Bitter Oranget, Oranget Pulp

The right word would be hazukashi, Japanese for “shame,” which means admitting you were wrong and making sincere amends. Sad to say, but “avoir honte,” being ashamed in French, too often means denial of the misdeed compounded by fresh lies.

Monsieur Stéphane Richard, CEO of France’s sterling telecommunications outfit Orange™, did a song and dance in Cairo. The international cad told his Cairo buddies he had a pressing urge to cut ties with that damned Israeli so-called partner. As if Partner (that’s actually the name of the Israeli company) were a lowdown Chinese knockoff of Orange™. If Monsieur Orange did not actually pinpoint the “colonies,” all the better: the boycotters consider all of Israel a colony. His deep desire to maintain good relations with Egypt and the whole wide Arab world was reason enough to ditch Partner.

Bizarre. A 21st century telecommunications magnate thinks you can spit on the Jews in Cairo, straighten your tie, and come home to Paris with a hypocritical smile and no harm done. Some will say he didn’t spit at anyone, didn’t talk about Jews, just a cumbersome Israeli partner, nothing to get into a tizzy about and anyway a brief communiqué from management should whisk away any misunderstanding.

If, like me, you have been enduring the misdeeds of the Orange™ site for years you won’t be surprised to find a pack of lies there: Monsieur Richard was speaking about commercial relations. Nothing to do with politics. Strictly business! Is that so? Shortly after signing a ten-year extension to the contract with the Israeli firm, the CEO of Orange™— the French government is a 25% shareholder—rescinds it without prior notification. If he doesn’t cut the ties then & there with a slash of a sabre, he tells his Egyptian confidantes, it’s because it will cost tens of millions in penalties. Me too, monsieur l’orange, I’d like to cancel my plan hic e nunc. But it will cost me a pretty penny.

So I am writing as a paid in full Orange™ customer, sucked dry for years when your precursors, France Telecom, enjoying a quasi-monopoly, billed phone calls as if they were gold.

As a good businessman bursting with humanism you kick a Jew, excuse me, an Israeli in the pants to please the Egyptians, thinking they are buddy-buddy with France’s antiquepolitique arabe. Would they be happy to know about the wildcat Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators stomping down the boulevard Beaumarchais, waving their yellow flag with the folded-thumb hand?

Then you come back to Paris and deny the meaning of your declaration (teacher, teacher, I didn’t say “dirty Jew” I said “how do you djew?” I swear, I swear on my mother’s head), trying to make us believe you were simply announcing, in front of your Cairo buddies, the new orange policy of terminating this kind of non-subsidiary partnership. In fact there isn’t any “this kind” because Partner, which happens to have donned the Orange™ label before it was acquired by France Telecom, is one of a kind. This explains the interest of pleasing the BDSsers, plus a sourpuss French ambassador to the U.S., and a grand Guigoungol botoxed ex-minister, by announcing your new commercial strategy there, in the land of themisrahim. Of course you didn’t mention your Israeli high-tech investments — Orange Business Services and Viaccess-Orca. Hazukashi !

As for my buddies, they’ve all taken their business to free. If I remain orange it’s because I am faithful by nature and certainly not in return for satisfaction guaranteed. By the way, there has been a lot of talk about the high suicide rate among your employees but no one is worrying about the suicidal thoughts provoked in customers that have to communicate with them! The router that goes into cardiac arrest; the so-called technical service that has you crawling for an hour from outlet to outlet, unplug, plug, unplug, plug, and start again, backward and forward; stations that disappear; the image that freezes every thirty seconds, especially when there are elections, hostage situations, or earthquakes. A young lady who earns a halfway decent living chez vous mused on the possibility that these thermal shocks were due to interference from an electrical appliance, maybe the washing machine. She didn’t dare suggest it was the fault of the Israelis that colonize the Arabs over there and even here in France.

I stayed with Orange™ because I like the contact with intelligent beings that can decrypt the gobbledygook of your supposedly high-tech site. Except for the désimlockage. Pure torture. Is it because I wanted to slip my Israeli SIM card, Orange™ what’s more, in the mobile phone I bought from you two years ago and replaced last month?

I was running around like a laboratory rat from the boutique here to the agency there. You have to see the technical service. In fact, no, it wasn’t their department, but the young man at the reception thought he could fix it. After puttering around for three quarters of an hour he informed me, out of good hearted wishfulness I suppose, that the telephone was already désimlocké.

My doubts persisted. I went back to the boutique where they told me to phone the technical service. What’s the use?  The automated voice that would drive a bonze crazy sends me back to where I began: désimlockage online. The guys in the boutique tell me the trick is to just hang on after the automatic message. An advisor will reply. It works.  I pour out my sad story:  I followed instructions, got a code by email, fed the code to my phone that kept burping: “code error.” The advisor confirms my doubts: the telephone is resolutelysimlocké. She asks if the IEMI in the email message is correct. I think so but I’m in an Orange™ boutique, not in front of my computer. And it’s almost 7 PM. She says she’ll verify for me. I should just give her my password.

I’m like the innocent bloke who’s been grilled by the police for 24 hours! But I don’t confess.

I can’t give you my password.

She takes it as a personal insult: In that case there’s nothing else I can do for you.

Let’s skip over the next ten chapters of this waking nightmare. In the last analysis I had to send the telephone to a company in the provinces to get it désimlocké. Is it the manufacturer’s fault (Nokia)? Perhaps. But you’re the dealer, monsieur Richard.  Maybe Nokia doesn’t like doing business with a service provider in France and the colonies? Yes, you call them DOM-TOM, but what does the international community think? And how about your apartheid banlieues?  

That’s not all. A quick survey of reliable sources confirms that I am not the only one who has fallen prey to fraudulent companies that are allowed to bilk me, via Orange™, for junk services we never or accidentally subscribed to. You helped yourself right from the cookie jar, my bank account, and the shady guys got their share. I kept putting off the task of checking my bill in detail because I get seasick trying to navigate your site. One day I finally zeroed in on my mysteriously inflated bill and discovered a line labeled internet +.

And there, monsieur Richard, after what you did in Cairo, I hold you personally responsible. Who else would have instructed your personnel to tell me I must have charged purchases on my Orange™ account? You know, train tickets, clothes, restaurants…. Can you believe it? Instead of using one of my [several] credit cards I said, “Send the bill to Orange™.” Who ever heard of such a thing?

A few more weeks of intensive research to finally discover that we clicked on a site one day thinking the man of the house could watch a rugby match online. Hah! No match, no images, nothing but chatter, even more idiotic than the sports commentators on our state-owned networks. Thanks but no thanks! A few hundred euros down the line we finally managed to cancel the internet+ “subscription.” We asked, begged, pleaded and demanded to be reimbursed for these never- provided non-services but the oranges wouldn’t give us a penny. Too late, sucker.

Let’s leave it at that. The list of your turpitudes is too long. You’ll bore my readers. I’ll leave you, Orange™, I’ll leave you when I am good and ready and before you try to squeeze me for legal fees when Partner sues you. Don’t count on me, don’t count on Partner, don’t count on Israel to commit suicide. It’s not our culture. 

All things considered, it was a refreshing experience. Both public and private Israeli bodies reacted with dignity. No apologies, none of that personally, I’m for the two-state solution, not even one of those humanitarian copouts— but the Palestinians too benefit from the service provided in the colonies.  On the French side, the foreign affairs minister himself repeated the government’s firm opposition to anything faintly resembling a boycott. Stéphane Richard, against the ropes, cried on the shoulder of BFM TV’s heartfelt journalist Ruth Elkrief. His lower lip trembling, he lamented: That anyone might think, the very idea, who could believe, me, an antisemite, woe is me, I am hurt, wounded to the depths of my being.

And off he went, on the path of repentance. Did he pray at the kotel ? Lachon hara in Cairo, salamalekoums in Jerusalem and, needless to say, indifference of global media. No background, no follow up. The juicy part for them was the chance to claim “the colonies are illegal in the eyes of international law.”

No background, no follow up, and no ringing bells when by chance, during the trial of the creepy Forsane Alizza[i] gang, it was revealed that a man named Dawoud, gainfully employed by Orange™, delivered bushels and crates of information to the Islamists on potential targets — a handy file on Jews & infidels ready for use when the “horsemen of pride” would decide to strike.  

Hazukashi !

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Times of Israel.

Marion County, IN: Just One More Homeless Iraqi War Veteran

As if our fighting troops did not have enough troubles on the battlefields of the world, they also face domestic battles to even buy a home. Case in point, Matt E., an Iraqi War veteran and still an active duty military man, signed a purchase agreement for the Indianapolis home of deceased Holocaust Survivor Al Katz on July 19, 2012. Matt had his cash on the barrel on hand, but, as of July 20, 2015, nearly three years later, Matt owns no home.

What has Matt done wrong in his fervent attempt at achieving the American Dream of home ownership? It is simply that Matt wants to buy a home, which he loves, from an estate in which administrative reimbursement claims have been languishing for years that the Marion County Circuit Court has never heard, preventing the house closing until the estate claims are settled beforehand.

Matt has spent years of his young and precious life protecting the people of the United States and years of his young and precious life waiting for an Indianapolis court to hear multiple estate administrative reimbursement claims filed by Lawrence Newman, Al Katz’s son-in-law, with the court since 2013. Although under Indiana law a court is deemed a “lazy judge” if the court does not hear a motion or schedule it for hearing within 30 days after it is filed, the Marion County Court Administrator has twice ruled that Judge Louis Rosenberg is not in violation of the “lazy judge” rule.

All the forces are against Matt in his lonely battle to buy a home, except for the force of justice. May Matt win this battle for justice just as he has courageously fought for the American people.

Don’t Agree with the Mayor’s Politics? No Permits for You! by Walter Olson

Boston mayor Martin Walsh gives Donald Trump the Chick-Fil-A rush* over his immigration opinions. Via the Boston Herald:

If Donald Trump ever wants to build a hotel in Boston, he’ll need to apologize for his comments about Mexican immigrants first, the Hub’s mayor said.

“I just don’t agree with him at all,” Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh told the Herald yesterday. “I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country.”

More on the use of permitting, licensing, and other levers of power to punish speech and the exercise of other legal rights at Overlawyered’s all-new regulatory retaliation tag. (And no, I’m not exactly thrilled with Mayor Walsh for making me take Trump’s side in an argument.)

* In case you’d forgotten the infamous Chick-Fila-A brouhaha, here’s Overlawyered’s coverage:

The uproar continues, and quite properly so (earlier here and here), over the threats of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago alderman Proco (“Joe”) Moreno to exclude the Chick-Fil-A fast-food chain because they disagree (as do I) with some of the views of its owner.

Among the latest commentary, the impeccably liberal Boston Globe has sided with the company in an editorial (“which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand?…A city in which business owners must pass a political litmus test is the antithesis of what the Freedom Trail represents”), as has my libertarian colleague Tom Palmer at Cato (“Mayor Menino is no friend of human rights.”)

The spectacle of a national business being threatened with denial of local licenses because of its views on a national controversy is bad enough. But “don’t offend well-organized groups” is only Rule #2 for a business that regularly needs licenses, approvals and permissions. Rule #1 is “don’t criticize the officials in charge of granting the permissions.”

Can you imagine if Mr. Dan Cathy had been quoted in an interview as saying “Boston has a mediocre if not incompetent Mayor, and the Chicago Board of Aldermen is an ethics scandal in continuous session.” How long do you think it would take for his construction permits to get approved then?

Thus it is that relatively few businesses are willing to criticize the agencies that regulate them in any outspoken way (see, e.g.: FDA and pharmaceutical industry, the), or to side with pro-business groups that seriously antagonize many wielders of political power (see, e.g., the recent exodus of corporate members from the American Legislative Exchange Council).

A few weeks ago I noted the case of Maryland’s South Mountain Creamery, which contends through an attorney (though the U.S. Attorney for Maryland denies it) that it was offered less favorable terms in a plea deal because it had talked to the press in statements that wound up garnering bad publicity for the prosecutors. After that item, reader Robert V. wrote in as follows:

Your recent article about the [U.S. Attorney for Maryland] going after the dairy farmers reminded me a case in New York state where the Health Department closed down a nursing home in Rochester. They claim is was because of poor care, the owner claims it was because he spoke out against the DOH.

The state just lost a lawsuit where the jury found the DOH targeted the nursing home operator because he spoke out against them.

According to Democrat and Chronicle reporters Gary Craig and Steve Orr, the jury found state health officials had engaged in a “vendetta” against the nursing home owner:

Beechwood attorneys maintained that an email and document trail showed that Department of Health officials singled out Chambery for retribution because he had sparred with them in the past over regulatory issues. The lawsuit hinged on a Constitutional argument — namely that the state violated Chambery’s First Amendment rights by targeting him for his challenges to their operation.

The Second Circuit panel opinion in 2006 permitting Chambery/ Beechwood’s retaliation claim to go forward is here. It took an extremely long time for the nursing home operators to get their case to a jury; the state closed them down in 1999 and the facility was sold at public auction in 2002.

Versions of these posts first appeared at Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson’s indispensable law blog, published by the Cato Institute. 


Walter Olson

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Obama wishes gay ole Eid-ul-Fitr to Muslims: #LoveWins

Cube_HandFollowing Barack Obama’s official greeting to all Muslims wishing them a happy Eid-ul-Fitr, marking the end of the Muslim holiday Ramadan, we would like to also congratulate the Islamic lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, two spirit, queer and intersex community (LGBTTSQI) in the U.S., around the world, and especially those living in Muslim countries.

This year the holy month of Ramadan coincided with the historic Supreme Court ruling instituting same sex marriages, which President Obama and the entire progressive community celebrated as a huge win for love, tolerance, and diversity. Unfortunately, Barack Obama forgot to include that fact in his Tweeted greeting to the Muslim community, so we would like to correct that with the image below, which symbolizes the consistency and transparency of his policies.

This way #LoveWins, #ObamaWins, #IslamWins, #EverybodyWins! It’s a #WinWin!


As for the diverse and tolerant ISIS community celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr, we wish to add a little gayness to their holiday as well.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube, a political satire website.

Mental Health Czar Suggests Conservatism is a Mental Illness

5120_1437310712WASHINGTON D.C. – Dr. Reichlinger, the Obama-appointed czar of mental health, has released a paper suggesting that conservatism may be a form of mental illness, describing the observable symptoms of various mental disorders that blend together to create a conservative.

One such symptom, which resembles Tourette syndrome (TS), causes conservatives to blurt out racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and otherwise offensive ideas with little or no concern to the feelings of those who may potentially read their statements on the Internet or watch them later on YouTube.

The above symptom, which Dr. Reichlinger identifies as “straight talk” (ST), aggravates the severity of the conservative mental health crisis by obstructing any attempt to correct them or to stop them from uttering socially obscene ideas, as it makes them more verbally combative. Once confronted, all subjects in the control group tended to revert to a false idea that any speech, even if it causes others to experience emotional discomfort, is their inalienable right, which they believe is enough to justify their socially offensive utterances.

The second symptom, which Dr. Reichlinger labels as “Constitutionalism,” is akin to extreme paranoia, resulting in a wrongful distrust of the federal government. The inflicted often express their delusions among their own kind, encouraging each other and reinforcing their own beliefs in hallucinations about “the invisible hand” and self-created fantasies about a “limited” government. It is for this reason that conservative social media pages and postings need to be censored if there is ever going to be hope that we as a society can control and possibly eliminate this unfortunate mental disorder. As long as the patients are allowed to spread their debilitating ideas unobstructed, their condition will only worsen and can potentially infect younger, otherwise healthy minds, drawing them into this delusional and dysfunctional worldview.

In addition, as Dr. Reichlinger points out, victims of conservatism often suffer from denial, which ties into their distrust of the government. “Such patients typically proclaim Obama’s policies to be a failure, flatly denying all the magnificent accomplishments of this administration. Many of them believe that President Obama’s progressive ideas represent ‘magical thinking’ due to his ‘childish’ faith in ‘nonexistent’ powers of the central government, but they are incapable of seeing their own beliefs as childish and simplistic, which is highly ironic,” writes Dr. Reichlinger.

These are the biggest but hardly the only symptoms of the mental illness described by the Obama official. Dr. Reichlinger wraps up his paper with a conclusion that those affected by conservatism may pose a serious danger to themselves, as well as to their families and entire communities. As a preventive measure, the author suggests that individuals with this condition should not have access to firearms. He further recommends that known conservatives be added to a ‘no buy list’ in the national database, which should become a key feature in future background checks before purchasing a gun.

In another recommendation, Dr. Reichlinger insists that those who suffer the most extreme symptoms should be institutionalized under federal law and remain in official custody until government scientists determine a proper mixture of medications and tranquilizers that would adjust the patients’ thought patterns and prevent the spreading of their disorder to others. This may involve a lifetime post-treatment therapy , including reasoning exercises and a constant repetition of healthy progressive sayings, quotations, and election slogans.

Many in the progressive ranks, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca), to name a few, have expressed their support of Dr. Reichlinger’s recommendations, making known that they will be completely on board should the President legislate such actions by executive order.

President Obama, while generally approving of Dr. Reichlinger’s ideas, has expressed a concern that the existing government infrastructure may not be sufficient at this time, with not enough space, nor the workforce required to detain and care for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of prospective patients. He, however, has promised to put the nation’s top minds to work on constructing the new facilities, as well as recruiting and training the necessary personnel.

“This project has the potential to end the problem of unemployment in the United States, especially among the newly arrived immigrants with no education or professional skills,” said the President.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube, a political satire website.

America Must Rethink Its Immigration Policy

It is high time for the American people to finally wake up and stop spending so much time trying to be politically correct.  Politicians must stop obsessing about winning the next election and begin to focus on what’s best for America, especially in light of what happened last week in Chattanooga, TN.

Last week, a naturalized American citizen from Kuwait killed five members of our armed forces. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24 year old Muslim, was brought to the U.S. by his parents when he was six years old.  He also retained Jordanian citizenship by his parents being from Jordan.

Within the intelligence community, Abdulazeez is what is called a sleeper.  There are not only sleeper individuals in the U.S.; but one of law enforcements greatest fears is the “sleeper cells” in the country.  Sleeper cells are terrorists in waiting.  They are awaiting instructions to become active; but until such an order is issued, they are to assimilate into American society and stay below the radar of law enforcement (as Abulazeez seemed to have done).

Because it is unknowable how many sleeper cells or individuals are in the U.S., it is now time to shut down the border and to implement a three year moratorium on all immigration; and this includes foreigners wanting to attend university in the U.S.

We can no longer be the dumping ground for everyone seeking political asylum or a better life.

We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants from Muslim countries, period.  We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants into the country who have no marketable skills to bring to the U.S.  Family reunification should have absolutely no place in our future immigration policy.

Becoming an American citizen is a privilege not a right.  America should not have to apologize for putting stringent conditions on who is eligible for citizenship.  We can no longer allow foreigners to depress wages for Americans and to continue to allow Fortune 500 companies to import cheap labor at the expense of citizens.

If the shooting in Chattanooga didn’t scare the hell out of Americans, maybe these immigration trends will.

According to the Institute of International Education’s “Fields of Study of Students from Selected Places of origin 2013-14, “127,332 student visas were granted to students from 43 predominantly Muslim countries (14% of all student visas issued).”

The top five countries receiving visas were:  Saudi Arabia (53,919), Iran (10,194), Nigeria (7,921), Indonesia (7,920), and Kuwait (7,288).  This total of 87,242 represents almost 70% of all student visas issued from Muslim countries.  This would explain why Arabic is the fastest growing language on college campuses.

According to the Modern Language Association (MLA), “Enrollment in Arabic classes grew 127% nationally.”  The MLA listed Arabic as the 8th most popular language learned in American institutions of higher education in 2013.

What rational person or sane country would allow people from the above countries to enter the U.S.?  We know where the hotbeds of radical Islam are and yet we continue to allow people from those countries to come to the U.S.  The F.B.I. has already admitted to Congress that terrorists from the Middle East have already come into the U.S. through Mexico and they have no idea where they are.

By most accounts, Muslims are least likely to assimilate than other groups of immigrants.  This isolation makes them fertile targets for radicalization.  France and Britain are currently experiencing this dilemma.  America is on the verge of becoming another France or another Britain.

Yes, I am suggesting profiling those who want to enter into the U.S.  To my liberal and politically correct friends, get over it.  This is about national security and our safety.

Some will attempt to argue that this is discrimination; and I would agree with that assertion.  Those who seek to legally enter into the U.S. have no inherent right to be accepted into our country; therefore America has the absolute right to be discriminating in regards to who enters the country.

We need not provide a reason nor give an explanation for changing our immigration policies.  Our national interests and our national security trump all of their aspirations.

We must stop all immigration immediately; clear up the backlog of those in the pipeline, estimated to be just over 4 million people; and remove all those in the country illegally.  This will give us a chance to digest and assimilate those who are already in the que for legal entry into the U.S.

How many more Americans must die because too many politicians want to play politics with our national security?

Obama’s Continued Disdain for Africa

In June of 2013 Obama tried to lecture Senegalese President, Macky Sall in front of his own people on accepting homosexuality in his country.  Before his trip to Africa, Obama was sternly warned by many, “do not talk about homosexuality in Africa.”

But as is his habit, Obama never misses an opportunity to lecture and talk down to Blacks in the U.S. and Africans abroad.  To his credit, President Sall quickly chastised Obama with these words, “We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality…This doesn’t not mean we are homophobic.”

In 2014, during the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, Obama again lectured Africa on the need to accept homosexuality and under his administration they even took it a step further.

For the first time in the history of the U.S., Hillary Clinton made a country’s promotion of homosexuality a criteria in whether the U.S. would continue to extend foreign aid.  This was a tectonic shift in our foreign policy and should have no place in our relations with other sovereign countries.

I am very proud that almost without exception African leaders have told America and the rest of the Western world to “keep your money and foreign aid, we will not sacrifice our culture and values for your help.”

So, with this as a backdrop, I was more than stunned at the blatant disrespect Obama and his administration continues to show towards Africa; specifically in the case of South Sudan.

Two weeks ago I was invited by the Embassy of South Sudan to join them in their celebration of their 4th birthday as an independent nation.  The creation of South Sudan was one of former president George W. Bush’s lasting foreign policy achievements.

The event was a nice, festive affair with diplomats from throughout the continent of Africa in attendance.  There was a very short program with one of the speakers being Lucy Tamlyn, U.S. State Department, Office of Special Envoy for Sudan & South Sudan.  Her remarks offended everyone in the room. She said in part, “The four year anniversary of the founding of the Republic of South Sudan should indeed be a day of celebration but when we think of the difficult situation that the people of South Sudan are experiencing on the ground it’s hard to be in a celebratory mood.  Over the last few weeks, we have heard reports of abuses against civilians, including against innocent women and children.  Numerous reports have confirmed that all parties to the conflict have committed offensive military actions in violations of international humanitarian law.  With more than 2.2 million displaced and 4.6 million at risk of life threatening hunger.  It is clear that the hopes and the aspirations of the South Sudanese people are not being met.  As the government begins its extended mandate today, we call on all parties to the conflict to forge a lasting peace and work to put in place a government of national unity.”

A government of national unity?  Are you kidding me?  The last time I checked, Salva Kiir Mayardit was and is the duly elected president of South Sudan.  If and when the people of South Sudan want to change their nation’s leadership, they will do so during the next election.  It’s called democracy!

There are many legitimate areas for the U.S. to criticize the government of South Sudan.  But the celebration of their independence was not the time nor the place for such a discussion.

As an American with extensive relations and travels in Africa, including South Sudan, I was deeply embarrassed by my country.  We Blacks in the U.S. have come to expect this type of condescension  from the Obama administration when speaking to Blacks; but to display this level of arrogance to a sovereign nation is beyond the pale.

Obama would have never sent a representative to an event hosted by the government of Saudi Arabia and had them criticize the government for their treatment of women and their aggressive support for terrorism.  Obama doesn’t have the guts to do that.

But because he has so little regard for South Sudan, he doesn’t hesitate to call for the weakening of a democratically elected head of state by mandating he put a political foe in his government (Riek Machar).

How does Obama reconcile his claim to want to promote democracy around the world, with the interfering in the internal affairs of a nation?

I wish Obama would show the same amount of bravado when it came to getting our hostages out of Iran; or when it comes to challenging Putin’s aggression in Crimea; or when it comes to China manipulating their currency and hacking into our computer networks.

He doesn’t have the stomach to do this.  So, he decided to make himself feel like a man by attacking and embarrassing a developing nation that he knows can’t really fight back diplomatically.

This is not just about South Sudan; but rather the entire continent of Africa.  Africa has many friends and supporters in the U.S., but unfortunately they are rarely sought out for help in situations like these.

RELATED ARTICLE: Are Gays ‘Born That Way’? Most Americans Now Say Yes, but Science Conclusively Says No

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Black List Pub.

Ellen White: The Greatest Author In History?

On the 100th anniversary of Ellen White’s death, this information is based mostly on testimony by non-Adventists who came in contact with her writings. And her writings were not just made-up stories like Shakespeare. They are non-fiction counsels on how to live healthy, happy, and if you wish, holy, from a biblical perspective that is largely non-denominational.

Her book, The Ministry of Healing, is perhaps the greatest single book ever written. It includes chapters on the life of Christ as the great medical missionary who came as “the unwearied servant of man’s necessity….the burden of disease, and wretchedness and sin He came to remove…to bring restoration.”

It’s chapter, The Physician an Educator explains that while drugs offer relief of symptoms, they rarely address the cause and, therefore, cannot cure disease. She lists the true remedies of nature as pure air, sunlight, rest, exercise, proper diet, use of water, trust in God, also abstaining from harmful substances that now is an increasing problem due to Monsanto’s putsh for gmo “foods” to not be labelled as such.

Dr. Clive McCay, Professor of Nutrition at Cornell University reviewed Ellen White’s writings on health and summarized a six-page review by wondering how she managed to avoid the many fads and fallacies in her day to write what he said was the best overall guide available on nutrition, and he noted that she was able to induce so many to adopt health principles that result in 7-8 years more life than average. She said tobaco was “a malignant poison” in 1864–100 years before the US Surgeon General recognized it.

Dr. Florence Stratemeyer was Professor of Education at Columbia University’s Teachers College when she discovered Ellen White’s book, Education. Writing in the 1960’s, she said the book was more than 60 years ahead of its time with advanced educational concepts. If she were reviewing White now, she would probably say it was 120 years ahead. Education would be a great guide for all home-schoolers.

Considering what used to be HEW—Department of Health, Education and Welfare that morphed into separate departments, all doing poorly, we should realize that the best healthcare is selfcare based on what we put into our mouths. The same is true for education, based on what we feed our minds. TV dinners are bad for the body and worse for the mind. Considering how sex education is done at school, parents should think about homeschooling their kids and the book Education would offer great insights.

In 1888, Ellen White saw her church reject a message of righteousness by faith so that her writings after that became non-denominational. She said the apostasy would continue till the Lord comes. Was she a prophet? She described tall buildings in New York City that were warranted to be fireproof that were “consumed as if made of pitch.” Testimonies for the Church, Vol 9, pages 11-13 [9-11 published in 1909.

Readers wishing to sample or read her entire books (those above or others) online may do so by clicking here.

This author has not read The Acts of the Apostles listed among 10, but the others are all classics of higher quality than I could write with 25 years of education, and Ellen White only had three grades of schooling due to an injury in childhood.

If the reader might like to see Ellen White Exposed, I recommend starting at the 10:30 minute point on YouTube:

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling was board-certified in internal medicine before teaching at Loma Linda University. He believes Ellen White foresaw http://LeadingCauseOfDeathPrescriptionDrugs.com and did not want pharmacology taught at Loma Linda.  Adventists could have helped alternative medicine to be far ahead today. Dr. Ruhling’s website offers Ellen White’ s book on health at http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com.

Damn It Feels Good to be a Liberal

liberal logic 101It’s usually pretty easy to be a liberal these days. Most of their policy prescriptions and legislative proposals require nothing more than a quick talking point, with no further analysis or questions answered regarding the long-term effects of such proposals. If a liberal policymaker wants to take more money from hard working Americans via higher taxes, he or she simply throws out the “pay your fair share” talking point and doesn’t ever worry about explaining to hard-working Americans what their “fair share” is. If a liberal policymaker wants to steal away control of your health care decisions, he or she simply throws out the “health care is a right” talking point without ever explaining how declaring things as “rights” confers numerous obligations on others, all enforceable using the force of government.

Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through.

Liberals live and die by the talking point because their ideology must fit on a bumper sticker. Bumper sticker talking points, such as the infamous “war on women,” are clever scams drawn up by liberals to ensure that they are easily remembered, but rarely thought through. It’s pretty easy to be a liberal when you can declare your intentions to be noble and positive, print an easy-to-remember bumper sticker, get massive pieces of damaging legislation passed, and then run away from the negative fallout from your terrible ideas once the consequences become evident.

This strategy has worked for liberals for decades, but this week it hit a massive speed bump with a tsunami of bad news hitting Americans. The horrific murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, who was deported an astounding five times, harbored in a sanctuary city, is really a tough one for the liberal intelligentsia to explain away.

It’s tough to be a liberal policymaker this week when being one involves explaining to your constituents how their hard earned money should support the income, healthcare, education, and housing requirements for a group of people who simply do not care about our immigration laws or procedures. When some, albeit a small, but not insignificant number, of those same people murder innocent American citizens, it’s tough to whip out the quickie talking point or hand out that bumper sticker to bail you out of the trouble your ideology has caused.

It’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape.

Second, the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran is beginning to look like the biggest foreign policy calamity in recent American history. Good luck being a liberal policymaker this week trying to tell Americans “don’t worry, the Iranians are only a decade or so away from deploying a nuclear weapon.” Try fitting that one on a bumper sticker as the hegemonic mullahs immediately jump in front of the cameras to declare “death to America.” Also, it’s tough to stick to the ridiculously oversimplified, and frequently utilized, “world peace” mantra or the “Bush did it” talking point, as liberal policymakers try to explain to Americans how the Iranian deal provides no clear, unobstructed path to inspections of Iranian military facilities. Only those willingly, or wishfully, ignorant believe that an Iranian military facility is an unlikely place for illicit nuclear activity with a regime noted for deception and international agitation.

Finally, it’s tough to be a liberal this week and to have to look Americans in the face and explain away the revolting, explosive, and potentially illegal, human organ trafficking activities of Planned Parenthood caught on videotape. That handy old “it’s all about choice” bumper sticker talking point is tough to explain away when your support of “choice” also involves innocent American taxpayers being forced to finance the operations of a deranged outfit which traffics in the body parts of aborted babies and discusses it over a hearty Caesar salad. It’s time to immediately defund this abomination of an organization without delay and investigate those responsible for this atrocity.

It’s easy to be liberal; conservatives have been lamenting this for years. We have had to be the adults in the room and explain the marginal tax rate ramifications on productivity and growth while the liberals get to scream, “pay your fair share.” This has led to a messaging battlefield asymmetry, which is hard to overcome.

I hate it that these tragedies occurred, and that many will continue to suffer due to these liberal policies but, if we want to prevent further derelictions of duty, it’s up to us to demand answers now and make liberal policymakers leave their protected messaging comfort zones and answer to the American people for their mistakes.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Krupa | AP Photo.

Che is Dead, Long Live Conchita: A New Rebel Icon

In addition to offering 51 gender options to its users, Facebook is also changing its male, female, and group icons in order to bring more fairness and equality among the 51 aforementioned genders. Thus, instead of the female appearing behind the male’s shoulder, she is now in front of the male, which makes hers a more equal gender.

New Facebook gender icons

The female’s new hairdo makes her look less like Darth Vader, and the group icon now features a third, metrosexual-haired silhouette that can be one of the remaining 48 genders. The Washington Post happily reports this revolutionary development as an important step towards eliminating cultural biases that have contributed to gender inequality.

Facebook Che iconUnnoticed and unreported, however, came another development in the world of Facebook icons: the appearance of a Comrade Che emoticon.

In other words, while Facebook, WaPo, and others are splitting hairs over the equality of multiple genders, along comes Che Guevara and puts them up against the wall, if only in Facebook terms. And that’s how revolutions happen in real life, too.

The website behind the Che emoticon offers this description:

“The rebel, the face of non-conformity. Che will add style to your Facebook chats and messages.”

Facebook Che iconReally? Is the face of a masculine cisgender-male person still in tune with modern times? Given that Che Guevara never questioned his sexual identity but merely accepted an assigned gender role that was expected of him by the patriarchal bourgeois society, just how much of a rebel and non-conformist was he?

Shouldn’t the new, more progressive generation also have a new, more progressive icon – a rebel who truly challenges the status quo?

Our research has led us to an ideal candidate. Meet Conchita Wurst, the Austrian Drag Queen of Eurovision, the new true face of non-conformity!

VIDEO: Conchita Wurst – Rise Like a Phoenix (Austria) 2014 LIVE Eurovision Second Semi-Final:

Please update your T-shirts, emoticons, and social media avatars. We know Che would comply!

A new rebel to replace Che
Share these PNG icons far and wide!

Che Conchita icon red Che Conchita icon black
A new rebel to replace Che

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

VIDEO: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) on Planned Parenthood Selling Baby Body Parts

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) hits it out of the ball park with a phenomenal, heartfelt speech to President Obama.

Senator Lankford talks about the horrific practice of Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby body parts, which surfaced this past week in an investigative video.

Please watch Senator Lankford’s impassioned remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

selling body parts law quotes

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood helps Sex Traffickers get Abortions for Child Sex Slaves

Planned Parenthood Cell Phone App to 12-Year-Olds: “Having Sex Feels Good”

Planned Parenthood Sells Body Parts of Aborted Children

Planned Parenthood nominated for 2013 “World Population Control Award”

Iran: A Bad Deal

Over the years that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran were going on, the US government often attempted to quell the concerns of its citizens by claiming that it recognised that no deal was better than a bad deal. This week they went back on that logic, signing up to a bad deal.

Britain, of course, is equally culpable. The UK government has also signed up to the Vienna agreement. But it is America’s signature and the current US administration’s push to make a deal – any deal – that was the driving force behind this agreement and the US administration which must take responsibility for this terrible deal.

It is a remarkable fact that it was the American government which was the one pushing this deal from the outset. In fact throughout the negotiations it was clear – and clear to the Iranian partners to the negotiations – that America seemed to want a deal more than Iran did. This is striking not least because when Iran came to the negotiating table, it did so from a position of weakness. The American-led sanctions against Iran were hurting the regime. On the streets, the Iranian people were beginning to become bolder in their opposition to the regime which had caused such sanctions to be imposed upon them. But throughout the negotiations it has not been Iran which has looked like the country desperate to make the deal. The country that looked desperate to make the deal was the United States.

How else can one explain the inclusion in the final agreement signed this week of details which were not on the table at the outset? This deal does not only give the Iranians what they wanted in regards to the lifting of sanctions which were hurting their economy. It also lifts the long-imposed sanctions on Iran buying and selling conventional arms. There are, of course, very good reasons for those sanctions. The Iranian government is noteworthy for the use to which it puts conventional weaponry. For it does not only use such weapons to bolster its terrorist proxies including Hezbollah; it uses them on its populations at home whenever they dare to express significant dissatisfaction with the way in which they are ruled.

And the agreement signed this week does not only lift sanctions which affect the Iranian people. They lift sanctions – including on Iran’s acquisitions of missile technology – which have the capacity to affect everybody. There is a presumption – erroneous but prevalent – that Iranian aggression is principally a problem for Israel and that this problem is in some ways containable. Let us ignore for a moment what Iran might be aiming to do with the $150 billion cash bonanza it will be acquiring straight away. Let us pretend that none of it will go to any of its terror proxies. Why then is Iran seeking inter-continental ballistic missile technology? It does not need such missiles to reach Israel.

The US administration is currently spinning that without this deal there would be no way of holding Iran back from developing a nuclear bomb. This is wholly incorrect. What this deal does is legitimise an illegitimate regime, giving it almost everything it wants and trusting that regime will never go back on its word in relation to what it wants next. There is no question that this isn’t a good deal for Iran. But it is a terrible deal for the rest of the world.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

This week, I would like to highlight the work of our university campus programme, Student Rights, in analysing the hostile reaction of some students opposed to the UK government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme in its new report:  Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On Campus.

That there remains a problem of extremism on campuses is obvious. Student Rights logged 132 extremist events in 2012, 145 in 2013, and 123 in 2014. The speakers featured suggested that there was a Western war against Islam, supported individuals convicted of terrorism offences, expressed intolerance of non-believers and/or minorities, and espoused religious law as a method of socio-political governance. The report also highlights how a number of those convicted of terrorist offences have passed through Britain’s higher education institutions.

Despite this evidence, student activists have claimed Prevent is a racist policy, that lecturers spy on students, that vulnerable people will be stigmatised, and that the expression of controversial ideas will be suppressed unless the programme is opposed.

Part of the reason for this widespread disdain is the malign influence exercised by the narrative of extremist groups targeted by the policy, with over 40 student union leaders signing an open letter attacking Prevent organised by the pro-terrorist group CAGE on 11 July for example.

But part stems from the ignorance of students about the reasons Prevent is required and what the programme’s goals are. This reflects a failure of government and university authorities in articulating these adequately.

The way forward is therefore clear. In order to generate better buy-in for its policies in this area, government needs to be loud and proud about the need for them and that civil society actors who seek to challenge extremist influence on our campuses are supported.

However, government needs partners on campus to assist with message articulation and it is here that campus authorities must do more. University administrations and even student unions have responsibilities for the health and welfare of those of their charges vulnerable to radicalisation. They need to be reminded of these with carrots – or sticks if necessary – and encouraged to play their part in ensuring that our campuses remain places of enlightenment and exploration, rather than of ignorance and fear.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

These Are the Days of Elijah: Are We Overlooking a Key Part of Our Role?

Praying for America to repent is not praying like Elijah. He prayed for judgment to fall. As we approach July 27, a time when judgment has fallen in the past, maybe we should pray like Elijah did.

A roomful of U.S. Marines singing a popular Bible song is an interesting YouTube video, but the true spirit of Elijah means more than that praying for America to repent to avert God’s judgments. Elijah prayed for God’s judgments to fall so that people would repent. He prayed that it would not rain, James 5:17.

There are many harbingers or signs of ruin if we don’t repent, but Washington’s leaders are as bent on evil as Ahab and Jezebel were in Israel’s day. What other explanation can we give for the legal right to murder the unborn? This week we learn Planned Parenthood sells body parts of aborted babies.

We need to pray as Elijah did.  From the days of Roe v Wade, America’s descent has been accelerating. The recent “Supreme” decision to favor alternate marriage is another example that invites the judgments of God to  rectify popular opinion of what is truly supreme.

Ahab and Jezebel are a metaphor for what we see in Washington. Revelation 17 describes a harlot that represents a church involved in politics and governments in contrast to the bride of Christ. She is wealthy—decked with gold, wearing scarlet, the color of cardinals, sitting on seven hills—a mother of harlots (churches that are unfaithful for participating in similar alternatives).

We might not understand how she is the “mother of abominations” unless we knew her priesthood is riddled with alcoholism, homosexuality, pedophilia and cover-ups of its role in the holocaust and the saving of Nazis to Argentina where the pope came from.

America is getting ready for a wedding of D.C. minds and hearts for its prophetic role when we make “an image,” a look-alike to the Old World Order that pioneers fled for freedom New World.

New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum on our $1 bill) is the plan of the elite and their secret societies that use their mainstream media to ridicule any real truth on this.

The projected headlines for late September will court the union of this nation, once great for its freedoms that kept the church out of government, but now we see JADE HELM and surveillance everywhere as tokens of control that we can expect to  focus on Patriots and Protestants who will be labelled with “hate speech” and subject to indefinite detention under martial law.

Before it’s too late and freedom to speak is gone, we can pray for God’s judgments to make the issue clear. The “Supreme Court” is not supreme in approving of alternate lifestyles opposed to the Bible.

When Israel was bent on moral decay, God sent Babylon to conquer them as spiritual Babylon has overwhelmed the US. Solomon’s Temple burned on the 10th day of the 5th Jewish month as a sign that there were at the end of an era. That date is July 27 this year on the lunar calendar given to Israel.

If the reader wishes for a better America and clearer issues, why not share this article with your pastor and ask him to focus Sunday night, July 26, on the Elijah role of praying for judgment on America to set the record straight? Given a specific opportunity, we might be surprised to see God’s answer!

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling’s latest eBook, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code, has mostly 5-star reviews on Amazon, For those who don’t do Kindle, readers can get the PDF from his website plus a bonus for $1.99 at http://TheBridegroomComes.com  For more information on July 27 and current events click here.

Can Muslims be Loyal to Anything other than Allah?

A great example of the unlikely mix of Islam and civility and the conflict of allegiances is Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s decision to blast away at his fellow military mates at fort Hood Texas in November 2009.  He chose to kill over a dozen people, because they were not Muslim. While blowing hs victims away, he yelped the Islamic slogan, “Allahu Akbar!” (“god is great”).  For a soldier to viciously turn on his fellow soldiers in arms is incomprehensible enough, especially when one considers that in order to receive his commission as an officer in the Army, Major Hasan had to sign his name to an oath requiring his name to an oath requiring him to swear allegiance to defend the Constitution.  The oath also called for Major Hasan to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.

Nevertheless, despite swearing an oath to protect the United States and to remain loyal to his compatriots, Major Hasan, most certainly displayed glaring conflicting loyalties.  According to one of his former classmates, Major Hasan would not support the effort to defend against terrorism because he viewed such an effort as a direct war against Islam.  In a way Hasan had a point. After all even if somehow all Islamists are not terrorists, all of today’s terrorists are Islamists.  Oh well!  In fact, Hasan had energetically advocated for a conscientious-objector clause for Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The tug of war between his alleged allegiance to Islam and his so-called loyalty to the United States came to a snapping point, and Major Hasan went to nutsville and followed through on the murderous tradition of Islam and obeyed the tenets of his religion.  Hasan, gleefully killed twelve of his fellow soldiers, with the permission of Allah, of course.

Do you remember the Times Square bomber?  He is another sterling example of the transcendence of loyalty to Islam over loyalty to anything American.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born Muslim, became a naturalized United States citizen in April 2009, about one year before he attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of New York City.  Indeed, the dialogue at trial between the presiding judge and Shahzad demonstrates this completely:

Judge: “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”

Shahzad: I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

Judge:  “You took a false oath?”

Shahzad:  “Yes”

Examples like these demonstrates that, to many Muslims, Islam demands single-minded loyalty from its adherents that can admit no other allegiances.  The driving force behind Islamic unity will inevitably seek to eliminate all other contenders for allegiance and will not let the demands of American citizenship stand in its way.

One of the most obvious methods used by Muslims to demonstrate their loyalty to nothing but Islam or Allah is Jihad.  Jihad is commonly described as “to war against non-Muslims.”  The term jihad derives from the word mujahada, which signifies the use of warfare to establish religion.  Those in support of Islam claim that there are three distinct forms of jihad.  The first form is the “greater jihad” of battling against the inner-self to attain private holiness and devotion to the path of Allah.  The second form of jihad is da ’wah, or the invitation to non-Muslims to convert voluntarily to follow Islam and to follow Shari’ ah.  The third, most well-known form of jihad is the violent use of the sword in physical conflict with non-Muslims (“unbelievers” or “infidels”).  The ultimate objective of the three forms of jihad, collectively, is to convert all unbelievers to Islam (either voluntarily or forcibly) and to subject all non-Muslim territories to Islamic rule and government, i.e. shari ‘ah.

All three forms of jihad are mandated by shai ‘ah.  While violent shari ‘ah is the most commonly known form of jihad, political jihad (a type of da ‘wah) is currently the most significant threat facing Americans because it is latent and because it is imminent.  Da ‘wah literally means “call,” invitation,” or propaganda.”  It is a prerequisite to violent jihad because the Qur ‘ran states that Allah does not punish anyone until one has received the invitation to believe and an introduction to Allah’s law (shari ‘ah).   After the call or invitation to believe is extended, non-Muslims have three choices:  convert to Islam, submit to the Islamic ruler and pay a massive tax (jizyah) or fight and die.

My fellow Americans, the threat of Islam against us and our way of life is ever present.  The question is, will we be able to hold on until the imam is finally gone from the White House?  We can ill afford, nor should we tolerate any threat to our republic, including Islam, shari ‘ah, jihad, or whatever those women abusing Christian murdering gumps come up with.  Politically correct butt kissing of Muslims only strengthens their wicked resolve to kill, steal from and destroy any and every non-Muslim they can get away with harming in some way.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their worthy contributions to this column.

May God Bless America an May America Bless God.

Who Will Protect Us from Tainted Food Trucks? by B.K. Marcus

My Haitian babysitter told me to get into the car, an old sedan with peeling paint, driven by a stranger. She’d hailed it, like a cab, and it pulled over for us, like a cab, but it didn’t look like a cab.

“I thought you said we were taking a taxi,” I said.

“This is a taxi.” She pushed me into the back seat.

“It doesn’t look like a taxi,” I whispered.

“Real taxis don’t come into this neighborhood,” she said. “This is a gypsy.”

I thought she was describing the ethnicity of the driver. Only later, listening to radio news reports about city police campaigns against gypsy cab drivers did I understand that my babysitter had dragged me into a mobile version of the black market.

That brief ride through a 1970s New York City ghetto was my only time in a gypsy cab: a bewildered little boy forced into the car of a man I didn’t know. It felt dangerous in a way that even hitchhiking in the Middle East when I was a teenager did not.

So why do I use Uber and Lyft without hesitation? Why do I prefer gray-market ride sharing with unlicensed strangers to hailing a municipally sanctioned taxi?

At this point, my confidence is based on past experience: the dozens of Uber drivers I’ve had were far more pleasant than the hundreds of cab drivers I’ve ridden with. But even my very first time with Uber, I got in without hesitation.

Peer-to-peer apps have made reputation markets real and robust — at least in certain corners of the service economy. Uber drivers have far greater incentive to make me happy than any cab driver ever has. More than their tip depends on it: the rating I give them can affect their future earnings.

Cab companies could have adopted reputation apps years ago as a way to outdo their competitors. But they weren’t worried about competition. City licensing often creates a protective cartel for current cabbies. That’s why Uber and Lyft became so popular so fast: the market — meaning everyone looking for a ride — wanted what the cab industry felt no need to offer us.

Will food trucks be the next service to escape the archaic model of licensing and regulation?

“Illegal Food Trucks Worry Health Officials,” reports the Herald-Sun of Durham, North Carolina. “Unlicensed food trucks operating illegally in Durham have health officials concerned that customers could end up getting sick.”

One such official, Chris Salter, told the paper that people selling food from the back of SUVs have posed food-poisoning risks to the public for years: “Did they slaughter a chicken in their backyard and cut it up on a piece of plywood? You just don’t know.”

The solution Salter proposes, of course, is stricter policing and greater regulation. After all, if cops and bureaucrats don’t protect the public, who will?

To the generation that reads newspapers and waits in line for taxis, the argument makes sense: when you eat in a restaurant, you may not know for sure that the food is safe, but the restaurant isn’t going anywhere; even without a health inspector’s oversight, restaurant owners have an incentive to protect their reputations. It’s not hard to spread the word that you got sick eating at Big Joe’s on the corner of 1st and Main. It’s a lot less helpful to say you ate a bad fajita out of the back of a faded green RAV4 in the abandoned parking lot.

When I used to take city cabs, the seats were filthy, the driving was reckless, and the drivers ranged from sullen to rude. But I felt relatively safe. I knew I could always write down the cabby’s name and medallion number. In theory, at least, I could report him and maybe someone would wag a finger at him. That seemed better than nothing.

Licensed food trucks offer a similar assurance: “Salter’s advice to the public is to look for the health grade card at food trucks if they’re unsure whether it’s operating legally. Since 2012, food trucks have been required to display the same cards as restaurants.”

Again, even without the health inspection required to get a permit and a health grade card, food truck owners don’t want to risk customers’ health for fear of losing their permits or having to display a lackluster “health grade” on their cards.

Government licensing acts as a sort of hampered reputation market. The food SUVs have no such incentives.

As in the case of cabbies versus Uber drivers, the legitimate food truck owners are on the side of the government officials: “Many of those owners are upset because the illegal trucks skirt regulation fees and cut into their business.”

Food trucks in Durham may not yet operate as a cartel — the way they are beginning to do in New York City, for example, where the number of food-truck licenses has been frozen for years — but the complaint is typical of the established players in a protected industry: upstarts with lower costs are threatening our profit margin!

But suppose you’re a foodie with fear of salmonella. Would you rather rely on an 11-month-old government report card or just check your food-truck app to see what your fellow foodies have to say? What sort of insurance does the owner carry — what third-party assurance is available? How’s their guacamole?

Don’t like this truck’s rating? The app will guide you to the next nearest truck serving similar fare.

Salter told the Herald-Sun, “We’re not trying to keep anybody from making a living. We’re trying to be fair and to protect the public.” So why is he offering 20th-century advice to consumers in the 21st century? Might he have any interests at stake other than public safety?

No doubt health officials would counter that the sharing economy is an option only for the privileged. It’s not like everyone has a smart phone, right? Right?

Many of the illegal vendors speak only Spanish, Salter told the Herald-Sun. And “many of them can’t read, so even if we pass out documents, they can’t read them.”

So who buys questionable chicken out of the back of an SUV operated by illiterate, Spanish-speaking strangers when Durham has so many government-approved food trucks with English-speaking staff?

Might those who choose to do so be similar to those who hailed gypsy cabs in the New York City of my youth?

“Real taxis don’t come into this neighborhood,” my babysitter had told me. I didn’t need to ask why. I didn’t want to be in that area either. But folks in the bad neighborhoods still needed rides, and they were willing to pay for them. There was extra risk involved for both parties, and the drivers couldn’t make the kind of money that licensed taxi drivers made, but driving a gypsy cab was better than their next-best option, so supply and demand met in illegal exchanges that benefitted both parties.

It’s safe to assume something similar is going on at the back of some of Durham’s SUVs.

These are most likely working people on the margins of the economy who don’t have the time or the money to seek a quick lunch elsewhere. If they’re buying their food from obviously unlicensed and uninspected vendors, that suggests that the higher-scale food trucks aren’t coming to their neighborhood — or that they charge considerably more than the illegal food.

The health officials aren’t protecting these people. At best, they are limiting their options. Worse, they could be driving economic exchanges further underground, where neither the government nor the market can effectively regulate safety.

Salter implies that vendor noncompliance is the result of ignorance, but it’s more likely buyers and sellers who don’t feel especially well protected by the legal system are taking measured risks to improve each other’s lives.

And I bet plenty of them do have smart phones. What they need now isn’t more ardent government oversight; it’s more reliable reputation markets. If there isn’t already an app for that, there soon will be.

B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.