were murdered, Lynch has decreed that she will throw anyone in jail who dares to speak badly about Muslims.
Well, my man Ted Cruz immediately jumped into Lynch’s case. Cruz scolded Lynch and Obama.
“We see Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, promising in the wake of this terrorist attack – does she come out and say, ‘We’re going to track down the terrorists and kill them’?
No, she says prosecute anyone that has the temerity to stand up and speak against radical Islamic terrorism.
Well, let me tell you right now, radical Islamic terrorism is evil.”
Then Cruz jumped into Obama’s case – addressing his absurd arrogant accusation.
“Mr. President, there is not a moral equivalence between radical Islamic terrorists and Christians and Jews.
One has a philosophy from day one of murdering those who they consider infidels; the other preach love and forgiveness and standing together as one humanity.
And let me say beyond that in the United States, we will not enforce Sharia Law.
And Madam attorney general, if you wanna come prosecute me for executing my First Amendment rights, come and get me, I’m right here!”
Folks, if that doesn’t get your blood going and have you standing up and cheering, nothing will. Cruz’s rant was bold, and yet, dignified, morally straight and presidential.
Donald Trump is Mr Right Now. Sen Ted Cruz is the real-deal Mr Right; prayerfully our next Mr President.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-cruz-thumbs-up.jpg382636Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2015-12-13 05:54:542015-12-13 05:54:54Trump: Mr. Right Now — Cruz: Mr. Right
ISIS does not want to be called Daesh. The group considers the acronym insulting and dismissive. An increasing number of its opponents do not want it to be called the “Islamic State.” They fear that this shorthand reifies the terrorist group’s claims to be a legitimate government.
The debate reminds us that names have power.
Avid readers of fairy tales have always known this. Calling Rumpelstiltskin by his real name banishes him and foils his baby-stealing plans. Speaking your name to a witch or wizard can give them power over you. Patrick Rothfuss’s wildly popular Kingkiller Chronicles contains a magic system where learning the name of an element — like the wind — gives a person magical control over it. And everyone knows what happens when you say Beetlejuice’s name three times.
Converts to new religions often take new names to honor the transformation. We mark significant passages in our lives — birth, marriage, death — with new names. Miss Smith becomes Mrs. Jones. Junior becomes Senior when Senior dies. There’s even an old Jewish tradition that says that, in times of serious illness, one should take a new name in order to fool the Angel of Death.
Whether we believe in magic or religion or not, we feel the power of names throughout our lives. Who didn’t go through a childhood phase of wanting a different name? I was wildly jealous of Catholic friends who got to choose confirmation names. A college friend declared that her first day in college was “time to get a nickname” and had us all brainstorm until she found one she liked. It stuck for the whole four years, and long after. Other college friends made legal name changes to more accurately reflect their cultures or their lives. As an adult, I declined to change my name when I got married because I wanted to hold onto myself. I thought for months about choosing my daughters’ names.
I’m a strong advocate of calling people what they like to be called. My kids try on nicknames like I try on jewelry — experimenting with their identities from day to day and solemnly explaining that from now on, they shall answer to nothing other than “Pumpernickel,” or that “Abby” is now verboten and “Abigail” is in favor. I happily acquiesce in all the changes as they figure out who they are. And I love the new nicknames they create for me. (The latest is “Bob,” because that’s what it sounds like when you say “Mom” with a head cold.)
I think, too, that it is important to use the names that transgendered individuals have chosen for themselves, and the pronouns that reflect their gender — even if it’s an awkward or hard-to-remember change for me. The same goes for other communities based on culture, race, religion, or other common identity. At a bare minimum, as we go through the world, we should have the liberty to say peacefully who we are. And it is a small thing for us to do, generally, to give the respect and the acknowledgement that comes with using someone’s requested name.
But ISIS, or Daesh, is another matter entirely.
It is too late to treat Daesh as Yoko Ono requested that John Lennon’s assassin be treated — by denying it the dignity of a name we deign to speak aloud. We have done nothing but name it and talk about it and publicize its actions. It is probably inappropriate for a family publication to suggest that we might take the Wonderella approach to express our contempt. But we certainly can use an accurate translation of the name they have chosen and turn it into a mildly insulting acronym.
Sarah Skwireis the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/islamic-state-flag-soldiers-e1449936334254.png305640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-12 11:08:272015-12-12 11:08:27The Islamic State by Any Other Name by Sarah Skwire
The fight for global dominion by the greatest evil in history, the radical forces of Islam, has been going on for more than 1200 years. In 732 AD the Muslim Army, moving to occupy Paris, was defeated by Charles Martell at the Battle of Tours. Muslims retreated to their own part of the world for brief periods, but continued their efforts to expand their empire until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The years that followed were but a brief respite.
Islam’s conquest of the habitable portions of the Earth has been going on for 1,400 years. For most of that time the conflicts have been limited geographically to Europe and the Middle East. But now, for the first time, Islam is attempting to invade and conquer the United States by using our freedoms, our laws, and our tradition of openness against us.
Unfortunately, far too many Americans, focused as they are on the exigencies of their daily lives, are so insulated from reality that they appear not to notice. They appear totally unaware that the Muslim world is rapidly imposing what the Quran refers to as hijrah, or jihad by emigration. The mass migration of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to Europe, the British Isles, and North America is exactly what Mohammed had in mind when he wrote:
“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (Sura 4:100).”
With the creation of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, millions of refugees move westward into Europe, Scandinavia, and the British Isles, while hordes of black African Muslims sail north across the Mediterranean on anything that floats, attempting to invade Spain, France, and Italy. Many of those on board who are identified as non-Muslims are tossed into the sea and left to drown. Yes, these are the “peace-loving” refugees that Barack Obama, liberals and Democrats, and the Republican congressional leadership expect us to welcome with open arms. And while the mass migration of Muslims into Western Europe will likely destroy the age-old cultures of those countries in a few short years, it is clear that the United States is their ultimate target.
So who are these people? An April 17, 2015, article in The Counter Jihad Report, by Y.K. Cherson, provides some startling statistics on Islamic terrorism. Cherson tells us that, in 2011, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third year in a row. Over 5,700 incidents were committed by Sunnis, accounting for nearly 56% of all attacks and about 70% of 12,533 fatalities. Cherson quotes a U.S. State Department report which tells us that, in 2013, a total of 9,707 terror attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 casualties. Just three Muslim terror groups… the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram… were responsible for 5,655 (31.8%) of the 17,800 deaths.
So what is it that motivates them to come to the United States? Why do they want to come here?
Since there is little chance that a large Muslim population will ever make a positive contribution to our culture or to our well-being, we are forced to ask why they would want to live in a land where they are not wanted or needed. They have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of assimilating into American culture; they want only to transplant their Muslim culture in the fertile soil of the U.S. Americans will never allow that to happen, so why do they insist on a confrontation that can only result in protracted violence and bloodshed?
In a speech titled the “First State of Homeland Security Address” at the National Defense University on December 7, 2015, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, had some sobering words for his audience. He reminded his audience that, as recently as his 2015 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama assured us that “the shadow of crisis has passed” in the war against radical Islam.
Nevertheless, McCaul reported that, in the past year, the FBI has undertaken investigations into more than 1,000 cases of home-grown terrorists, across all 50 states. As a result, the FBI has identified 19 ISIS-connected terror plots in the U.S., including plans to murder numbers of tourists on Florida beaches, plans to set off pipe bombs on Capitol Hill, plans to bomb New York City’s famous landmarks, and plans to live-stream a massive attack on an American college campus. Still, many Americans and most political leaders, of both parties, appear blithely unconcerned about the immediacy of the danger… apparently more concerned about being politically correct than they are about the life-or-death nature of the threat.
In previous columns I have attempted to draw attention to the inability of many Americans to intellectually process the clear and present danger posed by Muslim immigration. I have reminded readers of estimates that only 5% (one of every twenty) of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are radicalized. That statistic may give liberals and Democrats a degree of comfort, but the rest of us are clearly not comfortable with the idea of some 75 million suicide bombers and potential mass murderers running around amongst us with hate in their hearts for non-Muslims.
To put that number into perspective, we might recall that, at the height of WW II, the combined uniformed forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy numbered only 34.4 million… and, unlike their Muslim counterparts, they were all people who treasured life over death.
To make the threat of radical Islam a bit more understandable for all those gullible Americans who profess no fear of Muslim immigration, I’ve asked how they might react if we offered them a bowl containing 100 M&M candies, but with the admonition that five of the pieces were toxic (poisonous). How many pieces of candy would they eat?
The point is, Islam is the only religious movement on Earth that proposes to extend its control to every corner of the Earth by terror, murder, and oppression. And since the 95% of Muslims who are either “moderate” or “un-radicalized” appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no alternative but to prohibit them from residing within the civilized nations of the Earth. That is precisely why Donald Trump has suggested that the United States call at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration.
The reaction to his suggestion was swift and predictable. Liberals, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media were quick to denounce him, while members of his own party called upon him to withdraw from the Republican presidential primaries. The most powerful Republican in America, House Speaker Paul Ryan, took the unusual step of calling a press conference to denounce Trump, saying, “Normally, I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today. This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it is not what this country stands for.” So how will they react when the polls show that the people agree with Trump? What all those naysayers apparently fail to understand is that most Americans do not want Muslims living in their neighborhoods, nor do they want to increase our existing Muslim population.
One would think that members of Congress would have at least a minimal understanding of current immigration law. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414, Section 212(a), provides no less than 31 conditions under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”
Included among these, Section 212(a)(19) bars entry to “any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” Can all of the “refugees” now seeking asylum in the U.S. provide indisputable evidence that all of the information they have provided is factual and verifiable? Section 212(a)(27) bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”
Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” There are many more provisions of the Act under which Muslims could be barred from entering the United States. This is precisely what Donald Trump is suggesting and it is precisely this law that Jimmy Carter used in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.
In its editorial of December 8, 2015, the New York Times sided with Trump, saying, “As the (Supreme Court) observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, ‘In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’
“In the context of non-citizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either. Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of ‘any class of aliens’ on his finding that their entry would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States…’ ”
While many may wish to come to America, for good or for ill, we have no obligation… legal, moral, or economic… to take into our country, people whose values are totally foreign to our own. And while the politically correct, the mainstream media, and establishment Republicans may disagree with Trump’s suggestion, they will soon find that it is they who are on the outside, looking in.
The people are with Trump.
RELATED VIDEO: “First State of Homeland Security Address” at the National Defense University on December 7, 2015, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX):
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-american-eagel-e1449912337233.jpg340640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-12-12 04:27:002015-12-12 04:37:51Trump Has It Right
Every day’s news now is about distraction. What is the latest outrageous thing somebody has said? What is the latest outrageous thing somebody has done? Something happens and everybody is forced into having an opinion about it.
Yet all the while real things go on in the real world often unnoticed. The situation in Afghanistan is a good example. Having promised to ‘end the wars’, President Obama’s time in office is coming to an end with all those wars just more complicated and arguably worse than ever. It’s only Western attention that has left the scene.
In Afghanistan we now see a situation where the Taliban are looking like the moderate opposition. They are now engaged in a battle with ISIS to be the dominant force in the country. And it’s not just in Afghanistan that this is playing out. In Libya and across North and central Africa, through swathes of the Middle East and further afield there is a struggle involving ISIS in country after country which is going largely unreported.
There are obvious reasons for this. The technical one is that journalists cannot go to most of the places in question. Libya, like most of Syria, is simply too dangerous to go near. And it is no journalist’s fault that this is the case. There are many brave journalists in many countries. But travelling in ISIS-infested territory, where a journalist is a prize for the group, is not worth any amount of risk. And there is also the problem of attention. It is only a month since Paris, and only a week since Britain joined the fight against ISIS in Syria, but already the news has moved on.
At some point soon something will happen again and we will momentarily tear ourselves away from our daily diet of ephemera and chatter and look out at what is actually going on in the world. But it is likely once again to be temporary. And it is a shame that our attention cannot hold, because if it did then we could actually sort some of these problems out rather than just keep patching over the wound.
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK
Much ink has been spilled this week about Donald Trump’s comments regarding Muslims. Having decided he would impose a blanket ban on Muslims entering America, the Republican primary frontrunner unhelpfully extended his comments to cover London and Paris too, suggesting that these European capitals could benefit from a similar move.
Defenders of Trump’s position – of which I am not one – have variously suggested that either his position has been misinterpreted, as the ban would only be temporary in nature, or that he only proposed it to open up debate about the issue of Islamist extremism in America. If indeed this was the case, as opposed to the more likely explanation that in common with much of his campaign rhetoric it just popped into his head and seemed like a good idea at the time. Trump would still be wrong.
On the issue of the ban itself, Trump has made the classic mistake about making this whole debate about “The Other” and then labelling that “Other” incorrectly. We are not at war with Muslims. We are at war with Radical Muslims. And all other Muslims are engaged in that same war on our side. Because they are usually the Islamists’ first victims. The very idea of a ban also shows he is not serious about engaging with this civilisational battle of our time. His solution is to try and wish the problem away by pulling up the drawbridge, rather than take the battle to the other side. In this, he shares the approach of those liberals who are equally reticent to do this and suggest that we can avoid attacks from Islamists by not engaging with the world. They are the easy options, but they solve nothing.
Trump has also not succeeded in broadening the conversation, but narrowing it again. After the Paris Attacks in particular, there has been a growing awareness and desire to speak about the true nature of the Islamist threat in Europe, as it has played out once again before our eyes. With one rhetorical flourish, Trump has sent all those politicians and commentators just starting to poke their heads above the parapets to scurry back to the safety of a blanket position decrying his words as they are so outlandish. He has thus encouraged our leaders to once again take the easy option, just as they seemed ready to take the road less trodden.
But worse than this, Trump is playing the Islamists’ game. Their long-term desire has always been to provoke exactly the kind of reaction they have got in order to foster a ‘clash of civilisations’ style scenario pitting all Muslims against everyone else.
We won’t win this war by playing to the extremes. It is only by mainstreaming the idea that Islamism must be countered that we can do so. Donald Trump has made that task much harder than it needed to be.
Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Internet-distraction-e1449869004274.jpg406640Henry Jackson Societyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngHenry Jackson Society2015-12-11 16:24:322015-12-11 16:31:03The Dangers of Distraction
A good argument can be made that free speech is least safe on private college campuses.
At public universities, the First Amendment applies, thus giving students, faculty members, and everyone else protection against official censorship or punishment for saying things that some people don’t want said.
A splendid example of that was brought to a conclusion earlier this year at Valdosta State University, where the school’s president went on a vendetta against a student who criticized his plans for a new parking structure — and was clobbered in court. (I discussed that case here.)
But the First Amendment does not apply to private colleges and universities because they don’t involve governmental action. Oddly, while all colleges that accept federal student aid money must abide by a vast host of regulations, the Supreme Court ruled in Rendell-Baker v. Kohn that acceptance of such money does not bring them under the umbrella of the First Amendment.
At private colleges, the protection for freedom of speech has to be found (at least, in most states) in the implicit contract the school enters into with each incoming student. Ordinarily, the school holds itself out as guaranteeing certain things about itself and life on campus in its handbook and other materials. If school officials act in ways that depart significantly from the reasonable expectations it created, then the college can be held liable.
As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) puts it, “There is a limit to ‘bait-and-switch’ techniques that promise academic freedom and legal equality but deliver authoritarianism and selective censorship.”
With that legal background in mind, consider a recent case at Colorado College. If Franz Kafka or George Orwell had toyed with a similar plot, they’d probably have rejected it as too far-fetched.
Back in November, a student, Thaddeus Pryor, wrote the following reply to a comment (#blackwomenmatter) on the social media site Yik Yak: “They matter, they’re just not hot.” Another student, offended that someone was not taking things seriously, complained to college officials. After ascertaining that the comment had been written by Pryor, the Dean of Students summoned him to a meeting.
Pryor said that he was just joking. What he did not realize is that there are now many things that must not be joked about on college campuses. Some well-known American comedians have stopped playing on our campuses for exactly that reason, as Clark Conner noted in this Pope Center article.
In a subsequent letter, Pryor was informed by the Senior Associate Dean of Students that his anonymous six word comment violated the school’s policy against Abusive Behavior and Disruption of College Activities.
Did that comment actually abuse anyone? Did it in any way disrupt a college activity?
A reasonable person would say “of course not,” but many college administrators these days are not reasonable. They are social justice apparatchiks, eager to use their power to punish perceived enemies of progress like Thaddeus Pryor.
For having joked in a way that offended the wrong people, Pryor was told that he was suspended from Colorado College until June, 2017. Moreover, he is banned from setting foot on campus during that time. And in the final “pound of flesh” retribution, the school intends to prohibit him from taking any college credits elsewhere.
With FIRE’s able assistance, Pryor is appealing his punishment. Perhaps the college’s attorney will advise the president to back off since its own “Freedom of Expression” policy hardly suggests to students that they will be subject to severe punishment for merely making offensive jokes on a social media site. If the case were to go to trial, there is a strong likelihood that a jury would find Colorado College in breach of contract.
Even if the school retreats from its astounding overreaction to Pryor’s comment, the administration should worry that alums who aren’t happy that their school has fallen under the spell of thought control will stop supporting it.
This incident is emblematic of a widespread problem in American higher education today: administrators think it’s their job to police what is said on campus, even comments on a social media app. Many colleges and universities have vague speech codes and “harassment” policies that invite abuse; those positions tend to attract mandarins who are not scholars and do not value free speech and unfettered debate. They are committed to “progressive” causes and will gladly use their power to silence or punish anyone who doesn’t go along.
American colleges have been suffering through a spate of ugly protests this fall. Among the demands the protesters usually make is that the school mandate “diversity training” for faculty and staff. Instead of that, what most schools really need is tolerance training, with a special emphasis on the importance of free speech. Those who don’t “get it” should be advised to find other employment.
George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/free-speech-trampled-e1449867804581.png423640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-11 16:05:502015-12-11 16:05:50Where Is Speech Most Restricted in America? by George C. Leef
When I was a little boy growing up in Cleveland my Dad would often tell me about the great people of America. Yes, he taught me about the obvious luminaries such as Dr. Benjamin Rush or Crispas Attucks. But he often talked about the unsung heroes who are just as important to society as any historical figure. Dad let me know that amongst the ranks of “We the People” resides the true backbone of our republic.
Needless to say, as we approach yet another time of Christmas I am more prone to take the time to fondly remember great individuals I’ve come to know. Many have been great friends and others just fantastic people met along the blessed path of life I have traveled. So often we may take for granted those we have known for a long time or have been friends with for years. Sometimes we can be guilty of overlooking or not paying to the crowning achievements of those we are familiar with.
It is what I have come to recognize as not realizing that those we have known for a long time are just as capable of greatness as those who are already well known. Whether they are great explorers, inventors, or other American of notoriety. Mr. Carver had that others around him didn’t was the knack for researching far beyond what was the normal level of looking into the properties of botany specimens.
Another fine example is American founding father, John Adams who was very short in physical stature. Yet he is considered by many objective historians as one of the giant pillars that upheld the successful break from British tyranny. His tenacity helped set the fledgling republic upon the road to become the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Of course we have all heard about the enormously popular Rocky movie series that was written and mostly produced by Sylvester Stallone. But what many fans of the blockbuster cinematic rags to riches story do not know, is the epic battle that Stallone had to endure and overcome to get Rocky to the silver screen. For starters, Sylvester Stallone was on the lower rungs of the financial ladder. But he never gave up on his vision of scripting and developing what became the record breaking Rocky movies.
Sylvester Stallone never allowed doubters, circumstances, or even initial rejections from every movie studio in Hollywood he approached, to stop him from forging ahead with his vision of success.
So often in life, people from all walks of life are blessed with visions of greatness. In fact, everyone has a seed of greatness that God plants within us. Unfortunately, most individuals do not tap into that seed of greatness and end up taking what God place within them to the grave totally unutilized. Today America is full of many sovereign individuals who have been indoctrinated against rugged individualism. Sadly, they rarely think of or dream of new inventions or writing the next great Broadway play, or some new innovation that no one else ever thought of.
For many years, I have engaged in numerous conversations with Americans about the awful business of abortion and Margaret Sanger’s diabolical, duplicitous, dangerous and deadly plans for Black Americans. In fact, that topic has been featured on numerous pages of The Edwards Notebook syndicated radio commentary. But all of the conversations, research and commentaries together don’t hold a candle to the effort put forth by one Bruce Fleury. Mr. Fleury is a great American whom, by the grace of God did what no-one else thought about doing or were too lazy to put in the necessary work. He wrote and produce an excellent book entitled The Negro Project. Bruce was born in the garden state of New Jersey. As a youngster he moved with his family to Michigan with his parents and five siblings.
He has been employed at Ford Motor Company and resides with his wife in the Detroit metropolitan area. Through the years Bruce has been building upon his vast knowledge of American history. His love of the gifts of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness prompted him to focus on the ongoing legalized murder of unborn babies. Bruce also concentrated on the Margaret Sanger mission to wipe out the Black American population through birth control, then later via Planned Parenthood abortion mills.
The book The Negro Project is a cornucopia of history, regarding the diabolical plots and plans of racist democrat party progressives who’s biggest mission is to control and fundamentally change America. They are out to control, divide and conquer the United States through death and moral destruction. The Negro Project book is yet another fine example of how an American from any walk of life can do extraordinary things.
Check out The Negro Project by Bruce Fleury on Amazon.com or at your nearest Borders book store.
God Bless America and May America Bless God.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/american-flag-mountains-in-background-e1443173318385.jpg423640Ron Edwardshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRon Edwards2015-12-11 03:28:092015-12-11 03:28:09The Evidence of Greatness in America
BOSTON, MA — Yet another Mexican food chain became a victim of ethnic profiling by food-borne stomach viruses this Tuesday, when 80 Boston College students were sickened after eating at a nearby Chipotle restaurant, said a representative of the Movement for Nutritional Justice, a civil rights group monitoring cases of digestive inequality and oppression. The media was quick to call this “the worst attack since Taco Bell,” referring to the 2006 E. coli poisoning spree.
Movement for Nutritional Justice organized a rally today protesting what they describe as a racially motivated assault by food-borne microorganisms, pointing to a pattern of discrimination against Mexican food chains, and demanding an equal redistribution of food-borne diseases in all ethnic restaurants.
They were joined by a number of virus and bacteria advocacy groups who expressed grave concerns over a possible backlash against all viruses and bacteria, many of whom had nothing to do with the Chipotle “lone wolf” outbreak, and urging Americans to stay away from using hand sanitizers and performing similar actions “driven by fear and Virusophobia.”
The protesters held dozens of printed signs that blamed Virusophobia on propaganda by big pharmaceutical companies who profit from our fears by selling antibacterial products. Statements in other signs ranged from “don’t blame all viruses for the actions of the few” to “embrace fever and vomiting as symptoms of diversity,” “diarrhea to those who say viruses cause diarrhea,” and “Virus will dominate the world.” These somewhat contradictory signs were often held by the same people, many of whom seemed to share membership in all of the attending groups.
The responsibility for the Tuesday attack was claimed by Norovirus – a little-known group of stomach viruses who experts say are not affiliated with the notorious international syndicate of E-coli bacteria, known for the recent simultaneous attacks that made 52 people in nine states sick after eating at Chipotle restaurants.
While the methods and modes of operation of both groups are similar – diarrhea, stomach cramps, and fever – experts claim that Norovirus is far more likely than E. coli to cause vomiting.
It remains unclear whether the Chipotle attackers acted on their own or in direct contact with the virus command center, but a Facebook post on the Norovirus page, now removed, praised the attackers for promoting the global state of diarrhea. The post also contained a group photo of the attackers, showing them under a sign with the words “Virus will dominate the world,” similar to the signs at the rally only much smaller.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a virus advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Virus rhetoric” that “edges toward hygiene.”
Speaking to the audience at the Virus and Bacteria Advocates’ dinner at a generic ethnic restaurant, Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Virus rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute anyone guilty of advertising anti-bacterial hand soaps, bleaches, and other household cleaners.
President Obama addressed the nation today from Chipotle Grill, stating that “viruses and bacteria are woven into the fabric of our country since founding” and asking Americans to restrain from Virusophobia.
“If we begin to complain about vomiting, if we hate diarrhea – that’s not American. That’s not who we are,” the President said, pledging to bring thousands more viruses and bacteria into American neighborhoods by the end of his presidency.
EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube. Trump has called for a ban of all viruses to America.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Obama_Chipotle_Virus_Speech-e1449780765585.jpg310600The Peoples Cubehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Peoples Cube2015-12-10 15:47:592021-10-08 01:47:23Obama visits Chipotle, pledges to bring more viruses to U.S.
We Shouldn’t Use a Term Coined by the System’s Enemies!
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could simply invent new terms to replace the words that seem to cause more heat than light? For example, I have written before of my qualms about using the word capitalism to describe the free-market economy. The word was coined by capitalism’s enemies to describe the system that they rejected.
Red Plenty, a marvelous book by Francis Spufford, offers an important perspective on our discussion of terms. The book is a must-read for fans of free markets. It combines elements from the actual history of the use of mathematics to try to plan the Soviet economy, fictional dialogue and some fictional characters, and Spufford’s excellent understanding of the economics of capitalism and socialism to create an incredibly readable account of the attempt to engineer a world of abundance in the former Soviet Union.
In the senior seminar I teach, we recently read a section of the book that deals with how the Soviet planning process actually worked. That section got me thinking about the terms capitalism and socialism again. The term capitalism suggests a system built around capital and its interests, while the word socialism suggests one built around society and its interests. Notice how these connotations beg some questions from the start.
Is it really true, for example, that capitalism is centered around capital and its interests? Is it really capitalists who benefit the most from capitalism? And on the other side: have existing socialist economies ever served the interests of society as a whole? Could socialism, in theory, do so? Do both of these names make assumptions about each of the two types of economies that reflect the biases of capitalism’s critics and socialism’s defenders?
Of course, capital does play a crucial role in capitalism. The private ownership of capital (the means of production) is a defining characteristic of a free-market economy, especially in comparison to socialism. And the ability to engage in economic calculation provided by the money prices of the market is crucial for the owners of capital to know how best to deploy it. So in those senses, capitalism is about capital.
But notice that nowhere in the previous paragraph is it claimed that the primary beneficiaries of capitalism are the capitalists! What is missing is an answer to the question of why the capitalists continually have to figure out how best to deploy their capital. The answer is because they are constantly trying to provide what consumers want using the least valuable resources possible.
Sure, the capitalists reap profits by doing so. But those profits result from the mutually beneficial exchanges capitalists have with consumers.
The main beneficiaries from capitalism are not the capitalists, but all of us in our role as consumers. Competition among the owners of private capital is all about responding to consumers’ wants. And consumers benefit from this arrangement through more, better, and cheaper goods. If we want a name for the free-market economy that indicates who its primary beneficiaries are, we should reappropriate the term consumerism.
But “consumerism” is only half of the story. It’s easy enough to show through the standard arguments that socialism doesn’t work for the benefit of society as a whole. We know from the socialist-calculation debate that eliminating the market altogether in favor of planning can’t work. But what about all of those countries, like the Soviet Union, that claimed to be planning their economies?
As we see in Red Plenty, the truth was that central planning served as a kind of myth around which economic activity could be oriented. Everyone acted as if there were a plan, but the actual way resources got allocated and shuffled around was much more complicated. In Red Plenty, we meet two characters who help us see this.
First is Cherkuskin, the middleman who trades on relationships and friendships to help producers get the goods they need to meet their centrally planned targets. Cherkuskin is the personification of what Ayn Rand called “the aristocracy of pull.” His power comes from whom he knows and what he can get them to do for you. When producers don’t have enough to fulfill their quotas because of the inability of the plan to allocate rationally or to respond to unexpected change, the Cherkuskins come into play and move resources around to help them — and to profit handsomely in the process. Underneath “the plan” was the black market that did a great deal to ensure that Soviet-style economies were minimally functional.
The other character is Maksim Maksimovich Mokhov, a high-ranking bureaucrat in the planning agency. Faced with the news of the destruction of a crucial machine, Mokhov has to figure out how to rebalance the plan given that one factory will either need a new machine or fail to produce the output that other factories need. Spufford gives us terrific imagery of Mokhov sliding around on his wheeled chair, abacus in hand, going from file to file using technology primitive by even the 1962 standard of that chapter of the book, attempting to reallocate resources with the flick of an eraser and the scratch of a pencil.
Both Cherkuskin and Mokhov are, functionally, substitutes for what the price system does under capitalism, and inferior substitutes at that.
But what’s most interesting is that neither of them cares one whit about the consumer. Cherkuskin is all about making sure that producers get what they need to fulfill the plan, never pausing to consider what the costs were for consumers. Mokhov describes consumers as a “shortage sink” because they are the end of the line, and if they don’t get what they want, no one else relies on them for further output. It was more important to balance out production than to worry if consumers got exactly what they needed.
What Spufford so nicely illustrates here is how real-world socialism, and not capitalism, put the needs of “capital” first and the wants of consumers last. In a world where producing more stuff, regardless of its value, was the path to plenty, ensuring that production continued according to the plan and that producers got what they needed were the central tasks. And the black market middlemen like Cherkuskin could make a real ruble or two doing so.
But unlike the profits of market capitalists, Cherkuskin’s rubles came at the expense of the consumer rather than reflecting mutual benefit. A system where consumers are just the folks who are expected to absorb the errors of the plan is hardly one geared to the interests of society as a whole. And a system where capital is ultimately the servant of consumers is misleadingly named if we call it capitalism.
It’s a difficult battle to get people to change the names they’ve long used for free markets and (supposedly) planned economies. Even if we don’t win that battle, it’s still important for us to point out how the terms capitalism and socialism really do give a false impression of how markets and planning work. If we want to know who really benefits from markets, a quick look around the abundance that is the typical American household will answer that question quite clearly.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Karl-Marx-e1449750024408.png331640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-10 07:22:322015-12-10 07:46:32‘Capitalism’ Is the Wrong Word by Steven Horwitz
The Omnibus Budget Bill to be voted Friday, Dec 11, will provide $1.2 Billion for “nearly 700,000 green cards – or lifetime residency cards – to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years (as we did over the last five years),” said Senator Sessions of AL, re Friday’s vote. Readers should email congressman.
The Muslim problem is about militancy as taught in the Koran. Christ said, “Blessed are the peace-makers.” The Bible covenant with Abraham provided the Middle East for his descendants. That includes Arabic Muslims from Ishmael. Islam’s push into Europe and America is foreseen in Daniel 8, but it ends badly for a militant Muslim ram.
First the Problem from a 2002 UN Report: “More books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand, suggesting at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world.” Mark Steyn.
The PROBLEM is complex; leaders and media can’t seem to identify it. Maybe we could help them?
The Shoe Bomber. the Beltway Snipers, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim. The Underwear Bomber, the U.S.S. Cole Bombers, the 9-11 Hijackers and now the San Bernardino Terrorists–ALL OF THESE (and many edited from this list) WERE MUSLIMS!
More innocent people died on 9-11 than died in Pearl Harbor. We declared war then, but not now; not on Muslims, but we need to declare war on militancy as taught by numerous quotes in the Koran such as, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123.
For hundreds of years, it has been no problem for Hindus to live with Buddhists, Jews or Christians.
Atheists have lived with Buddhists, Jews or Confucians, Christians have lived with Jews, Hindus and Shintos—these religions don’t have a problem being neighbors.
But Muslims have a problem living with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and worst of all, MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
MUSLIMS don’t want to live in Muslim countries of Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya or Sudan.
They want to be in Australia, England, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, India, Canada, USA—any country that is not Islamic; why is that if it’s a “religion of peace?
When trouble comes, who do they blame? Not their leader. Not themselves, they blame the country and want to change it to be like the countries they left!
Islam likes organizations: Islamic Jihad: an ISLAMIC terror organization, ISIS/ISIL an ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION; Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Liberation Front. ALL of these and many more are ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATIONS.
Are we so stupid that we can’t figure out how to deal with the problem? At least President Obama and now Attorney General Lynch know it’s not the Muslims and to speak against them may soon be a CRIME! This isn’t “hate speech.” We shouldn’t hate anyone; Christ died for all. We should end our “Stupid problems” with Free Speech while we still have it.
Obama admitted being Muslim and he wants to flood US with Muslim “refugees” Now we come to the biblical solution:
God promised to give Abraham the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River for his descendants in the 15th chapter of Genesis. Five verses later, Abraham agrees with Sarah to have a son by Hagar. The Arab nations are descendants of Ishmael, and they should occupy the area in the covenant for Abraham’s “seed.”
Any other plan, like the pope’s encouragement for Germany to take a million refugees while the Vatican takes two families, [isn’t that interesting?] is against the provision that God made for Abraham’s descendants. When leaders become part of a stupid problem, we need to go back to basics. Dan88
The Bible shows the problem of Muslim militancy will soon be solved “at the time of the end.” A militant Muslim ram gets stomped by a GOAT [Global Organization Against Terror] that flies from the west in Daniel 8 (the book Christ recommended when asked about end-times.)
Leaders should consider the Bible solution, rather than “wait and see”–hoping for an answer in the election next November. Congress has proven they go along to get along with hidden forces and rewards while voting against the Constitution that made us great.
IF WE DON’T ACT, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ON HIS ELECTION NIGHT: “CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA!”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ryan-budget-e1449658787962.jpg400640Dr. Richard Ruhling, MDhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard Ruhling, MD2015-12-09 06:00:282015-12-09 06:00:28A Biblical Solution to the Omnibus-Muslim Problem
A subtext of most of the superhero genre of fiction is that government has failed. It doesn’t provide the security people need. Superheros (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, et alia) have to step in. The portrayal of the police and public servants in this genre ranges between incompetent and corrupt. At its best, the public sector can get out of the way and let the superhero do his or her job.
Jessica Jones, the acclaimed new series on Netflix (based on a Marvel Comics character), takes this approach to a new and much deeper level, particularly in its portrayal of the pathological villain Zebediah Kilgrave. Jones, a private investigator, spends the entire series trying to capture him. Kilgrave’s character allows us to think through an extraordinary issue. What if someone’s wish really were his command? What would happen to him, and what would be the social effects?
Jones is only a reluctant user of her superpowers, which are highly limited. She can run a 4-minute mile. She is strong enough to break locks with her hands. She can throw a punch that kills. And she can jump what appears to be about 15 feet in the air. Beyond that, she is as human as anyone else. Too much so.
The series adopts a 1940s-style film noir feel. Jessica (played by Krysten Ritter of Breaking Bad fame) has troubled personal relationships. She is alone by choice. She keeps a strange schedule and looks disheveled most of the time. She drinks too much. She is crabby, sometimes crude, often impolite, and constantly vexed.
The Problem of Kilgrave
Mostly, she is haunted by a past horror. A murderous villain named Kilgrave once abducted her, but not in a physical sense. His extraordinary power is causing people to give up their personal will. With just one word, he brings about the total surrender of his victim’s wishes to his own. He can ask for someone’s coat and get it. He can tell a dad to abandon his son and he will do it. He can tell a girl to kill her parents, and it is done. His control over others is limited by time (perhaps one day) and proximity, but otherwise, he gets his way.
He did this to Jessica. She spent some period of time under his control. During this period, she committed egregious acts. She feels deep guilt for this, continually assuring herself that she was not personally responsible because she was not in control. As she encounters other victims, she assures them they are not responsible either. A main plot device of the show concerns her desire to rescue one victim, who similarly did terrible things, from several life sentences in prison.
The trouble is that there is some ambiguity about the question of personal responsibility. Kilgrave’s victims describe feeling irresistibly drawn to follow his instructions. But they also report having some sense in the back of their minds that what they are doing is wrong. They find it impossible, however, to cause their inner conscience, never entirely blotted out, to rise above the Kilgrave-imposed will.
What If You Could Fully Control Others?
The character of Kilgrave raises some interesting questions. What if you had the ability to get your wish with everyone around, even strangers? Your words cause people to do exactly what you want them to do. You do not have to rely on persuasion or consent. You cause a core human trait, individual volition, to recede into the background.
If you had that power, would you use it? It would require a person of extraordinary moral character not to do so. You are at Starbucks and you could say: “add an extra shot at no charge,” and it would be done. You could tell your boss: “give me a 10% raise,” and you’d have it. If you tell someone “let’s go to dinner,” there would be no question. To imagine the power is to peer over the edge of a slippery slope.
In Kilgrave’s case, this power has had an extraordinarily corrupting effect. He rapes, he kills, he controls, he poisons. He feels no remorse. The social effects are catastrophic, causing all sorts of people to commit terribly anti-social actions that otherwise make no sense. His demand is always the same: people must not resist his orders. Thus do they lose their will, and thus do they lose their humanity. As for his own soul, the darkness is boundless.
Who has the power to delete the human will? By tradition, not even gods have this power. They have granted human beings the free will to make choices between good and evil. Gods can manipulate events, give clues, prod circumstances to prompt people, and even punish for wrong choices, but do not typically use their power (even if they have it in theory) to override human volition itself.
Choice is Baked Into Nature
Such power would certainly be abused, even by the gods. Surely it is not something that should even be granted to a fallible human being. Such power is fundamentally contradictory to the mental workings of the human person. Like all animals, we resist the cage. Those who try to override that impulse corrupt their own souls and finally fail.
Any parent who begins parenting with the intent of total control eventually learns that this is impossible. Perhaps as children there is a point at which we can become completely compliant. But the inner life matures, and by the time we become teens, the sense of independent decision takes hold. It might begin as an internal commitment, but, in time, it grows to be a life pattern.
Societies that function well must respect individual autonomy: the right to control our own lives. This is why Kilgrave’s powers are so terribly frightening. The effects are bad enough when such powers rest in just one person. But imagine a total social system in which everyone had the capacity for full control of everyone else. The results would be immediately and irredeemably devastating.
Power and the Human Will
Watching Jessica Jones causes us to reflect on modern policing via the public sector. Browse YouTube’s archives of police abuse. Think on what happens when you are stopped on the road for a traffic violation. Police are trained to demand total submission. Any evidence of insubordination is treated as a threat and a crime in itself.
For the duration of the interaction, your will means nothing and their will is all that matters. It is not surprising that this power leads to abuse; it’s surprising that it doesn’t lead to it more often.
The Kilgrave Society and the Right to Decide
We can extend this analysis to the public sector at large. The distinguishing mark of the state is its encroachment on individual volition. Its one weapon, its only method, is the promise of violence. But this is not enough to bring about stable rule, as the history of revolution and political upheaval show us. The longing to blot out human choice is ultimately untenable, and the attempt alone is deeply corrupting of both individuals and institutions. Kilgrave is the paradigmatic case.
In contrast, notice that private security takes a different approach. The foremost goal is to assure order and peaceful outcomes, not to bring about a perfect state of nonresistance. If the problem goes away, all is well and the job is complete. Such services know better than to try for total control.
In Jessica Jones, as with modern politics, there is some ambiguity associated with the attempt to erase the decision making of others. In the recesses of our mind, we maintain our own understanding and beliefs, and that alone makes us feel some degree of responsibility for acts committed under the influence of others. To overcome requires steely determination and resolute desire to think independently and live on our own terms.
Jessica Jones can’t leap tall buildings, can’t fly, and can’t run faster than a locomotive. But she has a power that is even more impressive. She possesses that determination to defend the right to think for ourselves. It’s not only the most precious human right: It is the right than makes the social order function toward everyone’s benefit.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jessicajonesfee-e1449607963419.jpg360640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-08 15:53:102015-12-08 15:53:10Jessica Jones, Free Will, and Leviathan by Jeffrey A. Tucker
Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.
“Suspect Charged in CAIR’s Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Crime’ Is Named … Mohamed,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, December 7, 2015:
The day after Thanksgiving, in the wake of a terrible shooting that left a Muslim cabdriver in Pittsburgh hospitalized, CAIR was screaming ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIME! Naturally, left-wing news outlets like the Washington Post and others gleefully accepted those marching orders. Five days later police had a suspect in the shooting. He’s pictured above. His name is Anthony Mohamed.
Investigators have taken a suspect into custody in the shooting of a cab driver who is Muslim in the city’s Hazelwood neighborhood in the early morning hours of Thanksgiving Day.
Pittsburgh Police announced the arrest at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. They identify the suspect as 26-year-old Anthony Mohamed of Hazelwood.
Five days earlier, and just after the ISIS attacks in Paris, this was the headline:
A Muslim civil rights group is asking the Justice Department to investigate the shooting of a Pittsburgh taxi driver.
The driver was shot Thanksgiving night in the Hazelwood section of Pittsburgh, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants the Justice Department to investigate the case as a hate crime.
According to reports, the 38-year-old driver picked up the man outside the Rivers Casino about 1 a.m. Thursday.
F.B.I. statistics prove that Jews are more than three times as likely as Muslims to be victims of religion-motivated hate crimes. Overall, those among the Faithful who are not Muslim are targeted for hate crimes almost 84% of the time, compared to 16% for Muslims. In a country of around 325 million, there were 183 hate crimes aimed at Muslims last year. Nearly a thousand were aimed at other religious groups….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/AnthonyMohamed-e1449570518668.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-08 05:30:052015-12-08 05:30:43Suspect charged in ‘anti-Muslim hate crime’ is named Mohamed
It could occur to one that the difference between “safe spaces” in today’s U.S. and yesterday’s U.S.S.R., other than the name, is the size. Here they’re tiny areas on some college campuses.
In the Soviet Union they were every place apart from the tiny areas called gulags.
One could also ponder how, while the Soviets were somewhat less euphemistic than their American progeny, it’s no stretch to say their insane asylum outside the gulags was also a “safe space.” To exist, any lie-based ideology needs a sheltered area — even if it’s only inside a person’s own cranium — that is safe…from Truth.
Alarm at the Safe Spacers’ space-between-the-ears ideology is wholly justified. In recent times we’ve heard statements such as “What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.” That was one Erin Ching, a Swarthmore College student reacting to a campus debate last year between leftist Princeton professor Cornel West and renowned conservative Princeton professor Robert George. Then there’s this: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” …When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.” That was Harvard Crimson editorialist Sandra Korn writing in 2014.
Korn also opines, “[T]he liberal obsession with ‘academic freedom’ seems a bit misplaced to me.” But it shouldn’t. For there is no “liberal obsession” with academic freedom as a principle — only as a ploy. More misplaced is the conservative defense of “academic freedom” because, like Charlie Brown ever trying to kick the football, rightists are ever the victims of that ploy.
The cry “Academic freedom!” has so often been the last modern refuge of a scoundrel. If you want to justify a professor’s advocacy of some loony left-wing idea wholly destructive to society, shout it and fetid faculty and sullied students will circle the wagons. Yet the notion passes nary a liberal’s lips when the matter is the persecution of a conservative academic. Ask Cal State University Northridge English professor Robert Oscar Lopez, a wonderful man with whom I’ve corresponded, about that. The Safe Spacers have pinned a bull’s-eye on him because he dares question the homosexual agenda.
Thus, one of the only differences between the Safe Spacers and the liberal establishment (LIBe) they’re now tormenting — examples of members of the latter being the University of Missouri president and chancellor forced to resign in a purge — is that the former may be a tad more honest. They don’t pay lip service to academic freedom.
And the defense of the LIBe’ers consumed by the demon they themselves spawned is often mounted by conservatives, well-meaning football-kickers they so often are. Commentator Jonah Goldberg, for instance, a wonderful writer and intrepid culture warrior, penned an op-ed last year in which he took Ching and Korn to task while defending academic freedom. Titled “Attacking Diversity of Thought,” it expresses common conservative laments. Yet pondering this struggle between the attackers and defenders of academic freedom brings to mind a G.K. Chesterton observation: “I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.”
In reality, in defending “academic freedom” conservatives are doing what they always, quite unwittingly, do: defend yesterday’s liberals’ successful social-revolution-born norms from attacks by today’s liberal social revolutionaries. They are again being the caboose to the leftist engine of change.
As to this, the aforementioned Korn, in a broken-clock moment of philosophical rectitude, did utter a truth when defending her position in saying, “After all, no one ever has ‘full freedom’ in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities.”
For many this is an uncomfortable fact, but the reality is that everyone draws lines. Would we want a professor teaching that pedophilia can be beneficial (as Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues did), that encouraging bestiality was positive because it would help reduce the birth rate, or that Hitler’s extermination camps were a good thing? Or how about an academic who aggressively advocates Nazism or Marxism in the classroom? Note that pushing the latter could cost you your job in the 1950s.
Some will now say “We don’t want McCarthyism in the schoolhouse!” This is a knee-jerk reaction. Every civilization has its version of “McCarthyism”; it’s just a matter of whether it’s the right or wrong kind. Socrates was forced to drink the hemlock partially for, the allegations went, corrupting the young via his teaching and for “mocking the gods.” During the Second Sophistic period in Rome, Latin rhetorical studies were banned in favor of Greek rhetorical studies. Miron Wolffson, a professor at Moscow University, was expelled from the institution in 1932 for teaching Menshevik ideas. Mathematician William Whiston lost his professorship at the University of Cambridge for taking anti-Trinitarian positions. And some nations, such as Colombia, banned the teaching of utilitarian philosophy in universities in the 19th century.
Some will now counter that this is contrary to the American ideal. But is it? If you dared espouse the kind of libertinism routine today in early America or violated obscenity laws — in school or elsewhere — you could be “warned out of town” or worse. To be human is to have standards, and to have standards is to exclude.
Of course, they could be the double ones or the wrong ones. And there is only one way of avoiding this: having standards oriented toward Truth.
Oh, I know, this is where moderns wax relativistic and, echoing Pontius Pilate, ask “What is Truth?” After all, today only a minority of Americans even believe in it. But there’s only one alternative to standards oriented toward Truth: standards oriented toward a lie. And we’ll never formulate the proper standards if we distract ourselves from that sacred task with talk of “academic freedom.” As Chesterton also wrote, in his 1905 book Heretics, “We are fond of talking about ‘liberty’; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is ‘good.’ …The modern man says, ‘Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace unadulterated liberty.’ This is, logically rendered, ‘Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.’”
For sure. People yearn for simple formulas for understanding others and arranging and governing society. Leaning on mythical academic freedom is easy; embracing some standard merely because it’s popular or feels right (as the Left does) is easy. Far more difficult, but necessary for civilizational health, is figuring out what Truth is and adhering to the limits it places on us.
Lines must be drawn by someone, in academia and everywhere else. And there are only two ways of governing: by eternal principles or ephemeral personal preferences. The Mizzou crew and their proximal targets — the yesterday liberals in power today — give us the latter. And we’re not going to defeat a Machiavellian lie with a well-meaning misconception.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/xspeech1.jpg406639Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-12-07 15:42:542015-12-07 15:49:19Mizzou Crew: The Liars Who Hate the Lie of Academic Freedom
I was attacked and injured by a Muslim Iranian woman in Ottawa in front of the Parliament Hill in 2009 for waving the Real Iran Flag (image of the Lion and Sun right) in my hand. Identifying the attacker took than over 3.5 years for Ottawa police. Actually, I found her by chance in Tony Young’s website, where she and her family were invited at Tony’s open house Xmas party in December 2011.
FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 
For many years, I have engaged in numerous conversations with Americans about the awful business of abortion and Margaret Sanger’s diabolical, duplicitous, dangerous and deadly plans for Black Americans. In fact, that topic has been featured on numerous pages of The Edwards Notebook syndicated radio commentary. But all of the conversations, research and commentaries together don’t hold a candle to the effort put forth by one Bruce Fleury. Mr. Fleury is a great American whom, by the grace of God did what no-one else thought about doing or were too lazy to put in the necessary work. He wrote and produce an excellent book entitled 
It could occur to one that the difference between “safe spaces” in today’s U.S. and yesterday’s U.S.S.R., other than the name, is the size. Here they’re tiny areas on some college campuses.