My Daughter Married a Woman

All of a sudden, it is pedal-to-the-metal, full-speed-ahead, no-holds-barred promotion of homosexuality everywhere you turn. It is as if someone said, okay, now is the time to launch our all out assault on traditional principles and values; while crushing all opposition.

I can not even enjoy a non-political Saturday watching do-it-yourself home improvement TV channels without almost every show aggressively promoting homosexuality. Homosexuals are only slightly over 2% of the population. And yet, their representation on TV shows is dramatically disproportionate to their numbers. Clearly, the networks have become political activists promoting the homosexual agenda.

My wife can not watch her bridal gown and pregnancy TV shows without the producers featuring same sex couples. We protest by changing the channel.

What really frosts me and is super scary is the Left’s ever-increasing strong-arm tactics, forcing us to agree with their sin. I thought, good grief, next they will be teaching our kids, “Great Lesbians in History.” Then, I thought, oh my gosh, they are already doing that celebrating Gay Pride Month beginning in elementary school.

Think about that folks. Regardless of your religious beliefs or opinion, the Left has said screw you, we’re teaching your child that homosexuality is a good thing and something they should explore. Period.

Leftists (Democrats) are passing legislation to make it illegal to assist anyone unhappy with their sexual attractions to change. Isn’t that outrageous? While portraying themselves as victims who claim to only seek tolerance, Leftists are insidiously working to have their government enforcers arrest pastors, counselors and parents who help their sexually confused kids.

Folks, we are talking Sodom and Gomorrah all over again; homosexuality aggressively forced upon us.

Before you call me crazy, consider this. For 200 years marriage was defined as between one man and one woman. Today, such thinking is considered nutty, extreme and hateful in the mainstream media, numerous political and social circles. Opposing their so-called “mainstream” consensus on this issue will cost you your livelihood and even jail-time.

My Christian minister dad called me to say that a family member gave him a heads up that my daughter’s wedding pictures are posted on Facebook. My daughter married a woman. She wanted me to attend the wedding. I explained that while I love her and am fond of her partner, my faith does not allow me to bless their union by attending their wedding.

Her mom and I divorced when she was around 7 years old. My daughter and I were estranged until five years ago. I cherish our new found relationship. So, I was happy when my daughter said she loves me and understands my reason for not attending her wedding.

At 87 with over 50 years as a pastor, Dad remains as cool and wise as ever. He adamantly advised me to shower my daughter and her partner with love. Dad said as Christians, love is our greatest weapon.

Now do not get me wrong. Far too many Christians today believe “love” means co-signing sin; passively allowing the Left’s relentless implementation of their anti-God agenda to go unchallenged. That is not what Dad meant, nor is it his definition of “loving them.” He suggests that I behave according to Romans 12:9 “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.”

I will not be manipulated by the Left’s absurd claim that loving parenting means rubber-stamping all of your child’s life choices. When I received my daughter’s wedding invitation in the mail, Dad advised me not to attend and explain why to my daughter. Dad was confident that she would understand.

christian-loveIn response to my daughter’s wedding pictures on Facebook, my millennial nephew and nieces congratulated her. Despite their Christian upbringing, liberal public school indoctrination and mainstream media have shaped their opinions.

Before ending our phone call (I’m in Florida, Dad is in Maryland), Dad instructed me to read Exodus 20: 1-6 and Deuteronomy 5: 1-10. These scriptures promise that if you are faithful and love God, He will bless your family for generations. Praise God. That was Dad’s way of comforting and assuring me that God has everything under control.

I do not pray for God to turn my daughter straight. I pray that she and her partner will come to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, without approving their lifestyle, I will love them both to death.

RELATED ARTICLE: Gay Marriage Goal Is ‘To Wipe Out the Christian Religion’

The Un-American Divider in Chief

The president of the United States of America was once known as the commander in chief.  The old saying about a house divided against itself may certainly be applied to our republic today.  Not since the civil war has our beloved nation been so separated ideologically.  The most noted era of division historically is the time surrounding the big war between the north and the south.  There were sharp disagreements over states’ rights as well as the argument over whether individuals should be allowed to hold others in the bondage of slavery.

As horrific as the states’ rights and slavery issues were considering the toll they took on the country, at least they were situations that mattered and worth the time and effort to resolve them.  Take for example, the ongoing mission of the divider and chief, Barack Obama and his embittered wife, First Lady Michelle Obama.  Just recently, Mrs. Obama gave a commencement address at the historic Tuskegee University in Alabama.  Instead of encouraging the hopeful graduates to go seek opportunities and to be the best they can be, she chose to focus upon the wasteful topic of the limitations of racism.

Here we are in a nation facing a major crossroad in her history and Mrs. Obama complained about the “daily slights” that she and her husband have experienced.  This is from a woman who’s own husband won’t even associate with you on any level if you are not a fellow progressive.  She talked about overcoming that “heavy burden” by channeling their frustration into “organizing and banding together.”  Mrs. Obama also stated that the frustrations that are playing out in “communities like Baltimore and Ferguson.”

She took a grand opportunity to embolden younger Americans who happen to be black (technically brown) in their goals of successful achievement and allowing their God given gifts and talents to make room for them and turned it into a pedestrian pity party for having been “black in America.”

Such worthless and insane topics to be repeated over and over within the ranks of Americans who happen to be black, only serves to insure failure, bitterness and misery for those who should be looking forward to climbing the ladder of success.  The horrendous economic policies of President Obama has done much more to thwart opportunities for all Americans, than the racists Mrs. Obama refers to could dream of.  In fact, as usual under most democrat administrations especially the current one, economic opportunities are much fewer today than during the time of the previous Bush administration.

Alright so let me get this straight according to the Obama’s, racism is today’s biggest impediment preventing blacks from succeeding.  Yet there are fewer opportunities today than when the president assumed office in this so-called racist nation.  So does that make the Obamas racists?  I already know they are rabidly anti United States bigots.

The president has allowed the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who are being offered just about anything they want, including the chance to displace Americans who happen to be black at the dwindling workplace.  Again, does that make President Obama and the First Lady racist?  If Mrs. Obama is so concerned about blacks being held back, she might review her husband’s economic policies and also take a look in the mirror.  Under the Obama administration, America’s highest corporate tax rate on the planet is just one of the many factors of this regime that has the economy basically stagnating at best.  Thus the real reason for fewer opportunities, not racism.

In addition, purposely dividing the republic over racial foolishness and class envy only keeps people focused on real or imagined divisions rather than authentic solutions to the stymied economy.  So now we are putting up with a divided and less prosperous republic turned mob rule democracy.  Mrs. Obama has unfortunately has proven to be nothing more than a middle aged progressive activist using race as a means to divide and weaken our country.  She along with her husband has scoffed at every viable free market economic solution to the current malaise.

Are there racists in America?  Yes there are, many of whom are black.  But there are many more non racists who are optimistic hard working Americans who simply want to see the nation restored not only economically, but in every facet of society as well.  I believe that many of my fellow Americans who happen to be white like myself, do not like the destructive policies of the Obama regime doesn’t make them racists.  But also like myself desire to witness a resurgence of the good values and principles that made the United States of America the envy of the world.

The freedoms, rights, privileges and responsibilities enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution can only be maintained if “We the People” are united as Americans. The progressive hyphenated Americans divided by race, class envy and increasingly immoral behavior only serves the purpose of those seeking to divide and conquer America.  America’s strength is in the good morality of her people.  The founding fathers recognized that in order for America to be and remain free is for her sovereign citizens to be more dependent upon God, their own good sense and opportunities than an intrusive overbearing and oppressive government.

The choice is yours my fellow Americans.  You can either be divided and conquered or United and free to live in liberty as God intended.   God Bless America and May America Bless God.

What Would the Country Look Like If the Far Left Won?

I read this piece by Dr. Tim Daughtry titled “Calling for a true conservative strategy” from Feb 4. 2013 today, and thought: What would our country look like if we simply capitulated to the far-left and let them win?

Daughtry has a line in the piece which is tragically accurate:

“The strategy (of the far-left) was one of immersion more than conversion. It was not necessary to convert students or consumers of news to leftist thinking; it was only necessary to surround them with liberalism as if there were no other respectable way of thinking. While conservatives were focused on winning the next election, the left focused on winning the next generation. And they are succeeding.”

Their “immersion” strategy has been a tremendous success. It has changed the debate landscape by altering the playing field from one where two different ideological belief systems competed against one another (individual liberty and limited government vs. heavy-handed rule by government elites), to one where heavy-handed government intervention in our lives is accepted as “the norm,” and arguing against big government makes you an “extremist” or something far worse in the eyes of the cultural “elites.”

Consider for a moment what the country would look like if we completely gave up and let the far-left win, here’s what you would be looking at:

Taxes

You would be living a country with no limit on your tax bills. The far-left consistently argues for higher taxes but, did you notice that that never give you a tax rate number and only talk loosely about your “fair share?” They will never give you that actual number because they do not want to limit their access to your wallet. If the far-left won, and conservatives stopped fighting, the assault on your wallet would only end when they claimed all of the money in your wallet and the wallet too.

Healthcare 

You would be living in a country where access to doctors and hospitals is tightly controlled by government bureaucrats. Never forget this; there are only two ways to allocate scarce resources in this world we have been given and a doctor’s time, and a hospital bed, are scarce resources. We can either ration those resources, and let the bureaucrats pick and choose who gets to see the doctor and who gets the hospital bed, or we can price them and let a free-people make decisions about which doctor they want to see and which hospital they want to use. If the far-left won, and Conservatives stopped fighting, your health would no longer belong to you. Your health would belong to a government bureaucrat and his permission slip.

Graduation Cap With Message

The legions of children in school choice programs who finally have a future to look forward to would be yanked out of these programs and their better tomorrow would be heartlessly stolen away.

Education 

You would be living a country where your children can only attend government schools and where the curriculum is tightly controlled by bureaucrats. The far-left fights against school choice, despite the fact that your tax dollars entirely fund the public education system because, when given the choice, parents choose schools that actually educate their kids and this severely limits the power of the bureaucracy/special interests. If the far-left won and conservatives stopped fighting, the legions of children in school choice programs who finally have a future to look forward to would be yanked out of these programs and their better tomorrow would be heartlessly stolen away.

Liberty

You would be living in a country where your speech and religious expression were tightly controlled by laws and regulations which bureaucrats deem “acceptable.” The far-left only believes in “free speech” when that speech strictly aligns with leftist thinking. Any other speech or religious expression which conflicts with leftist thinking is to be declared “non-inclusive” or “hate speech”, and the person speaking must immediately be labeled as an “extremist.” If the far-left won and conservatives stopped fighting, it would only be a matter of time before this “war on language” encompassed anyone and everyone who opposed the DC power players and the cultural elites.

It is precisely for this reason that we need a Republican nominee for President and a new generation of candidates who are not beholden to this failed strategy of yesterday. A failed strategy which apologizes for fighting for effective, conservative principles first, then meekly tries to lay out a “managed-decline” plan next. We cannot and will not be any part of any “managed-decline” of the most prosperous country on earth. We must support candidates who disavow this and proudly speak about liberty, free-market prosperity, limited-government and the boundless potential of tomorrow where the American people are unrestrained by government. A better tomorrow is right around the corner and it’s up to us to stop watching the boxing match, put on the gloves and get in the ring. The future of the country is not a spectator sport.

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

A Birthright Abandoned

The mission statement of the Central Reform Congregation avows community, diversity, and commitment for a vibrant, Jewish presence in their city, St. Louis, Missouri, but specific Jewish issues and Israel are not addressed.  There is concern for a broad swath of social issues, although none to address Jewish survival and the ongoing, increasing threat of anti-Semitism by Islam and the socialist/communist Left.  Rather, the congregants reach out to Muslims whose dedication to jihad (religious holy war) threatens Jewish and Christian existence; the Koran dictates jihad for every Muslim and death for every infidel.

Jihad seeks to enforce Sharia worldwide, which includes curtailing our speech (for starters), revising our educational system (strongly underway with history textbooks that whitewash Islam and relegate America, Judaism and Christianity to a few insignificant pages); killing the infidels and harshly treating their own, and much more.  Why does the rabbi deem these  crucial issues so unimportant to the people she purports to represent, and why is there no platform to protect minorities and women from this xenophobic ideology?  The Jews, with their 100% literacy rate and 78% idiocy rate at the ballot box, advocate for their own destruction when they ignore Islamic totalitarianism and its ambition to establish a global caliphate.  Jews are kept so severely uninformed, that they facilitate our transition to a totalitarian regime.

So many Americans are completely heads-in-the-sand unacquainted with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB):

  •  its influence in our government – supporting Islamic groups worldwide, including foreign mosque construction;
  • its connection with our overwhelming illegal-immigrant resettlement programs;
  • its support of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) campus rallies (some violent) that harass Jewish students and preach boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East;
  • the “humanitarian aid” sent to UNRWA, which is diverted to constructing terror tunnels, supplying weaponry to Gaza terrorists, building homes for suicide bombers’ families;
  • the propaganda machine that teaches hate and beheading in Islamic schools, and creates propagandist films of massacres that never happened (as in Gaza and Jenin);
  • financing CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) outreach, deceptive public relations, and providing revised book donations to libraries and schools;
  • the MB cruelty against even their own coreligionists that Egypt has come to recognize and oust, that Norway is expelling, and that Angola has banned;
  • and its seduction of those who have turned from and against their Jewish backgrounds – the Stockholm Syndrome, when victimized Jews turn to caring about others’ rights more than their own, some deliberately supporting their enemy.

Instead of hearing a broad range of respectable speakers, the congregation attendees hear from the highly disreputable J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rabbis for Human Rights, and others supported by George Soros, who, greatly influenced by Nazism, Marxism and globalism, has been perverted to despise his heritage.

The congregation recently hosted Jacob Ari Labendz, who claimed he was robbed of his birthright when Israel “occupied” Arab land, but this is not Arab land!  After a brief comment about loving Jewish traditions, he switched to the deceptive Palestinian narrative – unchallenged!  Jews were the only Palestinians for centuries (the land named by first-century Romans to offend Jews).  When the Jewish state was named Israel, and “Palestine” fell into disuse, Egypt restored the name for the new PLO, which organized the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordan and Iraqis and gave them a hook to the land.

Why was there no mention of unceasing aggressive wars by Muslims? the perpetual pogroms against the Jews since Mohammed’s first onslaught? the centuries of jihad that destroyed about 60 million Christians in the once-Christian Middle East and North Africa? the more than 120 million Christians and animists slaughtered in Africa? Tamarlane’s ferocious army that killed 19 million through Asia, Africa, and Europe, leaving mountains and towers of skulls? tTamerlane (1336-1405)-the tartar successor to Genghis Khan-ranks with Alexander the Great as one of the world’s greatest conquerors. His armies were ferocious, feared throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe. They blazed through Asia like a firestorm, razing cities, torturing captives, and massacring enemies. Anyone who dared defy Tamerlane was likely decapitated, and towers of bloody heads soon became chilling monuments to his power throughout Central Asia. By the end of his life, Tamerlane had imposed his iron rule, as well as a refined culture, over a vast territory-from Syria to India, from Siberia to the Mediterranean. Justin Marozzi traveled in the footsteps of this infamous and enigmatic emperor of Samarkand (in modern Uzbekistan) to tell the story of this cruel, cultivated, and powerful warrior.he slaughter of80 million Hindus and 10 million Buddhists?  The 400 million slaughtered over 1400 years, with no end in sight.  To this day, slavery is lawful in Islam for slaves’ descendants and those captured under jihad.  Yet, Labendz maintains that if not for Israel, there would be security and peace.  Through this history of horrors and the Holocaust, there was no sovereign nation of Israel, and he cannot explain the absence of peace.

Rabbi Talve should clarify that League of Nations set a precedent at the San Remo Conference, in 1922, that cannot be overturned.  After World War I and the division of the Ottoman Empire, the League legally gave Israel and surrounding Palestinian territory to the then-14 million Jews throughout the world; Palestine was declared the Jewish “reconstituted homeland,” and the international law today is still binding.  Arabs refused their (larger) portion, expecting to conquer Israel.  Why did she invite a speaker who is evidently unaware of this highly significant arbitration, who seeks to extinguish the only home for the Jewish people, a state that is a mere one-thousandth the size of Islamic land mass?

Perhaps, for Lebendz, it was a youth’s misinterpretation of events of security and defense that blinded him to 14 centuries of Islamo-fascist villainy, or simple treason by a damaged, delusional, intellectually dishonest person.  I deduced that he was traumatized by something he saw but failed to understand, perhaps an IDF soldier confronting an armed terrorist.  Yet, the Holocaust survivors who had been severely traumatized did not devote their lives to revenge and destruction, but built the only parcel of land – barren desert and malarial swamp  – in a mere 67 years into a country that has become a major contributor in the worlds of art and science – enormous accomplishments in medicine and technology, not to mention First Responders’ humanitarian, medical assistance who rush to global natural disasters, setting up mobile hospitals, treating the injured.

Unfortunately, Lebendz also fell prey to Rabbi Michael Lerner, a notorious anti-Israel activist, who works to gather up the purposeless and marginalized – the personality types that might just as readily have been seduced and indoctrinated into a Kool-Aid cult or such as ISIS, had either of these been options. If he were Muslim, he would have become a suicide bomber.

As an aside, British Army Office, Col. Richard Kemp (ret’d), who served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other theaters of war, has testified that the IDF is like no other army in the world, confirming the particular care and compassion shown by its forces.  We are justified in adding that Israeli society is like no other society in the Middle East, where the democratic laws apply to all people, regardless of race, religion, national origin, and gender.

The speaker said, “Do not ask Palestinians to be Zionists.”  The Arabs were invited to stay after Israel won its justified, defensive war, but surely no one is held captive in Israel.  Everyone is free to give up his/her citizenship to live elsewhere, to forsake Israeli democracy and enjoy the full extent of Sharia, where a parent is free to kill his daughter for honor, men may stone a woman for an accusation of infidelity, and a young man may learn to decapitate others or detonate himself with explosives.  Yet they do not flee the imposition of democracy and the dearth of oppression, apartheid, persecution, racism.  A recent poll shows that most Arabs living in Israel, including Judea and Samaria, are Zionists by choice, preferring to live under Israeli administration than under the Palestinian Authority.  It is one thing to be an activist and support one’s position with facts and quite another to defend with fabrication!

Ari Labendz believes that he lost his birthright.  Rather, he has surrendered his birthright.  What he has truly lost is his Neshama, his Jewish soul.

Black Leadership Is On Trial In Baltimore

Last week I wrote about “Liberalism Being On Trial In Baltimore.”  In that column I talked about how all the leadership in Baltimore was Black, but yet they seem to blame all the issues surrounding Baltimore on racism and the Republican Party.  How can that be when the city is 63% Black and run by Blacks?

I argued that Baltimore has nothing to do with racism, but rather the liberal policies these Black leaders are advocating.

Let’s look at three of Baltimore’s so-called leaders, Mayor Stephanie Rawlins-Blake, Congressman Elijah Cummings, and State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby.

Aside from being mayor of Baltimore, Blake also serves as secretary of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  She was born and raised in Baltimore.  Her mother was a pediatrician and her father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

She has an undergrad degree in political science and a law degree.  She served on the city council and became president of the city council before becoming mayor.

Cummings represents Baltimore as their 7th district U.S. Congressman.  He has held this position for 19 years.  Prior to that, he served in the Maryland House of Delegates.  He has an undergrad degree in political science as well as a law degree.

According to Mosby, she comes from a family of policemen that spans five generations; both her mother and father were policemen in Baltimore.  She is a lawyer by training and her position as Baltimore’s State’s Attorney is her first elective position.

All of these elected officials are liberal Black Democrats and I have one thing to say to them, “mene, mene, tekel upharsin.”

These words are taken from the book of Daniel in the Bible; it has to do with the expression, “the handwriting on the wall.”  The full text in the book of Daniel is chapter 5: 25-28, “and this is the writing that was written, mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.  This is the interpretation of the thing:  mene; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.  Tekel; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.  Peres; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Blake’s political career is over.  She will never win another elective office.  Last week she asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to launch an investigation into her police department for any hint of racism and police brutality.  Really?  No, really?

You were born and raised in Baltimore and you need someone from the outside to investigate that which you already know?  According to the Baltimore Sun newspaper, “The city of Baltimore paid out judgments or settlements in more than 100 cases alleging police brutality since 2011…They have been involved in 317 lawsuits stemming from complaints of assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment…They have paid $ 5.7 million to alleged victims of police brutality between 2011 and September 2014 (coinciding with Blake’s tenure as mayor).”

So, what is it that the DOJ is going to tell you that you don’t already know?  You have truly been weighed in the balances and have been found wanting.

Cummings has been an elected official representing Baltimore for over a generation and has nothing to show for it.  Did he really just become aware of all the negative pathologies of Baltimore as a result of Freddie Gray’s death?  Cummings has helped direct hundreds of millions of dollars to Baltimore over the years for liberal programs with not a damn thing to show for it.  You too have been weighed in the balances and have been found wanting.

Mosby has displayed her lack of professionalism with her constant desire to be in front of the cameras.  During her first appearance before the media while reading the charging documents against the six policemen; she went into this rant about “to the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for no justice, no peace…your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man [Freddie Gray].”  Every lawyer knows this type of commentary is totally unacceptable for a prosecutor.  She should be brought before the Maryland Bar for ethics violations and should be sanctioned.  She too has been weighed in the balances and have been found wanting.

If the residents of Baltimore do not vote each of these people out of office during the next election, they have no one else to blame for the condition of their city other than themselves.  Elected and non-elected Blacks have presided over the destruction of their own community and now want to blame others for their condition.

Everyday, supposed Black leaders are selling out the very people they claim to represent.  They are aggressively pushing a homosexual agenda that is in contradiction to the Black church; they are promoting amnesty for illegals while the Black unemployment rate continues to be in double digits; they are constantly sentencing Black school kids to non-performing schools because they are beholden to the teacher’s unions.

The current Black leadership both in Baltimore and nationally has been weighed in the balances and has been found wanting.

RELATED ARTICLE: 4 US Cities Cited as Most Violent in the World. Do You Know What They Have in Common?

Endless Racial Discord

When I look back at the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, I marvel at how naïve I was that the passage of major legislation was going to “solve” the problem of discord between the white and black race.

On May 3, the Wall Street Journal reported on a survey regarding racial disturbances around the nation such as those that wracked Baltimore. “A resounding 96% of adults surveyed said it was likely there would be additional racial disturbances this summer…” To nobody’s surprise, blacks and whites “viewed the situation differently.”

“Asked to choose between two possible explanations for recent events, 60% of blacks said they reflected ‘long-standing frustrations about police mistreatment of African-Americans.’” Some 27% of black respondents said they thought the disturbances were caused by people as an excuse “to engage in looting and violence.” I favor the latter explanation because I doubt that our nation’s police forces engage in deliberate harassment and mistreatment of blacks.

Indeed, Baltimore has a back Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a black police chief, and many blacks among his force. If the issue was the police, then no city in America is safe and that is just not so. Unfortunately, the foolishness of Baltimore’s Mayor, who told the force to stand down and let the rioters have their way, was then demonstrated by her request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launch an investigation of the city’s police force.

The problem with that is that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has only fifty employees responsible for handling labor-intensive ‘pattern or practice’ investigations among the nation’s 18,000 state and local forces. There is no way the Baltimore investigation will produce anything of useful information. It is far more likely that the outcome will be more political than demonstrative of trends.

What is generally not being noticed is that the Obama administration, as reported in Politico.com on May 8, “has opened more than twenty such investigations into local law enforcement agencies “most of which result in either a settlement agreement with local officials or a lawsuit that pushes legally binding reform.”

AA - Obama and Sharpton (1)I have come to the view that the most racially divisive leader in America is our first African-American President. Why else has Rev. Al Sharpton become his most widely recognized “adviser” and why are administration figures are less likely to be found honoring fallen police officers than the alleged black victims? Three were sent to Freddie Gray’s funeral and none to the funeral of the slain police officers. The First Lady, too, has been stirring up racial discord.

Referring to the Baltimore riot, he said that “we as a nation have to do some soul-searching” when as William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal noted the trillions spent on liberal programs, personified by LBJ’s “War on Poverty”, have not succeeded in reducing poverty and have contributed to creating whole populations that live off of government handouts of one sort or another.

“While the Great Society’s billions were creating a culture of dependency,” said McGurn, “South Korea—with its emphasis on trade and global competition—rose from the ashes of a terrible war to become the world’s 12th largest economy.” This occurred over the same time period the liberal dependency programs and liberal governance of many U.S. cities created the problem we are addressing and discussing today.

Nor is the answer for the federal government to take over the management of the nation’s police forces. We have already seen how it has ruined the educational system and is now doing the same to our health system.

Are their differences between whites and blacks? Yes, but they are economic. Middle and upper class blacks share the outlook of their white counterparts. They look at the inner cities and they understand that decades of liberal governance has driven out businesses large and small, along with anyone who could afford to leave. Yes, there was “white flight”, but they were joined by blacks who saw there was no future to be had there for their children. The rest are trapped.

So, will there be more riots and disturbances in our cities this summer? Yes, that would appear to be the case. So long as police are not allowed to take action against the instigators and perpetrators, that is a given.

Not until this nation returns to the high levels of respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day will we see a cessation of such events. My experience and the nation’s over the past six decades is an indication that some pundit will be holding forth on this topic six decades from now…only it will be worse.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Pamela Geller — America’s Churchill

When Adolf Hitler published “Mein Kampf” in 1926, he spelled out his vision for Germany’s domination of the world and annihilation of the Jews. Germany would not have lost WWI, he wrote, “if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.”

In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis took power. The few people who had read Hitler’s manifesto and took him seriously fled in time to save their lives. But most – including most Jews – didn’t. Comfortable, often prominent, and fully accepted, they believed in German society and could not fathom that a madman actually meant what he said and intended to fully carry out his malevolent vision.

Even as things grew increasingly menacing – through Kristallnacht, book burnings, the stultifying restriction of civil liberties, the expulsion of Jewish children from schools, the construction of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps – there were Jews and others who downplayed Hitler’s ominous threat. Worse, they derided and vilified those who took him seriously, calling them fear-mongers and haters and liars. Sound familiar?

Today, the entire world faces the threat of galloping Islamic terrorism. We see this every day in every newscast – grisly individual and mass beheadings, people chained in cages and set on fire, hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped, raped, and worse; Christian churches burned to the ground with their desperate congregants locked inside; innocent cartoonists shot dead and their colleagues gravely injured in France, Jewish babies murdered in their cribs and strollers. Increasingly, we see “honor killings” in the United States, as well as other freedom-smothering manifestations of Sharia law.

What happened in Germany in the 1930s and ’40s is happening in America today, except the assault on our system is not coming from Nazism, but rather from radical Islam. The mullahs in Iran and their surrogates around the world stand at podiums and declare boldly: Death to America, Death to Israel! They tell us outright that their goal is to create a caliphate in which Sharia law is the law of the land, in which all infidels – anyone who does not practice or has not converted to Islam – are relegated to second-class citizenship, draconian taxes, and groveling servitude, if not outright enslavement. Some of our own elected officials echo their words. All of them, like Hitler, rely on apologists who flagrantly lie about this escalating threat. Shame on them!

During WWII, Winston Churchill was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, repeatedly issuing the earliest warnings to the Western world of Hitler’s psychotic megalomania and evil intentions. Again, few listened, while prominent, educated, and sanctimonious types derided and vilified Churchill and called him a fear-monger and a hater and a liar. Sound familiar?

Since 2004, when she founded the Atlas Shrugs website (now PamelaGeller.com), Pamela Geller has been our Winston Churchill, warning of the increasingly aggressive actions of radical Islamists, the terrifying acts they commit, and their fervent goal to eviscerate our Constitution and Bill of Rights – you know, those little documents that afford us spoiled Americans the right to say what we want, be it in speech, drawings, art, movies, and music, without fear of being murdered!

That is why, as journalist Jonah Goldberg points out, the First Amendment applies to things that people find offensive, for instance Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” in which the “artist” urinated in a glass and then placed a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s exhibition of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.

As I recall, all the holier-than-thou hypocrites who are calling for Geller’s head were bleating their support of “free speech” back then.

That is also why people who cherish the First Amendment agreed that it was okay to have a loathsome Nazi contingent walk the streets of Skokie, Illinois (with its formidable Jewish population) in the mid 1970s, and why other protest movements have been so powerful and important: for instance Patrick Henry’s bold declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death”; the Yo No rebellion in Cuba against its repressive government; the Boston Tea Party’s “no taxation without representation” protest; Susan B. Anthony’s “illegal” vote for women’s suffrage; Henry Thoreau’s demonstrations against slavery; the history-changing actions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks against racial discrimination…the list of heroic people sounding the alarms is endless.

Throughout history, all of these crusaders for freedom have been insulted by the cowardly accommodators among us, the appeasers, the apologists, and the deluded masses who thought, as Churchill said, that “the crocodile [of tyranny, fascism, murder, even genocide] would eat them last.”

Pamela Geller succeeded in literally flushing out the enemy within, two of the many jihadists in our midst. Only days after their failed assassination attempt, ISIS claimed credit for the attack and embarrassed our Department of Homeland Security into increasing security conditions at U.S. military bases and elevating the threat level in the U.S. to BRAVO – not the highest level, but pretty damn high!

But instead of praising Geller for her foresight and courage, cowards and apologists on both the left and right used the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky (described in his own manifesto, “Rules for Radicals”), which are to: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hurling gratuitous epithets and insults and lying are also in their repertoire.

But in spite of it all, Geller is not intimidated, because like Churchill she has truth on her side! She awarded First Place to a graphic artist who left Islam for the freedom that the First Amendment offers.

Still, it is clear that few people have learned the lessons of September 11th and the 14 years that have followed about the increasingly urgent need for vigilance against a deadly serious enemy, and for the equally compelling need to thank and to celebrate people like Pamela Geller for risking everything to protect our priceless freedoms.

As journalist and author Mark Steyn reminds us, “you’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: ‘Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…and the minute you hear the ‘but,’ none of the build-up to it matters.”

“…all the nice respectable people are now telling us,” Steyn adds, what Mohammed Atta told the passengers on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America.

Is Liberalism a Cult? ABSOLUTELY!!!

The other day, I was watching a program about the Church of Scientology. The program was not particularly flattering to Scientology. In fact, the documentary was downright disparaging. In the conclusion of the documentary, although the producers did not come out and actually say it, was that Scientology was nothing more than a flashy, well-funded cult. That got me to thinking about religion in general. You see, all of the worlds’ major religions have one thing in common. That commonality is the fact that there is a greater being outside of yourself and humanity. Some call that factor God, The Great Spirit, Gaia etc.

Cults have one thing in common. Their commonality is that the leader or leaders of the order believe themselves to be the great being that has come to live in human form. Indeed, they often call themselves God. For the most part, true religions have an uplifting message. Even if you don’t agree with that message, it is still there. Cults would have you believe that there is nothing positive to look forward to outside of the cult leader.

This is where politics comes in. You see Liberalism is nothing more than a cult. It is probably not the worlds largest cult but it is a cult non the less. Liberalism doesn’t believe in a greater being outside of themselves. Often Liberals are atheists or agnostic and thus they only believe in themselves and those who lead the cult. Liberals believe that there is no hope outside of the cult, or government. That the cult has to be grown to ever bigger levels in order to achieve the utopia that is, in reality, impossible to achieve.

We are told, that if we do not believe in this cult, that we have no soul, no heart. We are told we do not care about our fellow citizen our fellow human being. We are told that only the cult leaders, the political leaders, have the ability to help those who are in most need of help.

Liberalism is born out of the idea that man is helpless without those deemed to be smarter than the masses. In fact those so-called smart leaders are only smarter than the masses because those leaders tell us they are smarter. There is no real evidence that those leaders of the Liberal Cult are actually smarter than a 5th grader.

Liberals tell us that in their cult, and only within their cult, will man get the best health care, the highest wages, the best housing, the cleanest planet and the safest non-violent and completely united world of nations  under one government. Liberals tell us that basic human rights, such as the right to defend thy self against bodily harm is wrong and should be left solely to those whom the Liberal Cult deems as its guardians. The Liberal Cult tells us time and time again that the right to freely speak your mind should be limited to ideas in which the Liberal Cult agrees with. Forget having a deviating opinion. That is frowned upon by the Liberal Cult.

The Liberal Cult believes that the right to massive assembly should not be infringed upon unless you are assembling to oppose what the Liberal Cult believes to be in your best interest. So Occupy Wall Street and the Baltimore Riots, according to the Liberal Cult is fine. But a small gathering of TEA Party members assembling quietly in a local park is very bad. The Liberal Cult demeans and debases the rich yet the leaders of the Liberal Cult are often rich themselves. Many of them have more wealth than the people they are decrying as the “evil rich”.

The Liberal Cult demands that we stop the war on drugs and make most drugs currently illegal, legal. While at the same time they call for ever increasing amounts of money and trained professionals to deal with those who have become hopelessly addicted to the drugs that the Cult wants to now make legal. The Liberal Cult continues to blame everyone but the Cult for the failures of their own ideas. In no way can the Cult admit to failure. Their claim is always that there is not enough of others people’s money being spent on the program they say will cure the ill. If a child fails a math test, the Liberal Cult will tell you it is not the fault of the Cults idea but that a child should be allowed to think that 2+2=5. The Cult will say that we did not spend enough money on the administration, the school building, the teacher and text book and that because we won’t spend double what we are already spending, it is the fault of everyone not in the Cult.

In the Liberal Cult there is no room for dissenting thought or actions. In fact if you don’t believe as the cult does, they will brand you a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a homophobe. You will be labeled a greedy, money loving capitalist even though you earn less than and give more to charity than the Liberal Cultist. Your religion will be labeled stale and outdated and that newer religions that are more violent and hateful are the way to go. If you are a Liberal Cultist you don’t believe in logic, in facts, in true history. You only believe in feelings, your own feelings, and you force public and private policy upon everyone based on your feelings alone. Simply because you believe you are smarter and wiser than anyone else who is outside the Cult.

We all can look at cults and say that cults in general are a bad idea and are bad for the individual involved. So why is it we fully accept the Cult of Liberalism even though it is probably the most dangerous cult the planet has ever seen?

Something to think about.

Does Freedom Ruin Love? by JASON KUZNICKI

Over at the WeekDamon Linker sees the “paradox of choice” at work in an unlikely place: love and romance. Our young people, he says, have too many romantic choices.

The paradox of choice works like this: Let someone pick between two kinds of jam, and they’ll pick the one they like the best, and they’ll know it. The result is a happy consumer.

But let someone pick among a hundred kinds of jam, and they’ll get… frustrated. They’ll vacillate. They’ll second-guess. And there goes all their happiness. A bigger menu has only made things worse.

Now, preferences aren’t supposed to work that way. Not if we’re being rational (at least by some accounts of rationality). But we’re not fully rational, says this theory, and so… too much choice can bother us.

The paradox of choice seems custom-tailored for memetic success: It’s contrarian. It’s fashionably anti-consumer, without demanding too much in the way of personal asceticism. It’s anti-rational, in that special, cowardly way that lets adherents sneak back to a slightly greater rationality than the rest of us schmucks. In fine, it’s reassuringly snobby.

Unfortunately, the economic research on the paradox of choice just doesn’t hold up all that well — not even in consumer goods, where the idea was first hatched. As to lab results, a meta-analysis of the paradox has found virtually zero effect. Perhaps more work needs to be done, but for now, the preponderance of the evidence says no.

Out in the field, IHOP seems to have used the paradox to inform a new menu design, but it’s only modestly boosted sales, even without controlling for all the other menu changes that IHOP made at the same time. (Does ordering more pancakes make you happier? I’d guess that more people would regret buying, rather than not buying, those extra pancakes, so you tell me.)

Which brings us, I suppose, to romance. Linker writes:

In their personal lives, Americans have never been freer — from obligations, expectations, restrictions, constraints. Most of us consider this a hard-won achievement, a sign of progress beyond the limitations with which our parents, and their parents, and their parents’ parents, had to contend. But is it really progress? Are we happier in our boundless autonomy — or more miserable?

As evidence of our collective misery, Linker cites this essay by Columbia University sophomore Jordana Narin. It’s about a relationship of hers that lived, and died, without so much as a label. Whenever the question of labels came up, she simply talked around it, and so did he. Was their relationship sexual? Yes. Was it romantic? Who knows.

Heartbreakingly, Narin never even knew when to move on. Having never been a couple, she and her Jeremy could hardly break up. And that’s a problem, as I think all parties would agree.

Narin’s essay is certainly an angsty piece of work. That’s not a dig; if you’re a college sophomore who isn’t visibly angsty, you’re probably hiding something.

Along the way, Narin raises some superlative questions about the wisdom of the unlabeled relationship, and about whether one can cross from a casual affair to something more enduring, and about how the casual can be the enemy of the sincere. Her work fully deserved the award that it won.

Her essay is a lot of things, including wise and moving. But evidence for the paradox of choice it is not: If Narin had any other romantic choices at the time, she declines to say. Her choices seem to have been few, or easily made, or both.

So what went wrong? Narin writes: “I told myself a lot of things I never told him.” Now, I’m not an advice columnist, but if I had to guess, I’d say she’s found the problem.

To repeat: she’s a college sophomore, writing about some mistakes she started making in high school. She’s not a woman of fifty looking back at a wasted youth, a lifetime of regret born of too many options. She’s hardly a lost cause.

And, with the benefit of hindsight, she even has a familiar name for her predicament: the One Who Got Away. Back in my day, when things weren’t really all that different, there was hardly a college sophomore who didn’t have One Who Got Away.

So where was Linker headed with all of this? Here:

Marriage was once close to ubiquitous, and couplings were often arranged by families. When they weren’t arranged, they nearly always took place within rigidly defined cultural, religious, and ethnic boundaries. By the age of 25, and usually long before, you were bound to another person, in most cases for life. . . .  Individuals might fight against received constraints, but in the end the constraints always won.

Or at least, they did for a long time. In more recent centuries and decades, we’ve seen a slow but dramatic shift in the direction of individual autonomy, accelerating to the present day. It began with the rise of the ideal of romantic love, which led to marriages based more and more often on free choice. Eventually the old cultural, religious, and ethnic boundaries broke down, making way for all sorts of once-unthinkable intermarriages.

And all sorts of once-unthinkable reasons to end a marriage. First there was an escape clause for abuse and abandonment, then a list of lifestyle considerations (including a couple “growing apart”). Eventually divorce could dissolve a supposedly indissoluble, ostensibly life-long bond for any reason at all, without attributing “fault” to either party. . . .

And yet, for all of these changes, the institution of marriage, plus at least some of those norms and practices, persisted as a cultural ideal.

Until now, that is. With the rise of the millennial generation, marriage itself — along with formal dating, exclusive dating (“going steady”), and engagement — has come to seem for many like an unwanted obstacle to personal autonomy. And it’s easy to understand why.

Now, if I wanted to play hardball, right here is where I would wonder aloud whether Damon Linker really meant to condemn inter-ethnic marriage. After all, he describes it as a choice, in an essay about how we have too many romantic choices. Presumably we would gain something by giving it up. Presumably we would also gain if we crossed off all those other choices, too. We might even be happiest if we just left the choice to our parents.

Of course, I don’t believe that Linker thinks any of these things. But he did bring them up, and I guess the most charitable thing I can do is to stroke my chin, and wonder why, and move on.

Linker’s real target here — the one he means us to talk about — is “hookup culture.”

The problem with worrying about hookup culture is that it’s not a new choice. It’s not even a choice that more millennials are making.

As we talk about it today, hookup culture is simply a moral panic.

As journalist Amanda Hess has ably demonstrated, the data paints a very different picture from the one we oldsters seem inclined to imagine. Teen pregnancy is downMost STIs are downHooking up isn’t common, isn’t well-regarded among college students, and isn’t on the rise.

Controlling for age, 40 years of survey data says that millennials are having less casual sex than either of the two generation s that went before them. Who had the most? The boomers. Go figure: Hookup culture is something your grandparents did — which… Ew.

Moreover, marriages rates might be going down, but not because divorce is going up. Marriages in the 2000s are less likely to end in divorce than any time since the ‘60s, and divorce rates have been in decline for decades.

None of this has stopped most journalists from writing as if something dreadful were going on, and Linker is certainly no exception.

The paradox of choice is empirically dubious even on its home turf; it’s preposterous to deploy as an explanation for a nonexistent social trend, and surely cannot illuminate the angst of our heartbroken college sophomores.

More freedom in their relationships hasn’t made younger generations more miserable, more promiscuous, or less committed — it’s just made them more free.

Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is the editor of Cato Unbound.

How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?

In a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

Cartoon - Man-Made Weather

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—“crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer models, not that based on observable climate events and trends?

To this day our own government through its meteorological agencies has been caught manipulating the data gathered over the years to conform with the “warming” scenario. The worst has been the Environmental Protection Agency which is engaged in an effort to shut down coal-fired utilities and access to every other energy source on which we depend to power the nation.

Despite this national and international effort, mostly likely based on the liberal ideology that there are too many humans on the plant and dramatic ways must be found to reduce that number. In the past these anti-humanity advocates could depend on famine, disease and wars to kill off millions, but in the modern world that has become less of a threat.

One libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, has been leading the battle against the global warming/climate change hoax for a decade. As a Heartland policy advisor I have had a front row seat. In June, Heartland will sponsor the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change bringing together some of the world’s leading scientists to recommend that it is time for Congress to “take a fresh look at climate science”, “explore better science-based policies for energy and the environment”, and, bluntly stated, to “start over on the question of global warming?”

It did not surprise me to learn that Heartland had dispatched staff to Rome when the Pope announced he too was joining the “climate change” advocates despite its lack of any basis in science. The group garnered tons of international media coverage by simply presenting the truth. You can find out more about them here. It didn’t take long for Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and ‘special advisor” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, to write a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter.

Sachs took particular aim at The Heartland Institute and, despite not attending its Rome press conference or any of the presentations the experts provided, did not hesitate to identify Heartland as having been supported for years by the Koch brothers, known for the support of conservative groups and causes.

Joseph Bast, Heartland president, does not let such cheap shots pass by. “The Heartland Instituter has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation affiliated with the Koch brothers during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention the ‘Koch brothers’ unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow Improper level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?”

Bast got to the heart of the war being perpetrated by the either misinformed or deliberately lying world leaders of the climate change hoax. “The dishonesty of Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Obama sets the tone. Comparing global warming realists to members of the ‘flat earth society’ and rather ominously calling on his supporters to ‘hold climate change denier’s feet to the fire.’”

“Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies,” said Bast, “but on this issue he is letter his liberal ideology cloud his judgement. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.”

“Sachs ends his essay with a call on people of all faiths to ‘fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity nd the future of Earth.’ That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reach the starting line yet.”

It doesn’t matter if it is the Pope, the President of the United States, or the UN Secretary General if the assertion that the Earth is warming when it is not or that coal, oil and natural gas must be abandoned to “save the Earth.” Whether from ignorance or a dark hidden agenda, the whole of the global warming/climate change is aimed at harming billions, many of whom need the power that this hoax would deny to everyone.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with His Holiness Pope Francis, with CEB members. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

United Kingdom Election 2015: And Now For the Hard Part

Last night was an extraordinary night in British politics. Of the three main parties, two have now lost their leaders – Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Among the minority parties, UKIP has also lost its leader. Other major figures have lost their seats in Parliament, including Jim Murphy, Ed Balls and four fifths of the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat party. The Scottish Nationalists won a sweep across Scotland. And at the most disreputable end of modern politics, the great apologist for most dictators, George Galloway, has lost his seat to his old party. But it may be easy in the picking over of all this debris to miss the two huge questions which now confront British politics.

The first is the issue of Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Conservative party’s leader has promised an In/Out referendum on the EU in 2017. The party has now achieved victory which means they will have to put this promise into action. This means that for at least the next two years this crucial lingering question of British politics will not just remain, but grow. The next two years are going to have to involve a serious debate ready to confront this issue.

The second major issue of course is the United Kingdom itself. The Scottish Nationalists lost their referendum last year – and by a good enough margin to mean that another vote (a ‘neverendum’) would have been hard to argue for for some years. But they immediately rebuilt themselves, channelled the disappointments of the campaign and last night built themselves an undeniable power-base.

Their victory in Scotland changes British politics. It means that the majority representation in the UK Parliament for the first time comes from a party which wants to separate from the UK. This is going to have huge and unsettling results for the next five years and beyond.

These two questions – Britain’s role in Europe and Britain’s make-up and integrity as a country – are vast – vaster by far than any of the issues which came up in this campaign. Britain has decided what government it wants. Now it must begin to address its role in the world.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

And so, the nation has spoken. And how. After weeks of speculation, and seemingly in the face of all odds, the Conservative Party has been restored to government without even needing the figleaf of shared rule in a coalition. This is quite a stunning achievement in anyone’s book, particularly when you consider it is the first time since 1983 a ruling party has increased its seat tally.

No less extraordinary is the Scottish situation, where the Scottish National Party sits completely dominant over the entire landscape. Labour heartland after Labour heartland has been put to the sword in a development unparalleled in British constitutional history since the rise of the Irish nationalists when that country was part of the Union.

So what does all this mean for The Henry Jackson Society? As a cross-party organisation, we make no comment about the result other than noting its exceptionalism. We have friends in all parties, and we will continue to do so, even if some of our old ones have now left the House of Commons, to be replaced by others. There will be no change in our commitment to our values or our focus in seeing them applied in UK political decision-making.

However, it is probably the first election when a think tank featured prominently in two electoral situations in the country. George Galloway – now resoundingly defeated in his seat of Bradford West – frequently took to the airwaves attacking our organisation. And Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy was hounded by far leftist twitter trolls questioning his support for us.

As ever, we wear our critics’ admonitions as a badge of pride given who they are. We will work with all those in the new Parliament who seek to advance the causes of liberty, democracy and real human rights, as well as continuing our vigilant watch on the security challenges facing the Western world. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

P.S. For those interested in my own result, although I did not win, I did nearly double the Conservative vote in Brent Central and achieved the 5th largest percentage increase in share of the vote of any Conservative candidate in the country (out of 650).

Dr. Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza.

RELATED ARTICLE: UK Election Results: A Conservative Surge and a Defeat for Socialism

Holding the Voters in Contempt

The May 5th, 2015 lead story in The Wall Street Journal is about the result of its latest poll regarding Hillary Clinton. It says a lot about why she and the leaders of the Democratic Party must surely hold its core members in contempt. “Support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken.”

In the seven weeks since she announced her candidacy to be the next President of the United States and then virtually vanished from view, the news about her destroying private emails that should have been public records and the shenanigans of hers and Bill’s foundation have taken their toll.

The share of people with a negative view of Hillary says the Journal “jumped to 42% from 36%” and “only a quarter of registered voters said they view her as honest and straightforward, down from 38% last summer.”  Only a quarter? You mean that many people still think she’s honest?

As Peter Wehner opined in Commentary “the depths of the Clinton’s corruption and avarice is stunning” noting that “The Clintons have known for years that Hillary would run for president—and yet they still undertook this transparently unethical and potentially politically catastrophic action” referring to their foundation’s actions and the “deletion of 30,000 emails, another breathtaking inappropriate, and possibly illegal act.”

The track record of the Democratic Party at this early point in the 2016 campaigns makes one ask why anyone would still support it, its lone candidate, and its representatives. The economy has been in the tank for the whole of the Obama administration, the same one that a Democrat-controlled Congress foisted ObamaCare on the nation without ever having read the bill.

The President’s primary obsessions these days are making sure Iran gets to have a nuclear arsenal, extending diplomatic recognition to Cuba, the leading Communist nation in our hemisphere, and making sure that our southern border remains so porous that thousands of illegal aliens can gain access.

I would be happy to tell you what Hillary’s objectives and policies are, but other than repeating the same old, failed liberal crap of the past, there’s nothing specific to identify. Does she want to “help the poor”, “protect the middle class”, et cetera? Well, sure she does. As to anything else, her opinion today is often in direct opposition to her opinion of yesterday. She’s not saying much and with reason; as often as not she makes a fool of herself in the process.

If you were a leader in the Democratic Party would you take a dim view of those who vote to keep your candidates in office? Would you, however, even once ask why the Party is unable to produce more than one candidate for President (forget Bernie Sanders—he’s a Socialist who votes with the Democratic caucus) at this point?

And who is that candidate? It is a former First Lady who has spent her entire life in politics riding the coattails of her husband, a charming rascal who has cheated on her for decades. Together they have been in more scandals than can be listed here.

They may have been “dead broke” when they left the White House, but they now own two houses and are worth millions, not the least because as Obama’s Secretary of State the foundation took in millions in donations and Bill took in millions to give speeches, often from the same donors. Was the U.S. foreign policy purchased over her four years? Was the security of the emails she was sending breached? Definitely. Can you name a single treaty or major foreign policy achievement of Hillary Clinton’s service as Secretary of State? Neither can she.

Pause now and compare that the dynamism of the Republican Party. As Gov. Mike Huckabee announces today, its slate of presidential candidates is as lively a group as one can imagine. The Party has asserted control in Congress to the point where the White House knows it no longer has free reign to destroy the nation in every imaginable way.

That’s why voters will in 2016 likely rebuke the Democratic Party in an electoral bloodbath. It’s why the voices within and beyond the Party should be calling for Hillary to step aside. It won’t happen, but it should.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

As the Family Goes So Goes the Nation

My Dad used to tell me that a nation (particularly the United States) is only as strong as her families. He began telling me that when I was just a little boy attending kindergarten. Our Cleveland neighborhood where I grew up was at that time an ideal leafy enclave of close knit families and neighbors. It was comprised of a mixture of racial and ethnic backgrounds, where folks got along and crime was a non-issue.

None of us were wealthy monetarily. There were educators, (back then they were called teachers) dentists, postal workers, small business owners, nurses etc. One of my favorite neighbors were the Rebisses. They were an Italian family who lived one house over from ours. It was sometimes rather difficult to decide which I enjoyed more, hanging out with my buddy Mark or enjoying Mrs. Rebisses great Italian cooking whenever I was invited, or the times I invited myself. Ours was a neighborhood of many patriots who often flew their American flags, especially between Memorial Day and Thanksgiving.

One of my most pleasant memories of those wonder years was how many of our neighbors were actually close friends who enjoyed each others company throughout the year. A most cherished memory of the old neighborhood was how many families would connect their Christmas lights in archways over their driveways. It was a spectacular sight to see many of the homes joined through beautiful lights in the spirit of Christmas.

Even our Jewish neighbors would drop by and enjoy our Christmas gatherings. Likewise they would make sure we joined them for Seder dinners. Very moving. Our neighborhood was not physically spectacular. But it was clean, comfortable, safe and stable. My belief at the time was that was how the majority of Americans lived. Turns out I was right. At that time, the bulk of American fathers, both black and white were in the home. Dads and moms both ruled the home with principles with Christian underpinning. We children were taught to respect our elders and other symbols of authority like the police, appreciate our country and were expected to achieve our best in school and in life in general.

Were we perfect? No, but because we were taught to aim high morally, ethically, and spiritually. The spiritual part kicked in later. (smile)

But as time progressed something happened and what seemed good at first has turned out to not so good after all. In fact, many things occurred that brought about a series of horrendous shifts in the ongoing function of out republic. One of the major developments was the civil rights, or what my Dad called the bastardized rights movement across America.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began his quest for the unalienable rights of all Americans to be to recognized and honored. He firmly believed in the completed family that included both Dad, Mom and the children. I have a sneaking suspicion the Dr. King would also be firmly against the ongoing slaughter of the most innocent amongst us, unborn babies. Unfortunately, the ideals Martin Luther King espoused were gradually refocused away from unalienable rights which came from God, toward civil or bastardized right that are granted by government. It was special interest groups, not sovereign individuals that to this day most benefit most from that arrangement. When you have civil or (as my Dad said) bastardized rights, then include America’s transition from a constitutionally limited republic into a mob rule democracy things are destined for decline. Mob rule democracy places the government granted rights of the mob above the unalienable rights from God.

Dad was concerned that the corrupted civil or bastardized rights movement would help open the door to overthrowing all of the factors that had helped maintain family and national stability. So gradually, activities that were once considered immoral or wrong were gradually granted special rights status under the civil rights genre. Abortion quickly comes to mind for example. Now, groups of Americans are pitted against one another and the rights of individuals. You had Blacks against the police, homosexuals against the teachings of God the church, women against men.

Many of these groups had been brainwashed into thinking they were a collection of victims.

Combine that with several decades of government school indoctrination of American students against all that is good especially concerning the United States of America and what eventually brewed was a Caldron of madness. In more recent times in cities across America, mobs of blacks have been either fighting one another or starting riots in places like Ferguson, Missouri. And Baltimore. On St. Patrick’s Day 2015 in Cleveland after the huge annual parade, a group of black males and females converged and started beating up white citizens and out of town visitors alike. To them it was entertainment. The obvious lack of regard for civility stems from the purposeful breakdown of the black family and disregard for fathers. Also there was a taught hatred of America and possibly God himself.

My fellow Americans, let us pray for the restoration of our One Nation under God and constitutional law. We can either choose life or choose death for America. I would that we choose life.

God Bless America and May America Bless god.

The Doomsayers Are Right — But so are the Optimists by ISAAC M. MOREHOUSE

It is 1900. Two visitors from the year 2015 arrive at your doorstep. They are here to tell you about the future.

One hundred years of horror

The first visitor looks grim. He tells you that “the war to end all wars” will soon begin. It will encompass the globe and destroy millions of lives. Cities will be decimated. The Great War will have a scope and level of brutality never before imagined in human history. It will be followed by economic collapse, political upheaval, and tremendous human suffering.

A decade later, the largest economies in the world will teeter, then collapse. Hyperinflation, panic, stock market crashes, breadlines, and financial ruin will be the norm. Hunger, poverty, and desperation like no modern society has ever experienced will span a decade. Before recovery, war will break out again — this one even more catastrophic than the last. Tens of millions will die.

A new form of evil will show its head. Totalitarian regimes aided by advanced weaponry and propaganda machines will lead the mass execution of millions. Weapons of mass destruction will be created, and two will be deployed, leveling cities in minutes with effects lasting years. Governments the world over will grow in power and brutality. Control over all facets of personal and economic life will expand.

The second great war will end and economic growth will resume, but not without constant smaller wars across the globe. Government will balloon out of all proportion. Surveillance will become ever present, even in the freest states. Acts of terrorism will be all over the news. Inflation, regulation, and taxation will increase once again to levels rivaling those that led to the great economic collapse. Countries will go bankrupt, drowning in debt. Police will turn on citizens regularly. Finally, the first traveler concludes, all signs in 2015 point to another painful reckoning.

But the other traveler seems unfazed by his companion’s tale. “Do you have anything to add?” you ask hesitantly.

One hundred years of human achievement

He smiles and begins to recount the next century with excitement. Automobiles are mass produced. Soon, they are everywhere. Temperature-controlled vehicles, homes, and workplaces pop up and spread. New forms of communication that instantly connect people across countries and then the world proliferate at incredible speed. People get healthier and wealthier the world over.

Air travel takes over where automobiles leave off. Humans safely traverse the world many thousands of feet in the air. Appliances do all the most tedious, painful, and time-consuming tasks — and not just in wealthy homes.

Hunger is no longer a problem in developed countries, and it is increasingly rare throughout the world. Common diseases like polio and malaria are all but eradicated with medical and pharmaceutical developments. Average lifespan dramatically increases; infant mortality plummets.

Information is freed in ways never before imaginable. Every book ever written can be transmitted anywhere in the world through crisscrossing networks of data transmission. Humans enter outer space. Satellites beam information, video, and voices back and forth around the globe. Rich and poor alike hold in their hands devices more powerful than anything kings or tycoons of ages past could have hoped for.

Money and memories alike can be sent anywhere, anytime, easily. Anyone can learn anything without access to prestigious centers of knowledge. Gatekeepers for information are no longer impediments to human cooperation and progress. Laboring in fields and factories is decreasingly necessary, as a host of new and intelligent machines take on these tasks.

Finally, the second traveler concludes, humans focus more than ever on creativity, freedom, and fulfillment.

Who’s correct?

Both travelers have described the same future for the same planet. Neither description is untrue, and both are important.

It’s easy to feel confused by conflicting theories about the future. If you have a firm grasp on economics and political philosophy and get stuck in the political news cycle, it’s depressing. You look at the state of our economy and government intervention and see nothing but storm clouds on the horizon. There’s no way the mountains of debt, the constant currency debasement, the damaging social programs and interventions, and the buildup of regulations and nanny-statism can result in anything but an ugly future.

But if you’re up on the start-up scene, you hear tech optimists describing a future of 3-D printing, cryptocurrency, robotics advancements, colonizing Mars, and mapping the human genome, and you can’t help but see the future burning bright.

Both groups are accurately describing the possible and probable future, and there are lessons to be drawn from each.

Will history repeat?

There are striking similarities between today’s developed democracies and ancient Rome. Bread and circuses and political decay may lead to a Roman-style collapse. Then again, we have something today that the citizens of the Roman-ruled world did not: digital technology.

We are able to coordinate and collaborate via dispersed networks in ways individuals in the past never could. The centrally planned state, with all its military and monetary might, is a lumbering beast compared to the nimble, adaptive entrepreneur and citizen today. Yes, the state may use technology to spy and oppress, but always through a top-down management structure. We are a headless conglomerate of individual nodes, networked across the globe, that cannot be destroyed.

Maybe the US dollar will, in fact, collapse. Maybe states will go bankrupt. Maybe government services will fall into disarray. And maybe in the middle of it all, individual humans and civil society won’t even notice.

Do you remember how the Cold War ended? Neither do I. It just kind of did. Do you remember the great collapse of government-monopolized phone lines? Neither do I. Cell phones just emerged and it stopped mattering. The post office is in perpetual deficit. So what? Email and FedEx and Amazon drones will continue to make it irrelevant.

You see, striking as the similarities to great collapses of the past may be, history is not an inevitable indicator of the future. Collapse of government systems in an increasingly complex, market-oriented world may not spell disaster for society at large. It may spell improvement.

Problems are real … real opportunities

Take your knowledge of unsustainable government and extrapolate it into the future. Yes, these bloated systems are unsustainable. Don’t turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn’t matter. Instead, let the insights of your inner doomsayer inform the actions of your inner optimist.

Every government problem is an entrepreneurial opportunity. Stifling licensing or work restrictions or immigration bans can be overcome with peer-to-peer technology, the sharing economy, virtual work software, and more. Bad monetary policy can be sidestepped with cryptocurrency. Defunct educational institutions bubbling over with debt and devalued credentials can be ignored while private alternatives emerge. Clumsy socialized medicine, transportation, and communication systems are all begging for innovation. Entire countries can be exited — physically or digitally.

The innovators must be realistic enough to see problems with the status quo and optimistic enough to innovate around them instead of merely shaking their fists.

Informed optimism as adventure

It’s good to wake up to the tragic missteps of government policy that surround us. But if lovers of liberty only ever point to the problems, predict trouble, and head for the hills, the future may indeed be lost. If, instead, we see those problems as opportunities and talk about the possibility in front of us, we stand a chance. Optimism is a powerfully attractive force that invites bright minds to join us. As F.A. Hayek once said,

We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.… Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

We must recapture the intellectual and practical adventure of not just demonstrating the failures of a planned society, but building the glories of a free one. Only then will the world look at us and say, “Why are you so optimistic? What do you know? How can I be a part of it?”

One hundred years from now

There are two stories we can see unfolding in our future. One of increasing political foolishness leading to dystopia. One of emerging technology and innovation leading to utopia. Neither is untrue. Both are instructive.

What would you expect to hear from a traveler from 2115? Which story brings out your best self and inspires you to live free and help others do the same?

We need doomsayers: they help discover and highlight the greatest areas of opportunity for optimists and entrepreneurs to seize on. Listen to them, then act to overcome or sidestep or make irrelevant the problems they predict.

20150430_IsaacMorehouseIsaac M. Morehouse

Isaac Morehouse is the founder and CEO of Praxis.

The Media’s Rush to Judgement on the Supreme Court and “Gay Marriage”

NBC News cites a poll: “Majority Wants Supreme Court to OK Same sex Marriage.” Why the clamor to tell Supreme Court what to do? When has the majority ever been on the right side morally? Favor for such unions was strong among the young (73%) while opposition came from 68% conservatives or seniors opposed it. Notably absent was the “In-God-We-Trust” views of Christians. Why not poll them?

The media eagerly publish secularizing reports by scientists suggesting millions or billions of years for earth’s development, while they are silent on our Christian heritage and the #1 best-selling book of all times with its #1 personage who divided history into BC and AD.

Speaking of end-times, Christ said it would be “as the days of Lot” when destruction fell on the day Lot left Sodom. From the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Bible we see that God blessed the unions of male and female—He even performed the first wedding!

With the world in a crisis over many issues, this is not a good time for social experiment that goes against what our parents taught us. Can’t we see that our educational system is failing when it’s mostly the young who favor same-sex marriage while those who are older (and maybe know better) oppose it?

It’s time for Christians to weigh in on this issue. The National Day of Prayer is tomorrow. When Elijah prayed, judgment fell on Israel, and the nation turned back to God. God says He doesn’t change. What’s wrong with us? Can’t we turn the TV off and get serious about the alternate lifestyles of sin that TV encourages? Or is sin too bad a word to use for our secular society where everything else goes?

Tomorrow on our National Day of Prayer, why not tell God, Hey—we’re in a mess and unless you do something, we are lost. Please do whatever You see as needful—Thank You!

RELATED ARTICLE: Former Federal Judge Says: “U.S. Supreme Court Justices who Performed Same Sex Marriages Should Recuse or Be Impeached”

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling offers more information at his website, http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com and his book, Apocalypse 2015 is available here free until Saturday, May 9.