NFL Keeps Fumbling

/in , , , , , /by

I am sick and tired of all the hypocrisy swirling around pro athletes and the National Football League (NFL) in particular. With all the accusation about domestic violence and child abuse consuming the NFL, I wonder why the public wants to hold athletes to a standard that they don’t want to live by.

If you work in the private sector as an accountant, engineer, or a secretary, there is a bright red line separating your professional life from your private life. Your job may prohibit you from smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol at work; but they cannot mandate that you abstain from such activities in the confines of your home. If what you do at home impacts your job performance, that may be grounds for termination; but in general, your job cannot punish you for the things you do in your private life.

Professional sports are slightly different simply because athletes sign a contract and there is a “moral” clause that is part of the agreement. The moral clause basically says that if you bring disrespect to your team or the league because of “bad” behavior, that can be grounds for terminating a player’s contract.

So, let’s be real, pro sports could care less about domestic violence or child abuse (nor should they—they are not a social welfare agency). They are about making money and if they have to pretend to care about these issues to keep the money flowing, then they are willing to make an example out of Ray Rice and anyone else who stands between them and their $10 billion a year revenue.

So is there any substance to this “culture of violence” in pro sports, specifically the NFL? Let me kick the statistics. There are 1,696 players in the NFL, 1,280 in Major League Baseball (MLB), and 450 in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for a total of 3,426 professional athletes.

Let me try to add a little context to this discussion. The San Diego Union-Tribune has been tracking arrests of NFL players dating back to the year 2000. They calculated the annual arrest rate per 1,000 NFL players by type of crime committed. The three most common charges are DUI, assault/battery and drug possession.

Compared to adult men in the general population, an NFL player is 11 percent less like to get a DUI charge, 23 percent less like to get an assault charge, and 59 percent less likely to get a drug charge. So, if there is going to be any outrage expressed, it should be directed towards the American population as a whole, not the NFL and its players.

The issue swirling around the NFL is about public relations, not about how their players treat women. For the NFL, bad PR means less money; so they are reacting to their corporate sponsors, not because of some concern for women’s issues.

Isn’t it ironic that feminists groups such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) are calling for Roger Goodell’s head, but they have said nothing about Nike using child labor under slave-like conditions to make shoes for the NFL; and many of these workers are women and little girls.

Isn’t it ironic that Rice and his wife both admitted to being drunk when they had their fight; but yet there is no “moral outrage” being directed towards Anheuser-Bush?

If you are going to hold team owners and the NFL responsible for the conduct of their adult players; shouldn’t you also hold the beer company that provided the alcohol to the player just as responsible?

The point is, individuals make choices and must be held accountable based on those choices. If Anheuser-Bush is not responsible for a person driving while drunk, the Baltimore Ravens shouldn’t be responsible for what a player does away from his job.

The NFL is going to allocate tens of millions of dollars to all kinds of women’s groups to prove they “get” it. They will do the same thing for child abuse now that the Adrian Peterson situation has become public.

Thus far, all the players making the headlines are Black in a league that is 67 percent Black, so what does Roger Goodell do? He hires three White women to help advise him on women’s issues. When Black women called him out on this, he basically said sit down and shut up.

Brian McCarthy, Goodell’s spokesman issued this statement, “There is a need for diverse thinking to address the issue…and that the effort to better handle this issue is a collaborative one…To be successful and make a real difference, the entire NFL will be responsible for the development and implementation of education, training and support programs.”

In other words, these White women and the White commissioner will make all the decision and then they will get Black women’s input once they have allocated all the funds to White women’s groups who deal with domestic violence and child abuse.

Seems like the NFL continues to fumble the ball.

Caution Blacks: White Men At Large

/in , , /by

It was the 1970s. My black buddy Joe told me about a job opening for a Graphic Designer in the art department at WJZ-TV, an ABC affiliate television station in Baltimore. Dick Weisberg, the white department head liked my portfolio, thought I was a good fit for his team and hired me.

I was very nervous those early days working at the TV station. Black graphic designers were rare and I felt pressure to, as they say, “represent”. My first day, a white coworker took me into the dark room and showed me how to operate the photostat machine. One lesson was not enough. And yet, I could not bring myself to ask for additional help. I eventually became a master of making photostats, but ruined a lot of expensive photo paper in the process. I stuffed the ruined photo paper down my pants leg, smuggling it out of the building for disposal. It was a silly thing to do. My white coworkers would have been happy to help me. Foolishly, as the first and only black member of the six person art department team, I felt I had to be perfect.

I was eventually promoted to supervisor of the art department. Artists can be a bit edgy and emotional. I jokingly said I was promoted because management perceived me as less crazy than my coworkers. Interestingly, black associates demeaned my promotion to supervisor claiming it was due to Affirmative Action.

How did this black kid from the projects end up working in the art department of Baltimore’s number one rated TV station?

Displaying artistic talents at an early age, I was a sensitive child. This does not mean I was a chump or a wimp. I have always been in tune with the vibe of whatever was happening around me. My parents, four younger siblings and I lived in a government project highrise building in which the vibe was violent, angry and bitter. So much for the Democrats’ and liberal’s lie that happiness comes from the government providing everything.

When my dad broke the color barrier and became a Baltimore City firefighter, we moved out of the projects and the city to a black suburban community, Pumphrey.

This meant I would begin 7th grade bused to the neighboring newly integrated Brooklyn Park Junior/Senior high school. Going from attending school with all blacks to practically all whites was a culture shock. I felt invisible.

Mr. Gomer, my white art teacher, met with my dad and praised him for supporting my artistic talents. Mr Gomer said a lot of dads think art is for sissies.

Every month, the top 4 or 5 paintings from the school’s art classes were displayed in the lobby. More times than I can remember, I had a painting in the lobby exhibit. This told me that I had a gift that should be pursued. But, what if Liberalism ruled the day and some knucklehead administrator deemed it unfair to select the best paintings; claiming that it is cruel and hurtful not to display the paintings of every child who picked up a paint brush. Liberals tend to have disdain for achievers. Liberals seek to spread mediocrity equally; everyone gets a trophy and no keeping score.

Depriving kids of the thrill of victory and shielding them from the agony of defeat stifles their development; creating weak adults.

Realizing I had artistic talent, I wrote the mayor, governor and a few senators requesting a scholarship to art college. After interviews and reviewing my artwork, I received numerous mayoral and senatorial scholarships to attend the Maryland Institute College of Art.

Before graduating college, I landed a graphic designer job at white owned Fred Kale & Associates in Baltimore. My white supervisor Chuck managed my transformation from graphic artist wannabe to a professional graphic designer.

From Fred Kale, I became the first black artist at Golnick Advertising Agency. From Golnick, I took the position of art director at white owned Park Sign Company in Baltimore. While employed at Park Sign, I was hired at WJZ-TV.

During college, I worked part-time for Ray the white owner of Dell Display Company. I also worked part-time for Joe Canale Signs. Joe Canale was Italian. Joe and Ray were really decent and fair businessmen.

Oh, I forgot to mention that after college while seeking a job, a white businessman, John Hollacheck hired me part-time. Mr. Hollacheck offered me “free” office space in a prestigious building to launch my own graphic design firm. Immaturity, lack of confidence and fear caused me to squander the opportunity.

Reflecting back on all the men who helped to move my career forward, my dad is number one. He believed in my talent, encouraged and promoted me. Every other man was white. So much for the Democrats’ and liberal’s lie that says white America, particularly white men, are burning the midnight oil thinking of ways to keep black men down. They call it “institutional racism”.

How did I, a black youth, gain favor with these white men? Could it be that they were decent men who saw a good kid trying to pursue his American dream?

This was the Yellow Brick Road which led to me becoming supervisor of the art department at WJZ-TV. Over my fifteen year employ at the TV station, I won design awards and felt I had achieved my goals.

In 1993, folks were losing their jobs due to downsizing. Rush Limbaugh encouraged a few callers into his radio show to view it as an opportunity to pursue their dreams.

After discussing it with my amazing wife, I gave the TV station my two weeks notice. I resigned to pursue another talent, a career as a singer/songwriter.

But that’s another story.

Who is Pope Francis? Perhaps his ‘Transformation on 9/21/53’ may help us understand him better?

/in , , , , /by

Today’s million dollar question: Who is Pope Francis?

I refer to our Holy Father as a Holy Catholic Enigma.

Hope all is well on this day after “Pope Francis’ 61st Anniversary of his Conversion & Call to Religious Life”. Yes, it occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina on the Feast Day of St. Matthew (September 21st, 1953), some 61 years ago, when a troubled, 16 year old Jorge Mario Bergoglio walked into church for confession. The rest is history…and, the rest is a bit confusing and perplexing – especially the last year year and a half of his 77 years here on earth.

Pope Francis has been at it for 18 months now, as our Holy Father – CEO of 1.2 billion Catholics world-wide. He hit the Vatican ground running on that Feast Day of St. Joseph (March 19th, 2013), as he took the baton from our beloved Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, who thought it was wiser to resign from his post at age 85, allowing the younger cardinal from Buenos Aires to take it from there. First time we have seen that in the Vatican in 600 years, since Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415. Wise move from a very wise retiring pope, who gave it his all in his nearly 8 years as our 265th pontiff.

And, if we were to take a national survey today – 61 years after Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s confession & conversion – we would probably see a wide assortment of answers when asked that million dollar question: “Who is Pope Francis”?

Friends: Where does one begin? How does one describe what you have seen, heard and watched from Pope Francis in his short, 18 month tenure so far? Why is it that this pope has caught the attention of billions (as in B) all over the world, as in a stark contrast to his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who quietly took over after Pope John Paul II’s incredible 27 years? Is it because Pope Francis was elected so quickly by the 121 cardinals and because it was after the resignation of a pope, which we have not seen in 6 centuries? Is it because this pope is from the Americas – South America – of all places? Is it because he has a “chip on his shoulders” and wants to embrace the entire world to the religion of Catholicism like it was meant to be – just like Jesus ordained it to be over 2,000 years ago?

Or is it because this is what GOD ordained and what GOD considers part of the Big Plan? If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked “Willy, what is your take on Pope Francis”, I would be able to buy new text books for all 100 Catholic dioceses in this country who unforgivably adopted the Curse of Common Core and I would get the curse out of every one of those schools immediately.

Friends: Keep in mind that every time Pope Francis answers a question from the media, it is interpreted hundreds of different ways in hundreds of different languages. And, that is why the secular, liberal media love this guy. They get to twist & turn every one of his words and they, for some reason, always take his comments way out of context. That is one reason why he was voted “Person of the Year” last year and why he appeared on the front cover of “Rolling Stone” magazine…not “Roll away the Stone” magazine…The secular media see Pope Francis as a rock star…but, millions of faithful, die-hard Catholics all over the world do not.

And, that is where it gets sticky, confusing, perplexing, frustrating, and some times, down right excruciating. The “old school” Catholics don’t care for the pope being named Person of the Year. They don’t read Rolling Stone magazine. But, they do read the interviews on the pope. They do read his comments on abortion, contraception, same sex marriage and wealth vs. poverty. They saw him wed 20 different couples at St. Peter’s Basilica two Sundays ago (hearing that several of those couples had lived together and a few had babies out of wedlock).  And, the majority of people in this country, alone, still do not know what to make of his ever-famous quote given 3,000 feet up in the air on his return trip from Rio de Janeiro after World Youth Day when our Holy Father uttered his “famous last 5 words”:

WHOM AM I TO JUDGE?

So, with all this being said and with this “enigma-laced” question above still dangling for everybody to interpret – “Who is Pope Francis” – what do we make of all this? Like I told the Palm Beach Post almost a year ago when they interviewed me: “Pope Francis is doing a ‘Global Open House’, where he is inviting EVERYBODY to the table – the haters, the sinners, the homosexuals, the atheists, the outcasts, etc., and is simply getting their attention to be able to sit them all down at one time in about another year and show them what Catholicism teaches – what the Holy Catholic Church truly teaches”…I pray that I am right.

This has been my prayer ever since I heard his interview when he told the reporters “Who am I to Judge”? Believe me, friends, those 5 words do not sit well with me because like I said last year in that same interview – they can be interpreted a million different ways…and, they have been. It sent out mixed messages and truly confused the Catholic faithful. The pope opened up more than a can of worms when he uttered those 5 simple words and many of the Catholic die-hards lost it about then. And, many left the Church and refuse to come back.

And, while Catholic lay evangelists like Matthew Kelly, Dr. Scott Hahn and Tom Peterson are trying their best in “Calling Catholics Back Home”, damage has been done and those “old school” Catholics who were not patient enough to see when Pope Francis is going to elaborate on all of these “new school” expressions (not Catholic doctrine or teachings), may have left prematurely as the Church has lost numerous patrons who said they had seen enough.

And, Catholics are stubborn by nature…So, to ease your minds, please take a good look at this article below, which makes a ton of sense when speaking about Pope Francis. It honestly allowed me to relax a bit and not be so impatient with the pope. It gave me a different perspective on the pope’s perspective. The sections on “personal encounters” and “forgiveness” says a lot about our Holy Father and gives you the sense that he truly does believe in compassion and embracing even those who transgress us. Deep down, I honestly believe that the pope is simply trying to follow in the footsteps of our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, but, he does add a bit of flair and drama to his evangelization and preaching, thus, keeping everybody honest and a bit off balance…some more than others.

Enigma: Look it up on Google and see if it says “Pope Francis” under synonyms…He is like the Holy Rosary…a mystery to so many Catholics…a joyful one, though.

All Eyes on Francis

September 18, 2014

All eyes are on Pope Francis.

People around the world are watching what he is saying and doing and trying to understand what it means.

A friend called today from Switzerland: “What do you make of this alleged ‘irritation’ of the Pope over the new book defending traditional Catholic teaching on marriage?” he asked. “And his allegedly asking Cardinal Mueller not promote the book? What’s going on?”

Another friend emailed from New York. He had just spoken with an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who is well-known in the pro-life movement. “I have been talking to a mutual friend — Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who spoke at the March for Life for several decades. He is a strong supporter of the Catholic Church’s stand against abortion, and for traditional man-woman marriage, etc. He is a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of more than 800 Orthodox Rabbis. He feels that if the Church waffles or retreats on abortion or homosexuality or marriage at the upcoming Synod, this will have an adverse effect on Orthodox Judaism and other strong family religions. He is very concerned about the upcoming Synod.”

And another friend wrote, in response to my email of yesterday: “Excellent run down on the issue and cardinals involved. Prelates encouraging or advocating change are gradually ruining the authentic true Catholic Faith. The Roman Catholic Church is not supposed to be a ‘feel good’ Church, waxing and waning to current social issues. It is tragic, that the once prestigious Roman Catholic Church, is now dysfunctional, divided, depleted, contentious and infiltrated.”

And another reader wrote: “Many thanks — was hoping for more clarification on this issue! Will watch this space. Any comment on Cardinal Burke’s new job?” (Note: There have been unconfirmed reports that Pope Francis has decided to move the American Cardinal Raymond Burke from his post in the Roman Curia, as head of the Apostolic Signatura, to a post outside the Curia, as head of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta: see the report on this by Sandro Magister, the Italian Vaticanist, at link).

So many Catholics, and some Orthodox Jewish rabbis, in many countries around the world, are watching Pope Francis, and wondering what he is doing, and what he will do next…

Understanding Francis

Pope Francis, I think, is attempting to make a slight adjustment in the Church’s pastoral focus.

Not to change Church doctrine, but to review and reform how the Church deals with, and cares for, fallen human beings.

This attempt is rooted in both personal experience, and in theological conviction.

Francis is persuaded there is a need to reach out to suffering, wounded, disoriented sinners in part because of a personal experience.

He had a personal, life-changing experience, a mystical experience, of God’s forgiveness of his sin.

It came after he went to confession, at the age of 16, in a church in Buenos Aires.

He has even told us the date: on September 21, 1953 — the Feast of St. Matthew (for this reason, Francis is fascinated by the painting of Caravaggio called The Calling of St. Matthew in the Church of St. Louis of the French near Piazza Navona in Rome; in past years, he often would go there when visiting Rome). This is how the Vatican put it in a biographical sketch published at the time of the Pope’s election last year: “Following a confession, he felt his heart touched and sensed the descent of the mercy of God, who with a look of tender love, called him to the religious life, following the example of St. Ignatius of Loyola.” In these few, spare words, we are told of an experience which transformed the life of young Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He felt his heart “touched” and he “sensed” the “descent of the mercy of God.” He felt, “in a very special way,” the “loving presence of God in his life.”

This experience is part of the reason the Francis wishes to deal with human frailty and sin, not through a restatement of why the sinner is in sin, or in a recitation of the Church’s judgment that the sinner’s choices and actions are sinful, but with mercy, with forgiveness, and so, with an opening out to new life.

There are also theological convictions at the base of Francis’ vision for the pastoral care of Christians — and for all human beings.

Francis is persuaded that the Church is a Mother, that the Church nourishes and protects and supports her children.

He is persuaded that the Lord Jesus, Founder of the Church, still present in the Church, in the Eucharist, in His Word, in his ministers and disciples, and in the love of the members of the Christian community for one another, wishes — as He did when He walked on this earth — to pardon sinners, to forgive them and heal them, not to condemn them and cast them out.

Francis believes in the “personal encounter” — with persons, with a “Mother”… a “Father”… a “Brother” who walks beside us, with us.

And he regards a certain type of “moralism,” which can seem to set laws and precepts and anathemas above such a “walking with,” as something to be avoided, a possible trap for believers.

He doesn’t want to “change the rules” about what is good and evil. Rather, he wishes to forgive those who transgress those rules, and repent, and seek forgiveness.

And he senses that he must privilege this attitude, and this action, or he may lose many souls, who will, sadly, perhaps in despair, turn aside from the way of the Christian faith, unless the Church reaches out to them with arms to embrace and forgive.

And precisely today, Francis spoke about this very personal vision of human life, human morality, and human sin, in his morning homily at Mass in the chapel at his residence, the Domus Santa Marta.

In his homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis said that it is precisely in one’s sins where one meets Jesus. (Here is a link to a Rome Reports video of parts of the homily: Link)

The Pope said that in recognizing our sins, we are able to experience Christ’s loving forgiveness. He said: “This is why the ability to acknowledge our own sins, to acknowledge our misery, to acknowledge what we are and what we are capable of doing or have done, is the very door that opens us to the Lord’s caress, His forgiveness, to His Word ‘Go in peace, your faith has saved you!” The Pope concluded his homily saying that those who feel themselves sinners open their hearts in confession and experience the mercy of God.

Vatican Radio provided these further excerpts: “He (Christ) only says the word salvation — ‘Your faith has saved you’ — to the woman, who is a sinner.

“And he says it because she was able to weep for her sins, to confess her sins, to say ‘I am a sinner’, and admit it to herself.

“He doesn’t say the same to those people, who were not bad people: they simply did not believe themselves to be sinners.

“Other people were sinners: the tax collectors, prostitutes… These were the sinners. Jesus says this word — ‘You are saved, you are safe’ — only to those who open their hearts and acknowledge that they are sinners.

“Salvation only enters our hearts when we open them to the truth of our sins.”

“This is why the ability to acknowledge our own sins, to acknowledge our misery, to acknowledge what we are and what we are capable of doing or have done is the very door that opens us to the Lord’s caress, His forgiveness, to His Word ‘Go in peace, your faith has saved you!’, because you were brave, you were brave enough to open your heart to the only One who can save you.”

One can see clearly in these words the influence of the Pope’s personal experience of September 21, 1953, which continues to shape his understanding of how he should deal, as Pope, with the issue of moral evil and sin, and with the reality of God’s loving mercy which can forgive such sin.

Liberal BBC Asks, “Is Sport Sexist?” While Promoting Inequality

/in , , /by

It long ago became clear to me that, despite all the pretense, protesting and politicking, no one who has ever seriously thought about equality actually believes in it. When making this case, one could point to how Eric Holder’s DOJ is currently suing the Pennsylvania State Police for treating women equally (how dare they!), but there’s perhaps no better example than a recent BBC writer who asks, “Is sport sexist?”

The author, Aimee Lewis, poses the question because there are still sports where the women’s categories don’t precisely correspond to the men’s; for example, she mentions how women gymnasts and swimmers don’t always compete in the same kinds of events, the no-contact rule in women’s lacrosse and how in tennis, “While men play five sets at Grand Slams, women can only compete over three sets.”

Now, the last example well illustrates the convoluted thinking underpinning much of the equality movement. Is the correct way of framing this that “women can only compete over three sets”?

Or it is that men must compete over five?

This is especially relevant since the equality police long ago lobbied for, and succeeded in getting, equal prize money for women at the Grand Slams (Wimbledon, French Open, U.S. Open, Australian Open). In other words, the male players must now work longer for the same pay and thus are actually earning less per hour than the women.

Equality?

The head of the Women’s Tennis Association, Stacey Allaster, was asked about this recently, called it “an old discussion” and said, “[W]e’re ready, willing and able to play five sets if that’s what they’d like us to play.”

Question: Years ago, did Allaster merely say, “We’re ready, willing and able to accept equal prize money if that’s what they’d like to offer”?

No, she zealously lobbied for it.

Why isn’t she lobbying now for equal work for her players’ equal pay? Sure, it’s human nature to want the benefits others have but not their liabilities. But if you really believe in Equality™, you don’t just shout the word in an effort to institute a different model of inequality, one that benefits you or your agenda.

Having said this, I agree with Lewis’ implication: sport is “sexist.” After all, there is a separate realm of athletics that’s protected from the best competition and is only available to one sex. It is, of course, called women’s sports.

This isn’t just snark. There’s a simple answer to any feminist complaint about inequality in sports: You want the men’s money, exposure, standards, respect or something else?

Compete in men’s sports.

And women have the opportunity. Golfers Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie have received “sponsor’s exemptions” to play in PGA (men’s) events. Women have tried out for the NBA and have attempted to work their way up to baseball’s major leagues through the farm system. The door, Ms. Allaster, is open — you just have to be ready, willing and, most importantly, able to walk through it.

The point is this: It’s silly and hypocritical to lobby for equality within an inherently unequal system while simultaneously supporting that system. And if you do, do you really believe in equality in principle? Or only as ploy?

To arbitrarily say that female athletes should earn the same as male ones is like saying that lightweight boxers should have the same purses as heavyweights. It’s like saying the best handicapped “differently abled” athletes (as in the Special Olympics) should not only get paid, but they should earn the same as the able-bodied. And what of elite high-school athletes? The mile record for 15-year-old boys is better than the women’s world record, and the boys’ American high-school record is considerably better. And with some variation, these gaps hold across sports, yet most of these hard-working male athletes will never succeed in the men’s professional ranks and will never earn even what the women do. Should these young sportsmen not only be paid but be compensated as handsomely as the pros?

The answer is simple: If the market — which is just economic democracy expressed through purchasing decisions — valued events for the handicapped or juniors as highly as it does professional men’s sports, those arenas would command the same revenues. The same is true of women’s sports, of course, but in that case we’re expected to offer a special dispensation from the market forces that apply to anyone and everyone else. We’re also supposed to ignore professions in which women are paid more, such as modeling, in which 2013’s 10 top-earning female models commanded 10 times as much as their male counterparts.

Equality?

The reason why heavyweight boxers have always received more money and exposure (satisfied the market more) than lightweights is because the heavyweight world champion is the world champion. This is the same reason men’s professional sports command greater revenue and exposure than athletic arenas for juniors, the handicapped or collegians — or for women. The best male athletes are the best athletes. Other sports categories exist to provide other people with opportunities to compete, have fun and build character. They are not jobs programs.

The truth is that not just sport but all of nature’s and man’s world is a place defined by varying degrees of quality, not equality. This is no doubt why the Bible barely mentions the notion, except when referring to weights and measures. It’s also why I tend to doubt that anyone who has ever pondered equality deeply actually believes in it. It sure is a great rallying cry, though, when trying to overturn the status quo and institute a special-interest-group favoring system of inequality.

For this reason it actually would be beneficial to eliminate sex-specific categories in sports, let everyone compete together and allow the cream to rise to the top. After all, to use a twist on Lincoln’s observation about laws, the best way to eliminate a bad social movement is to apply its tenets strictly. If we actually had to live with the reality of “equality” instead of just its rhetoric, lobbying for equality might go out the window really, really fast.

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

Prepare for a Deluge of Climate Change Hype

/in , , , , /by

Despite the several thousands who will participate in a Climate March and the world leaders who will do so in a UN Climate Summit this week, is there anyone who seriously believes that humans have any impact or control over the climate? Or even the weather? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.

In utter contempt for the intelligence of people here in the United States and around the world, a Climate Change Summit will be held on Tuesday, September 23rd, by the United Nations, the source of decades of lies about “global warming” and—since the Earth has not warmed in the past 19 years—the new name “climate change.”

To advance this greatest of lies, the lead-up to the event will be a massive march in New York on Sunday, Sept. 21st. The purpose, as David Rothbard of the think tank, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) says, is an avalanche of “Scary doomsday ‘science’ and the need for ‘urgent international action’ backed by a ‘People’s March’ of thousands of radical Green activists in the streets.

AA - Climate Hype ExposedCFACT has released “Climate Hype Exposed”, a report that exposes the global warming campaign’s junk science, wasteful policies, and the threat to freedom and prosperity it represents. You can download it

What the mainstream media have largely failed to report were the nine international conferences on climate change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank. The most recent in July featured 64 speakers from 12 countries, all providing science-based lectures that disputed global warming. Heartland’s “Climate Change Reconsidered” reports are filled with the science that debunks the doomsday scenarios.

Heartland CoverNumerous Green groups have been making plans to be in New York for the march. More than 750 organizations are sponsoring the People’s Climate March to coincide with the UN summit. Reportedly it will involve 950 organizations. There will be 63 other events in North America, six in South America, 54 in Europe, 10 in South Asia, and 32 in Australia.

They include, of course, the likes of Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, and lesser known groups like the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network that will be there with the message that “industrialization, fossil fuel combustion, land use change and social and ecological exploitation have compromised the planet’s equilibrium in notable and dire ways.”

This is totally absurd, a matrix of lies that ignores the role that industrialization, the jobs and products it produces; and fossil fuel use, the essential element that provides energy in the form of petroleum to power cars, trucks, and other vehicles, as well, of course, coal that provided half the electricity on which our entire way of life depends until the Obama administration unleashed a “war” on it. The other verbiage about “ecological exploitation” is aimed at all forms of development that contribute to the economy, including the building of homes for a growing population.

The UN Summit is, we’re told, “intended to mobilize international political will needed to achieve an ambitious climate change agreement” at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP-21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which is scheduled to meet in Paris in December 2015.

The week ahead will be filled with many events; some will be sponsored by major corporations such as Lockheed Martin and Hewlett Packard. Even so, it is the corporations that are a target of the climate change proposals to reduce energy use and the alleged pollution it is said to generate.

A number of major nations will not be represented by their leaders. Chinese President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister, Narenda Modi” will not attend. Both nations have been engaged in building a vast network of coal-fired plants to generate the electricity they need for development. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will not be attending, nor will Germany’s Angela Markel.

President Obama has been trying to convince Americans that climate change is a greater threat to the world than the emergence of the radical Islamic State (ISIS) that has seized a vast swath of land in Syria and Iraq. His response has been tepid, consisting of a few “targeted” air strikes and “no boots on the ground.” It is doubtful most Americans think the ordinary climate phenomena that have been a part of the Earth’s existence for 4.5 billion years pose a greater threat than the barbaric agenda of ISIS.

As the media report the march and other events, along with the UN Summit, it is essential to keep in mind that it is all lies. There is no basis in science to support the claims Greens have made for decades, all coordinated out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Primary among those lies is the assertion that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming when, of course, there is NO global warming.

Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, along with Bob Carter, the head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, in a recent New York Post commentary flatly stated that “There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.”

They noted that the Earth’s sea level is not rising in any significant fashion, “averaging about 1 millimeter per year” and that “satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.”

As reported by The New York Times, “The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.” Fuel emissions are not warming the planet. The U.S. Constitution requires that any such treaty would be legally binding only if is approved by two-thirds of the majority of the Senate.”

“To sidestep that requirement,” the Times noted, “President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a ‘politically binding’ deal that would ‘name and shame’ countries into cutting their emissions.”

Ignoring the science and ignoring the Constitution go together for this President, but it will be hard for Americans to ignore the deluge of global warming/climate change lies with which they will be assailed over the weekend and into the week ahead. The mainstream media will see to that.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation Accused of Tax Law Violations

Go Away. Hillary

/in , , , /by

Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.

Had she not been the First Lady, would anyone have ever heard of her in the context of high power political posts? The short answer is no. She had traded on her celebrity and name recognition to become a Senator from New York and then, after a failed bid to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, accepted the position of Secretary of State.

Obama wanted to make sure she was “inside the tent” during his first term and, following that, her resignation has permitted her to now begin distancing herself from a man that many regard the worst President the nation has ever had.

Let’s back up a moment. Is there a single piece of major legislation during her term as a Senator from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009 attributed to her? The answer is no even though she served on important committees that included the budget; armed services; environment and public works; health; education; labor and pensions; and a special committee on aging. No point reviewing her voting record. If her former votes pose a political problem for her now, they will simply be dismissed.

During her four years as Secretary of State, can you name a single treaty that generated any significant media coverage? Again, no, If what political pundits believe and her own book reflects, her views on foreign affairs, strategic objectives and other weighty matters was entirely directed from the Oval Office of the White House. Now, it is true that the Secretary of State’s job is to carry out the President’s foreign policy, but at this point we know he had no consistent or strategic policy other than to ignore the Middle East and make nice with Russia.

As Secretary of State Hillary spent most of the time flying anywhere in the world so as not to be seen that much with Obama, but when the Benghazi consulate was attacked on September 11, 2012, killing our ambassador and three security personnel, what we learned was that she had previously paid little or no attention to the question of its protection at a time when other embassies in Libya were closing their doors to avoid attacks. The picture that emerged following the attack was that of someone simply occupying the office without devoting much time to the management of the State Department.

It’s one thing to allocate management to those in the Department responsible for its vast responsibilities, but the buck still stops at the Secretary’s desk and what we learned following the attack is that she backed up the absurd lies of the President who claimed that it was the result of a video no one had seen and a casual group of men who decided to attack the consulate. On the anniversary of 9/11!!!  Questioned about it by a Senate committee, she famously said, “What difference at this time does it make?”  It makes a lot of difference when the President and Secretary of State lie to the nation and the world.

After returning to private life following Obama’s reelection Hillary outrageously claimed that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. Hillary’s inclination to say stupid things and lie without any need to should be especially troubling should she run for President and, yes, she has been running for a very long time.

In Hillary we have a person who has given little evidence of legislative or management skills who wants to be the first woman President of the United States. It will look good on her resume.

What, in fact, does she have to offer? Just as Obama offered voters the chance to say they had voted for the first black candidate for President, Hillary offers them the chance to say they voted for the first woman President.

That is not reason enough to elect anyone, black, white, man or woman.

We have learned from the Obama experience that his Marxist ideology, attachment to Islam, and disdain for the U.S. military has proven to be a formula for economic and foreign policy disasters. His signature legislation, Obamacare aka the Affordable Patient Care Act, has proven to be the antithesis of his promises that one could keep their own healthcare insurance and doctor if they wanted. It has been an unmitigated failure since a Democratic Party controlled Congress voted it into law in 2009 without a single Republican vote. In 2010 the voters gave political power in the House to the GOP.

Would Hillary allow Obamacare to be repealed if that was passed by Congress? Would she take steps to destroy the Islamic State threat in the Middle East? Or simply said, would she cease to be an extreme liberal masquerading as a moderate or centrist?

Do we want to elect a woman who in early September told a conference in Las Vegas that “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collections of challenges we face. The threat is real, and so is the opportunity…if we make the hard choices.” This is abject idiocy.

I find all the talk of her candidacy at this point to be obscene. It is an insult to the Democratic Party, but then so is Obama. If she is not opposed by primary candidates within the Party or she floats to candidacy simply as a political celebrity, simply as a woman, then the Party deserves to be massively defeated in 2016. We may get an indication of that in the November midterm elections.

I wish Hillary Clinton would simply go away and permit a serious election to occur.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Let’s Get Serious About Radical Islam

/in , , , , , /by

In a nationally televised speech on Wednesday, September 10, Barack Obama announced a four-part plan for dealing with the terrorist organization, ISIS. Here are the four parts of his plan:

  • A systematic campaign of airstrikes against terrorists.
  • Increased support for forces fighting terrorists on the ground.
  • Draw on substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIS attacks. And finally,
  • Provide humanitarian assistance to civilians who’ve been displaced by ISIS terrorism.

Does his plan have any chance of success? No.

Air-power alone will not defeat ISIS. To defeat ISIS it will be necessary to take and hold ground and to flush the 30,000 or 40,000 jihadists out of the cities and towns where they hide among women and children. To date, it is only the Kurds who have expressed a willingness to put troops on the ground. We are told that only 5% of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are radicalized, but that comes to 70 million radicalized jihadists. To put that into perspective, during World War II the combined uniformed forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy totaled only 34.1 million.

Would Obama have gone before the TV cameras to announce his plan unless something or someone forced his hand? No, this is a man who actually said in his speech that “ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is not Islamic.” But just as the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 changed Americans from pacifists to war hawks, literally overnight, the public beheading of two American journalists and a British aid worker has had exactly the same effect. But, while revenge is sweet and it might make us feel good to see a bit of ISIS blood spilled on the desert sands, the Obama plan will accomplish nothing more than to infuriate more and more young Muslims, driving them into the welcoming arms of al-Baghdadi and his army of lunatics.

So how do we attack the problem? First, while we’re busily engaged in bombing individual cars and trucks with $110,000 Hellfire missiles, just to make us feel as if we’re doing something to eradicate ISIS, we must pursue a strategic two-pronged non-military effort to, a) Separate the good Muslims from the bad by prosecuting radical Islamists here at home, and b) Use whatever means we have at our disposal to change the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world.

violentislam-150x150Islam is not a religion, as we understand the term. Rather it is a complete political, judicial, economic, military, and cultural system, masquerading as a religion. Its adherents refuse to assimilate into host country cultures, insisting that they be allowed to exist as an independent entity, not subject to the laws of their host nations. In order to accomplish their ends, they regularly preach the overthrow of their host governments, by violence if necessary.

Accordingly, we must resolve that, “What is sauce for the (Communist) goose is sauce for the (Islamic) gander.” In order to neutralize Islam’s cultural institutions within our country, we must do as I have previously suggested: We must tailor the language of Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954… a law that has not been struck down by the Supreme Court and which is still on the books… to read as follows:

“The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be ‘religious,’ in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by force and violence…

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…

“As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small, numerically, and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present system of government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear and present danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.”

behead those who insult islam photoWith that statute on the books we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. We can make their presence in our country so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they and their predecessors crawled out of. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque and every Muslim cultural center in America, radical Imams such as the late Anwar al-Awlaki could be readily identified and FBI agents could quickly make arrests.

And finally, we Americans have always prided ourselves on our ingenuity. Whatever problems we’ve confronted, we have found ways to solve them. So let’s use that ingenuity to change, to the extent possible, the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world. Consider this example: I suggest that we conduct a major SOFTWAR campaign utilizing a photographic projection technique called “holography,” the creation of images that appear to be three dimensional, when in fact they are only images created by focused beams of laser light.

We already have made-to-order audiences: hundreds of jihadists and other soldiers of the faith, warehoused in various CIA black sites, as well as prison compounds in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The only thing missing is the Prophet Mohammed, himself.

Scientists have been working since 1947 to perfect 3-dimensional holographic imaging, but the greatest advances in the art were made by physicist Lloyd Cross in 1972. Cross developed the integral hologram by combining white light transmission holography with conventional cinematography to produce lifelike moving 3-dimensional images. It gives special effects technicians the ability to produce the Prophet Mohammed, in three dimensions and in living color, and we can make him deliver any message we want, to any audience we assemble.

Imagine the scene in the Pulacharke Prison in Afghanistan, a thousand-year-old stone structure the size of a small gymnasium, filled with radical Muslim clerics and an assortment of al Qaeda and Taliban faithful. And imagine that one moonless night, at midnight, the Prophet Mohammed appears to the sleeping throng, his image floating in mid-air, high in a corner of the room, some fifteen or twenty feet above the floor.

In a loud booming voice, with a slight echo chamber quality, the Prophet would awaken the terrified throng. His reason for returning, he would say, is to tell the radical Islamists that they have misinterpreted his teachings and that he looks with great disfavor upon the radical Islamic interpretation of the Quran. He would declare that Islamic jihad is a great sin, it is Hirabah (prohibited war against society), and that ISIS leader Bakr al Baghdadi is the leader of the Mufsidoon (evil-doers condemned by the Koran). He would tell them that all those who follow the evil ways of ISIS and the Taliban will suffer Jahannam (eternal hellfire) unless they repent.

With the flick of a switch he would be gone, leaving his listeners trembling in terror at what they had just witnessed. Could the “second coming of Mohammed” be staged in such a way that the faithful would be left with no doubt that they’d actually seen the Prophet and heard his words? Of course. If the “second coming” were properly planned and executed, we could even tell those who witnessed our artful hoax what we’d done and they’d never believe us. With the average jihadi having the intellectual capacity of an angry chimpanzee, it would be impossible to convince such primitive minds that they had not actually seen the Prophet.

What I suggest may sound a bit “off the wall,” but is it? There is nothing new about the use of the elaborate hoax as an instrument of war. World War II is replete with such stories. Given the computerized advances in cinematic special effects, today’s special effects technicians could produce absolute miracles. And while it may not be kosher to mess around with someone else’s religion, in the present circumstance we are dealing with religious fanatics whose only goal in life is to kill us all, and for no other reason than that we exist. Our lives, and the lives of our children and grandchildren, hang in the balance. Drastic measures are called for.

Unlike soldiers of civilized cultures, jihadists cannot be captured, imprisoned, and sent off to “reeducation” camps… they can only be killed. And since we can’t begin to think of killing 70 million jihadists, it’s time we got serious about finding more creative ways of defeating the most barbaric enemy in all of recorded history.

Thomas Friedman put it best in a September 13 editorial in the New York Times. He wrote, “Our staying power is ambiguous, our enemy is barbarous, our regional allies are duplicitous, our European allies are feckless, and the Iraqis and Syrians we’re trying to help are fractious. There is not a straight shooter in the bunch. Other than that, it’s just like D-Day.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Army’s Combat Leaders Prepare for New War – Military.com

Time to fire John Boehner!

/in , , , , , , , /by

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) joined forces early Wednesday evening as the House passed a continuing resolution that will fund the government after the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30th, and that will permit funding for Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion provider), the entirety of Obamacare, and an amendment requested by President Barack Obama “to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.” 

These are the good terrorists.  They don’t videotape their be-headings.  Now tax payer money will be used to vacuum suck unborn children from pregnant moms and arm nice terrorists who will try and kill us later after they get rid of their opposition.

The bill passed 319 to 108 with four members not voting. But there were not enough Republican members to pass the bill without significant support from Democrats.

While Pelosi sided with the Republican leadership and voted for the bill, 53 Republicans joined with 55 Democrats in voting against it.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Senate votes 78-22 for Obama’s plan to arm jihadis against other jihadis

Senator blocks bill to seize passports from returning Islamic State fighters

Islamic State controls areas with 60 oil wells

Where is Our ‘Voice in the Wilderness’ touting Conservatism?

/in , , , , /by

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?”

The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean, Liberalism is mean!

Mr Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans — if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day.

Thus far, Romney is telegraphing that he will use the same failed “don’t-come-across-too-conservative” strategy again. Stay home Mr Romney. Please stay home.

Even the Bible expresses displeasure with those who are afraid to stand up for what they believe. “So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

Like President Ronald Reagan, I am a bold colors kind of guy.

Enough with the weak kneed apologizing and watering down what it means to be conservative; allowing certain Americans to break laws due to race, embracing immoral and culturally destructive behaviors in the name of inclusion.

I liked G. W. Bush, but I rue the day that he came out with his “Compassionate Conservatism”. He reinforced Dems/liberal’s lie that Conservatism is not by nature, compassionate. The truth is Conservatism is the epitome of compassion. When will someone have the backbone to stand up for Conservatism; tell Americans why it is far better for them than Liberalism? I am a black conservative because it would be idiotic and self-destructive to embrace Liberalism.

Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads – Little Johnny Says He Does Not Want to Go to School.

Liberal dad’s reply: “Son, I feel your pain. School has too many challenges. Stay in bed. I will provide for and protect you.”

Conservative dad’s reply: “Johnny, you get your butt out of that bed this instant and get ready for school. I will speak to the principal, attend PTA and do whatever necessary. You need an education to have a happy and fulfilled life. I love you son.”

Which dad is righteous, loving and truly compassionate?

Folks, my little scenario illustrates the foundational beliefs under girding Conservatism and Liberalism in America. Conservatism is good for people, offering help to launch folks into self-reliance and personal achievement which creates self-respect and self-esteem.

Liberalism is notorious for dissing people, implying that they are stupid and weak in need of cradle to grave government dependency and intellectual liberals managing their lives.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch the MSM get away with branding the Tea Party “extreme” with very little push back and even support from the GOP. At the core of the Tea Party is Conservatism. Unlike liberals, we respect the individual. We are patriots who desire our government to abide by the Constitution. We desire smaller government, laws enforced equally, fiscal responsibility and a president who does not behave like our Imperial Dictator. And yet, we in the Tea Party are the ones called crazy extremists and a threat to our nation. Why won’t someone tell America the truth, who we really are?

Continuing to allow liberal’s lies about conservatives to go unchallenged is unacceptable. Liberal’s modus operandi is to accuse conservatives of the very crimes they commit.

For example: Liberals say conservatives are intolerant. Liberals are the epitome of intolerance. And for all their campaigning against bullying, liberals are notorious bullies. Talk about blood in the water; how many times have we witnessed the liberal MSM having a feeding frenzy ripping apart someone who dared to express a point of view other than their consensus on an issue?

Bloody victims barely hold on to life after suffering public humiliation and the loss of property and income. And yet, these vicious liberal bullies get all the credit; praised as paragons of compassion. The truth is compassion is the heart of Conservatism.

With Obama’s declining approval numbers, GOP candidates have a golden opportunity to explain the superior attributes and benefits of Conservatism.

Who will be our John the Baptist? Who will be our voice crying in the wilderness proclaiming the good news of Conservatism?

Who is Really Waging a War Against Women?

/in , , , , /by

First of all, I am a woman, happily so. Secondly, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott is not at war with me. Sometimes, I strongly differ with persons in his enormous government, but the Governor is not persecuting me as a woman, as being advertised in the media. In fact, there is only one real war against women in America, who are trafficked for sex and servitude.

Outside of the United States, there exists a ferocious, insatiable, grotesque war against the female gender under Sharia law, which literally hides, beats, mutilates, and murders women on a regular basis for a host of causes – like driving cars, publicly meeting with a male, advocating for educational opportunities, or refusing to obey thousands of male-initiated commands from a father, spouse, brother, or some other man. This, my fellow ladies, is a war against women.

To some degree, Rick Scott is aligned with me in real-time wars against many of my most important foes – marijuana legalization, human trafficking, and pill mills.

This is not an endorsement of a candidate. This is an avid endorsement of every candidate, official, and individual who is working aggressively against the menaces that matter most to this grandmother of four, teacher of 36 years, and maternal figure for thousands of students she has taught. As a woman, suffering children cause me to suffer, and I have personally seen children suffer from marijuana use, prescription over-medications, and trafficking by predators.

In the classroom, marijuana use, endorsed and promoted by Florida’s most boastful attorney, John Morgan, is a systemic destructive element in a child’s life, inducing lethargy, loss of inhibitions, malaise, lack of alertness, truancy, uncontrolled babble, and a host of symptoms counterproductive to high achievement and very productive for the coffers of lawyers.

In his infamous drunken speech at a Lakeland bar on August 28, 2014, Morgan not only advanced the legalization of marijuana, but also promised his young cheering audience, “I do have some money [many millions] …. And let me tell you what. Every one of you mother f—ers can get a sex on the beach. I’m gonna buy it for you ….”

Why is John Morgan still licensed to practice law in Florida? Why is he, as a lawyer, permitted to prominently and publicly promote human trafficking via prostitution? Is this not America’s real war against women, who are the primary victims of the sex trade, in which they are invariably drugged?

I challenge John Morgan to a real debate on marijuana legalization in front of an audience that is not intoxicated, using words that are not profane and disgusting.

I challenge the State of Florida to disbar this champion of prostitution and of illegal drugs, bragging, “Once I get out of Polk County, I might smoke a lot of grass.”

Our Pathetic President

/in , , , , /by

The first thing you need to keep in mind is that Syria and Iraq are now just lines on a map at this point. They don’t exist as national states because the former is locked in a civil war that will replace its dictator one way or the other and the latter’s alleged government is deeply divided between the usual schism of Sunni and Shiite.

More to the point, Iraq’s government is led by men who are the friends and pawns of Iran. In a recent issue of the Iranian newspaper, Eternad, an Iranian analyst commented on the new Iraqi cabinet noting that its new prime minister “enjoys Iran’s support and spend his formative years in Iran, and continued (the operation of the Islamic al-Dawa party) until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

That fall was the result of the war waged against Saddam by President George W. Bush. The Iranian analyst noted that Iraq’s new foreign minister, Dr. Ebrahim Jafari “until recently lived in Tehran in Iran, and enjoyed Iran’s support in spite of his differences with Nouri al-Maleki (the former prime minister). The new Iraqi oil minister, transport minister, and minister of sport and youth were all described as “close to Iran, who either lived in Iran before, fought against the Ba’ath regime with Iran’s help, or constantly traveled to Iran.”

Iraq and Syria came into being when French and British diplomats created them as colonies following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Versailles.

In his September 10th speech, President Obama uttered the word “war” only once and then only to say “We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”

The speech, like everything he says, was a lie constructed to undue the truth he inadvertently admitted when he revealed “We have no strategy.”  If you do not intend to go to war, you do not need a strategy. Instead, you can pretend to the American public that the war will be fought by Iraqis and Syrians.

So far the Syrian civil war has cost that “nation” 200,000 lives and driven a million Syrians out of the country. As for the Iraqis, their military fled in the face of the ISIS forces, leaving behind the weapons we gave them. Between Iraq and Syria, ISIS now controls a landmass larger than the size of Great Britain.

In the course of the speech, Obama said he had dispatched 475 more troops to Iraq. We have an estimated 1,500 or more troops on the ground. That is barely the size of an infantry regiment, composed of two battalions of between 300 and 1,300 troops each.

Significantly, though, Obama opened the speech by reminding Americans that he had “brought home 140,000 American troops from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year.”

President Obama has announced he intends to send up to 3,000 troops to West Africa to help combat Ebola. He can find troops to put in harm’s way in Africa, but not to combat ISIS.

All he has ever wanted to do is to flee from our declared enemies whether they are al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or other Islamic holy warriors. Those numbers signal his failure to follow up our sacrifices in those two nations.

Years after World War II and the Korean War, we still have combat troops in Europe, South Korea, and on bases around the world, but he is pulling out troops in the two nations where our interests are currently threatened. He called the enemy “small groups of killers.” He claimed that “America is safer.”

He appears to think the greatest threat of our time, the holy war being waged by fanatical Muslims, can be won with air strikes and measures that do “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Fighting on foreign soil is what American combat troops did throughout the last century and into this one. They helped defeat Germany and the Japanese Empire in World War II. They stopped the communist North Korean attack on the South, but had less success in the long Vietnam War. They were successful in the Gulf wars until Obama was elected.

We have a President who has displayed a lack of leadership, a lack of judgment, ignorance of history, a cowardly approach to the threats we face, and who has demonstrated over and over again that he is a liar. His administration is likely to be judged the most corrupt in the history of the nation, indifferent to the Constitution and our laws.

Proclaiming that he “could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform”, this is a President who has engaged in dramatically reducing the size of our military to pre-World War II levels. After a two-star general, Major General Harold J. Green, was killed in Afghanistan in April not one single member of the White House attended his funeral. Obama was playing golf.

America must survive a man who many have come to believe is “the worst President” in our history. An essential stop toward that will be to defeat as many Democratic Party incumbents and candidates for office in the November 4 midterm elections. Americans—patriots—can do no less at this point.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

NFL Threw Ray Rice Under the Bus

/in , , , , /by

By now most people have heard how Ray Rice has been thrown under the bus by the National Football League (NFL) and his former team, the Baltimore Ravens.

First, some background for the non-football fans. Rice was drafted by the Ravens in the second round (55th overall) of the 2008 NFL draft.  He signed a 4-year contract for $2.805 million plus a $1.1 million signing bonus. Last year, he signed a 5-year, $35 million contract, paying him a $15 million signing bonus.

Second, here are some cold facts:

  • On February 15, both Rice and his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, were arrested and charged with assault after a fight at an Atlantic City, N.J. casino.
  • On March 27, a grand jury indicted Rice on third-degree aggravated assault (charges against Palmer were dropped).
  • On March 28, Rice married Palmer (the date had been planned and announced before the assault charge).
  • On May 20, Rice was allowed to enter into a pretrial diversion program. Upon successful completion of the program, which will be a minimum of one year, the third-degree charge of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury would be dismissed. The arrest would remain on his record, but with no conviction.
  • On July 24, the NFL suspends Rice for 2 games.
  • On July 25, the Raven’s organization rallies around Rice.
  • On August 28, the NFL established a domestic violence policy for the league.
  • On September 8, the celebrity Website TMZ releases video of Rice knocking out his wife in an elevator and dragging her out of the elevator when it stopped .
  • On September 8, the Raven’s terminates Rice from the team.
  • On September 8, 2014, the NFL suspends Rice from the league indefinitely.
  • The Associated Press reports on Sept. 10th that a law enforcement official said he sent damaging video of Rice knocking out his then-fiancee to the NFL, despite League denials.

The above narrative is the only thing we know to be indisputable.

Prior to the video’s release, Rice had been caught on a security camera dragging his fiancée out of the elevator. That got him suspended for two games without pay. The penalty, which some criticized as too lenient, cost him about $530,000 in salary.

Now that everyone has seen the graphic video of the actual event, people have all of a sudden become filled with phony righteous indignation.  Rice should have been punished not because of the video, but because of the act itself. But doing a bait-and-switch on his punishment amounts to pilling on.

Now many professional athletes, entertainers, politicians, and the public want to make public statements about how terrible a person Ray Rice is.  Where was this outrage before the release of the video?  Where is the outrage from these athletes and entertainers about the precious Black children being killed in Chicago?  Where is their outrage about anything other than collecting a bigger paycheck?

To ultra-feminist groups, especially the National Organization of Women (NOW), why are you so selective in your outrage about how women are treated?  To this day, you have never criticized Beyoncé for objectifying herself and women in her music. Yet you criticize Hip Hop for the same thing.  Where is their outrage about a woman who raped a child in Arizona when he was 14 and now, at 20, is being forced to pay child support for a 6-year-old child he never knew existed?

It sickens me that people want to take, by all accounts, a good person and kick dirt in his face because he made a terribly horrible mistake; a mistake because there was nothing in his past that indicated this type of behavior. Even more troubling is the contention that Ray does not deserve a second chance. That’s a mighty high standard, considering human frailty.

There was absolutely nothing in the video that Rice hadn’t already admitted to police and the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens have admitted as much.  The difference is that the NFL faced a growing backlash, based on the release of the video.

Rice is not guilty of breaking any laws. The criminal justice system – with everyone having access to the controversial video – treated Rice as the first-time offender that he was. He was dismissed by the NFL for violating a league’s “conduct” policy. In other words, for “conduct detrimental to the league.”  Once that is invoked by the league or a team, based on their collective bargaining agreement, punishment can be anything from a fine to being banned from the sport.

The NFL, after meting out a 2-game suspension, changed the rules in the middle of the ride. After serving half of his 2-game suspension, Rice was retroactively given a death sentence.

The Tale of Two Catholic Cardinals: Chicago’s Francis George & New York’s Timothy Dolan

/in , , , , /by

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of Our Lady of Sorrows” as we bring you a very interesting e-mail here for you – a look at the two former Presidents of the USCCB – Cardinal Francis George (pictured above) and Cardinal Timothy Dolan – a stark comparison of two completely different men; two different types of cardinals; and two leaders of large and popular archdioceses in our country.

Cardinal George closely oversees the archdiocese of Chicago with two keen eyes while Cardinal Dolan nonchalantly watches over New York City with a very sleepy eye. Both archdioceses have their fair share of crime; the abortion rates are high and both cities are always under the spotlight. But, while Cardinal George takes pride in preaching boldly from the Gospels and getting out in the streets to fight crime and the other evils of a big city like Chicago – without looking for the limelight – Cardinal Dolan plays it safe – hangs out with the Pro-abortion politicians, ministers Holy Communion to them, has taken the title of the grand Marshall at the controversial St. Patrick’s Day Gay parade – and lives for the limelight…Two completely different men – both cardinals, both archbishops. Both walking in different directions.

Friends: Please take a look at the below article from the bold and courageous Cardinal George as his views on Gay marriage, Obamacare and abortion – to name a few – are quite different than this successor, Cardinal Dolan.

Cardinal George’s comments are right on target and what the Catholic faithful should consider as Catholic doctrine, Catholic teachings. He has no problem telling it like it is, has the courage to back it up and goes as far as referring to those Catholics who do not adhere to these Catholic Church teachings as the “fake church”. A devout supporter of the “Holy Roman Catholic Church”, he could not have said it any better as I refer to this new church-goer as the “Progressive American Catholic“ – a member of this fake church that the cardinal is referring to and the church-goer that Cardinal Dolan has catered to and is actually in the process of creating, as we speak…

This “Progressive American Catholic” is completely different than the “Holy Roman Catholic” and that is the crux of the problem in the United States today.

The Catholic Church has become divided. One comes from the liberal “church of nice” – where everything is relative and everything is accepted. The other comes from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church – the one that Jesus built upon Peter, the Rock, whose foundation is solid and will last throughout eternity. Those are the Catholic Church teachings that Cardinal George relies on and lives by. Cardinal Dolan, on the other hand, finds himself in that “politically correct” church of nice – where mostly anything goes and being in front of the media is more important than saving souls. Again, two completely different church leaders with two different agendas and two different approaches – but, yet, represent the same Holy Catholic Church and the Vatican in Rome.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with these two different schools of thought as I for one, have had more than enough of Cardinal Dolan and the liberal controversies that he has brought to our beloved Catholic Church. Dolan has disgraced our Church way too many times and millions of Catholics around the country have also had enough and even many of Cardinal Dolan’s colleagues have not been too keen on his latest attention-getting shenanigans.

Meanwhile, keep focused on what Cardinal George is preaching and bringing to the pulpit. This is the type of church leader – courageous cardinal – that the Holy Catholic Church needs today. If more cardinals and bishops spoke and acted like this Holy Man of GOD, the Catholic Church would not be in the trouble it is in today. If they all spoke from the pulpits like Cardinal George and Cardinal Burke have been doing for years, then the Catholic Faithful would know what to follow, what church doctrine really is and what the real Holy Roman Catholic Church is all about. It’s time we all boldly stand together as One Body in Christ and bring our Church back to where it is supposed to be – the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus founded over 2,000 years ago…Like EWTN’s fired up Catholic evangelist, Tom Peterson, said this past Wednesday evening at St. Jude Church in Tequesta:

CATHOLICS COME HOME…MAY MORE CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS LIKE CARDINAL GEORGE STEP UP AND LET THEMSELVES BE HEARD LOUD & CLEAR WHEN THEY SPEAK NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH! MAY CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS LIKE CARDINAL DOLAN STOP THEIR SELFISH & BLATANT ANTICS THAT CONTINUE TO DISGRACE OUR BELOVED HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!!

Cardinal: U.S. ‘Creed’ on Gay Marriage Like Sharia Law

September 10, 2014 – 2:07 PM

By Michael W. Chapman

cardinalgeorge

Cardinal Francis George, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. (AP)

(CNSNews.com) – Cardinal Francis George, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago, said the levers of power in government, education, entertainment, and media are enforcing a “public creed,” a “fake church” that requires all citizens to approve of gay marriage and related sexual anomalies or be punished by the State, just “as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.”

Cardinal George, who was president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 2007-10, made his remarks in his Sept. 7 column for the archdiocesean newspaper. In his commentary, the cardinal explains that America , despite social frictions at certain times, had always strived to ensure religious freedom and respect for different religions.

The State, in the past, had “kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church,” said the cardinal.

But that has now changed, he said. “In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered ‘sinful,’” he continued.  “Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes.”

“What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval,” said Cardinal George, whose archdiocese includes about 2.2 million Catholics.  “The ‘ruling class,’ those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone.”

“We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family,” he said.  “Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger.”

The cardinal then noted that Americans who objected on religious grounds to the Obamacare mandate on contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, were chastised by many in the media, including the liberal Huffington Post, which claimed the opposition, and the six Catholic judges on the Supreme Court, raised “concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen.”

This was not the anti-Catholic voice of nativists, or the Know-Nothing Party, or the Ku Klux Klan, said the cardinal, but, “rather, the self-righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘enlightened.’”

“The inevitable result is a crisis of belief for many Catholics,” said Cardinal George.  “Throughout history, when Catholics and other believers in revealed religion have been forced to choose between being taught by God or instructed by politicians, professors, editors of major newspapers and entertainers, many have opted to go along with the powers that be.

”This reduces a great tension in their lives, although it also brings with it the worship of a false god,” he said.  “It takes no moral courage to conform to government and social pressure. It takes a deep faith to ‘swim against the tide,’ as Pope Francis recently encouraged young people to do at last summer’s World Youth Day.”

The cardinal continued, “Swimming against the tide means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers.” “Nor will their children, who will also be suspect,” he said.

“Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics,” said Cardinal George.  “It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.”

Cardinal George went on to argue that U.S. civil law has done much to weaken and destroy the family, which in turn has forced the State to impose more and more restrictions on people and their activities that are unloosed from the “internal restraints that healthy family life teaches.”

He also says that many of the “tenets of the official State religion” are largely dictated by elements of a certain social class, noting that “’same-sex marriage,’ as a case in point, is not an issue for the poor or those on the margins of society.” How the situation may end, said the cardinal, is unclear because there are many Americans, “even among the ruling class, who do not want their beloved country to transform itself into a fake church.”

Catholics and traditional Christians know by faith, said Cardinal George, thatChrist will return to judge the living and the dead and the church “will be there to meet Him.”

However, “[t]here is no such divine guarantee for any country, culture or society of this age or any age,” concluded Cardinal George.

The archdiocese of Chicago, established in 1843, serves about 2.2 million Catholics through 356 parishes, and with more than 1,400 priests and 1,600 women religious. The archdiocese operates 44 schools and 5 colleges, the latter educating 49,000 students. The archdiocese also oversees 17 Catholic hospitals, assisting 2.6 million people a year, and helps another 1.2 million people through 150-plus different charities.

Why Are Those Jews So Assertive?

/in , , , , /by

The selectivity of the outrage against Israel would be nonsensical if it were really about human rights. But it’s not.

The recent war in Gaza spawned anti-Semitic riots across Europe, demonstrations in the United States, and the publication of malicious blood libels all over the world.  There were civilian casualties to be sure, but the numbers reported by Hamas were inflated and included many terrorists falsely identified as noncombatants. Though the loss of civilian life is regrettable, it occurred in Gaza because of Hamas’s strategy of using human shields and launching rockets from schools, hospitals, mosques and residential neighborhoods.

As usually happens when Israel defends herself, she was falsely accused of human rights abuses and war crimes.  Her detractors were mute, however, when Hamas deliberately targeted Israeli civilians and killed its own citizens. They were also silent as hundreds of thousands were being killed in Iraq and Syria, and have been restrained in their response to the wave of bloody jihad being waged across the Mideast by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”).

The selectivity of the outrage against Israel would be nonsensical if it were really about human rights. But it’s not. Israel is maligned instead for having the temerity to defend herself and, in a larger sense, the existential rights of Jews everywhere. Even in the twenty-first century, the world appears to prefer docile Jews who know their place over those who forcefully defend themselves, their values and their homeland.

The international community can accept suffering Jews, subservient Jews, assimilationist Jews, and dead Jews. What it cannot tolerate are confident Jews who protect themselves and their interests without compromise or apology.

It seems that many progressives feel the same way when they denounce Jewish assertiveness as chauvinistic and advocate dialogue with organizations and movements that seek to destroy Israel and her people. Regardless of whether such behavior arises from a ghetto mentality, Stockholm  syndrome, self-loathing or simple ignorance, Jews who reflexively criticize Israel but rationalize Islamist terror and rejectionism are complicit in enabling the anti-Semitism that is sweeping the globe.

Multiple surveys have documented rising anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States, and the data are consistent with law enforcement statistics showing increased violence against Jews and their property. Anti-Semitism is apparent among those who disparage Jewish nationalism, call for boycotts of Israel, and make false accusations of apartheid to delegitimize the Jewish State. It is also common in Arab-Muslim society, where it is taught in schools, heard in sermons, and disseminated in false claims of Israeli atrocities and Jewish conspiracy theories that are reported as fact in newspapers from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and all points in between.

Progressive apologists artificially distinguish between disparagement of Israel and hatred of Jews, but it is a distinction without a difference. The United Nations Human Rights Council spends much of its time accusing Israel of heinous crimes without a scintilla of proof, but ignores actual atrocities that routinely occur everywhere else in the Mideast.

The UNHRC expresses little if any concern regarding the harassment and murder of Copts and other Christians, the repression of women, and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Arab or Muslim countries, and has not addressed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Syria and Iraq nearly as much as it has condemned Israel. Though it entertains bogus claims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it does not chastise Hamas for starting the conflict in the first place, or for using human shields, executing its own people, and calling for jihad and genocide.

Only Israel is singled out for opprobrium, although she is the only free and open democracy in the Mideast – one in which citizens live where they want, speak and worship freely, vote, and serve in government, regardless of religion or ethnicity. The UNHRC’s anti-Israel agenda can only be explained by institutional Jew-hatred, which is enabled by a parent body that tolerates human rights violations by dictatorial and theocratic regimes and provides a bully pulpit for global anti-Semitism. A cynical observer might suspect the U.N. of actively promoting Jew-hatred based on the disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel for imagined offenses as compared to the organization’s silence regarding real crimes committed by countries that engage in ethnic cleansing and seek Israel’s destruction. The hypocrisy reached a crescendo when Israel was unfairly blamed for acting “disproportionately” in a war that was instigated by Hamas.

Hamas violated international law by using human shields, shooting rockets from residential areas and institutions, and targeting civilian populations.  In contrast, Israel went to unprecedented lengths to minimize the risk to civilians. The IDF gave advanced warnings to Gaza residents via mass leaflets, texts, emails, and mechanized phone calls.  Israel’s conduct was a far cry from that of coalition allies in Afghanistan, where carpet bombing killed or injured many noncombatants. Or of Great Britain, whose bombing of Dresden during World War II inflicted heavy civilian casualties.

Despite the humanity shown by Israel in the face of unprovoked aggression, and although Hamas started the war by firing rockets at Israeli civilians, supporters of Hamas and the Palestinians violently protested and attacked Jews wherever they were found.  After the war began, Jewish men and women were beaten in France, England and Sweden; synagogues and Jewish institutions were attacked and vandalized across Europe; and Great Britain saw an astronomical increase in anti-Jewish agitation.

Moreover, protest rhetoric from Europe, the Mideast and the liberal entertainment industry was anti-Semitic in both tone and content. Although some vacuous celebrities who condemned Israel are now scurrying to deny they are anti-Semitic, the implication of nefarious stereotypes and blood lust imagery betrays the hollowness of their denials. Or their ignorance.

Apologists for Hamas continue to promote the fallacy that demonstrations against Jewish targets are understandable responses to supposed Israeli aggression. But how do violent assaults against Jews constitute political statements?  How could attempts by Muslim mobs to force their way into synagogues in France and Switzerland be considered acceptable forms of protest? And how do cries of “death to the Jews” by hostile protestors or the publication of blood libels by Arab and left-wing media outlets constitute legitimate commentary?

Such acts are acceptable only if the target group is deemed deserving of abuse, and this has certainly been the case for Jews during their long years of exile in Europe and the Arab world.  The Nazis may have mastered the art of genocide, but they did not create anti-Semitism. European hostility to the Jews was constant after the rise of Constantine, manifesting in massacres, canonical abuses, ghetto confinement, bloody crusades, pogroms, social isolation and economic exclusion.

Notwithstanding lip service paid to Jewish suffering after the Holocaust, an undercurrent of hatred persisted that continued to portray Jews as aliens even though many had lived on the continent longer than some of the peoples who came to be known as Europeans. There were pogroms in Poland after the Nazis were defeated and merciless persecution by the Soviets until the end of the Cold War.

Despite the myth of tolerance for “People of the Book,” Jews in Islamic lands have been subjugated, abused, confined and segregated, forcibly converted and massacred, and have seen their synagogues desecrated and property confiscated over the centuries. As a conquered people dispossessed of their birthright, moreover, they were treated derisively and denied the right to sovereignty in their homeland.  A review of Maimonides’ Iggeret Teman (“Letter to the Jews of Yemen”), written in the twelfth century, shows how brutally Jews were treated during the Golden Age of Islam.

As hostile as Europeans have been to Jews historically, many of the recent anti-Semitic incidents in France, England and elsewhere have been linked to the Middle Eastern immigrant communities in those countries, often with approval and support from the radical left. Interestingly, the anti-immigration right-wing parties in Europe – particularly in France – have been more tolerant of Jews, who live by the law of the land, than of immigrants who believe in Sharia and seek to impose it on others.

Though anti-Semitism was never eradicated, its proliferation today is enabled by a mainstream media that demonizes Israel and fails to report war crimes and abuses committed by Hamas and other Islamist groups.  The media employs moral equivalency to present terrorism as an understandable consequence of alleged Israeli crimes and western interventionism.  The massacres of civilians in Syria and Iraq are reported, but not with the same urgency used to slander Israel and impugn her legitimacy. And until the beheading of American journalist James Foley, there was scant acknowledgment of the threat posed by ISIS in the Mideast and beyond. The mainstream press accepted President Obama’s dismissive characterization of ISIS as junior varsity last January, and until recently depicted those who warned of the threat and demanded a strategy for confronting it as alarmists.

Whereas the President certainly had incentive to misstate the nature of the ISIS menace because it undercut his assurances that global terrorism was on the wane, the media was obligated as the watchdog of government to parse and refute such statements. But it failed miserably to do so, which was not surprising given the lack of objectivity with which it covers the Obama administration and events in the Mideast in general. The media shows its partisan stripes whenever it misreports Israeli defensive actions as aggressive, or refuses to retract stories of Israeli attacks on civilian targets later shown to have been bombed by Hamas, or turns a blind eye to Hamas war crimes, or accepts inflated Palestinian casualty statistics without verification.

The media legitimizes Hamas by failing to characterize its actions honestly, and strengthens a cultural mindset that considers attacks on Jews to be understandable reactions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  There is a presumption that Israel is always at fault – regardless of who fires the first shot – and a tendency to sensationalize alleged Israeli transgressions without vetting sources or checking facts.

Mainstream outlets often repeat dubious claims as fact, such as whenTime Magazine recently ran a video report claiming, among other things, that the IDF was harvesting the internal organs of dead Arabs. The offending allegation was retracted and deleted last month after Honest Reporting exposed it, complaining that it constituted a blood libel.

The banalization of anti-Semitism is also facilitated by those who promote BDS efforts, support Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political parties, and express hatred for Israel using traditional anti-Jewish buzzwords. The situation is exacerbated by Jews on the left who defend anti-Semitic progressives by artificially distinguishing them as political anti-Zionists.  Such distinctions are disingenuous, however, as both terms reflect the same hatred. To say that the Jews – unlike any other people on earth – have no indigenous right to sovereignty in their homeland is to treat them differently and deny their history. This is surely anti-Semitic.

Unfortunately, the tendency to excuse or ignore anti-Semitism is not limited to the hard left, but can be found among mainstream liberals who validate Palestinian claims that repudiate Jewish history, advocate dialogue with groups that have extremist ties, and continue to vouch for an administration that has been more hostile than any other to the Jewish State. This tendency was already apparent back in 2008, when Jewish Democrats refused to question Mr. Obama’s long-standing associations with anti-Semites and Israel-bashers, and belittled the concern of those Jews who did.

It is also apparent in the reluctance of some to acknowledge the possible influence of anti-Semitism in crimes committed against Jews.  This may have been the case with the murder of Rabbi Joseph Raksin, who was shot and killed while walking to Shabbat services last month in Miami, Florida.  Some were hesitant to suggest the murder was a hate crime, and the police were quick to deny any evidence of bias.  However, the investigation is still open and no arrests have been made. It would thus seem peculiar to discount potential motives before all the facts are in, particularly when the synagogue to which Rabbi Raksin was walking had recently been defaced with anti-Jewish graffiti, other acts of targeted vandalism had been reported around that time, and a pro-Hamas rally had been held in the community a few weeks earlier.

If anti-Semitism in fact plays a role in such incidents, the reluctance to assess and identify it will not eliminate the problem. To the contrary, history suggests that timidity only invites further abuse, compromises the Jews’ standing in society, and paves the way for exclusion, dehumanization and genocide.  Jewish survival has never been assured by avoiding confrontations or placating aggressors.

For the phrase “never again” to be more than an empty platitude, Jews need to confront their detractors, defend their values, and protect themselves without shame or embarrassment. Constructive audacity is as important for protecting the Diaspora community as it is for Israel. Lack of fortitude, however, could be disastrous for both.

The War Neither Obama, Nor Any Other Nation Wants to Fight

/in , , , , /by

Two trends have emerged since President Obama’s September 10thAA - Obama Stop ISIS speech regarding his intention to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.

One is the understanding that he will not commit U.S. troops as “boots on the ground” to fight a force estimated variously between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on intelligence guesswork.

The other trend is the reluctance of any other nation to engage in the warfare that would be necessary to defeat the terrorist army occupying northern Iraq and a swath of Syria.

This was initially signaled at the NATO meeting in Wales and, according to a September 12 page one report in The Wall Street Journal, “A day after President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to combat Islamic State militants, Washington’s international allies didn’t make clear how far they would go to join military operations even as they pledged support.”

Who would support a President who said he had no intention of being “dragged back into a war in Iraq”?

That is not a “strategy.” It’s surrender. It is an admission of a lack of intent to confront what will surely emerge as a major threat to the Middle East and the West.

Word Games

The Obama administration was initially reluctant to even call it a war. It was a “counter-intelligence operation” according to Secretary of State Kerry.  The President and his administration have spent six and a half years labeling terrorist attacks as anything other than acts of war. But 9/11 was an act of war.

The killing of soldiers at Fort Hood was called “workplace violence” when it was clearly a terrorist act. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us that the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three security personnel was just a bunch of militants angered by a video no one ever saw.

In Iraq—a nation now in name only—its military fled from combat with ISIS. The result has been a demonstration of the barbarity of ISIS, killing Muslims and “infidels” alike in large numbers. The videos of the beheadings of two American journalists sent the U.S. a message that dramatically altered the simmering reluctance of Americans to make war on the Islamic State. The beheading of a British citizen will no doubt echo the U.S. population’s desire for revenge and a full-scale war on ISIS.

Middle East expert, Walid Phares, says ISIS’s message is that it has concluded that neither the U.S. nor Great Britain will engage it with troops, preferring only air strikes. No military expert believes that will be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

Turkey, that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran, is fearful for the lives of nearly fifty of its diplomats taken hostage in Mosul when it was captured in June. They have cause, but Turkey has been increasingly Islamic in its outlook for nearly a decade, shedding its secular approach to governance. It has refused to allow the U.S. to use bases there to fight ISIS.

In Europe, Germany said it would not take part in any airstrikes against ISIS. Other EU nations will likely follow its lead. In a similar fashion, Arab nations have not indicated any intention to actively—militarily—participate in what appears to be a “coalition” in name only.

A post by Steve Eichler, CEO of Tea Party, Inc. says it all:

“We are in the gravest of situations. Our military—once the most powerful in the world—is crumbling.

Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate.

He’s deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we citizens open to attack.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

Our Army has not trained for six months. Meanwhile there is tremendous domestic and foreign unrest taking place. “To have the Chief of Staff of the Army confess to the world that our Army has not trained for six months is highly disturbing,” says former Florida Congressman Allen West. ‘[It] should make us all sleep less soundly at night.’”

Obama has been destroying our military in every way he can and, other than air power, he has a greatly reduced infantry and other forces with which to wage a ground war in Iraq. ISIS knows this and so does the rest of the world.

Not since the end of World War II and our ascendance as a superpower has America fallen to such a loss and lack of real power both militarily and economically.

The years since Obama’s election in 2008 have been an unqualified disaster for the nation, the West, and the rest of the world. They have looked to the U.S. to lead and now see a U.S. that has twice elected a man whose entire agenda has been to abandon leadership.

To some, his actions reek of treason.

© Alan Caruba, 2014