Teacher: I Don’t Teach Newton Because He’s White

Naomi Friedan, who teaches science in a Sacramento high school, has published a guest article in The Washington Post, arguing that her students shouldn’t learn about Isaac Newton because he’s a dead, white male with questionable political views.

According to the teacher, she feels uncomfortable teaching Newton’s laws of motion, universal gravitation, optics, and calculus because her minority students shouldn’t be expected to study inventions of a “a long-dead, British guy” (Friedan herself is white). And while Newton is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution, Friedan says he only is regarded that way because “some white men” ordained it and he can easily be replaced.

“Why not teach the scientific beliefs out of Africa, which includes an equally relevant oral tradition about the movements of celestial bodies?” she suggests. “Why not teach about the refraction of light based on oral storytelling from Latin America, about the speed of sound as imagined by the wise men of Samoa, or about the Earth being a pie resting on the back of an elephant or a serpent, as depicted in the folklore of Southeast Asia? Many, many of our students come from these traditions where people don’t even believe in gravitation or that the sky is not held up by really tall pillars at the corners of the Earth. Perhaps we no longer have the time to study the Western canon that so many of us know and hold dear.”

Friedan bolsters her case for dumping Sir Isaac by saying that minority students, who dominate her classroom, deserve to study their own cultures rather than being exposed to “Eurocentrism.” At the same time, she believes that white students should be mandated to explore cultures other than their own.

“It is our imperative duty to open up white students to a world of diverse, mind-boggling scientific beliefs that they may never encounter anywhere else in their lives,” she says. “Take, for example, the wonderful world of Cargo Cult theories. They changed my life and my entire outlook, and I want to share that wealth with my students.”

Despite holding a science degree and describing herself as a voracious online researcher, Friedan’s desire to purge the dusty old Isaac Newton from her classroom is partly based on her own difficulties understanding his theories. She confesses that she has a “personal disinterest in analyzing theories developed in the dark times of rampant colonialism and capitalist exploitation of the workers.”

“Many Native Americans believed that the world rested on the shell of a giant turtle, and who are we to invade their land and tell them that the Earth is round?” says Friedan. “Where was Isaac Newton during that shameful period of our history? He was busy becoming president of the Royal Society. Was he afraid to jeopardize his career by speaking up against the imperialist oppression of minorities, or did he benefit from his government’s colonialist policies? Whatever the case, none of his theories include a single word about social justice or economic equality. It’s only fair that in the 21st century we make amends and expel this dead, white, imperialist, and cowardly male from our science textbooks.”

While The Washington Post admits that Friedan’s view “is shared by a lot of people in and out of education,” the piece has stirred a fiery and mostly hostile response, prompting the paper to publish a rebuttal from another science teacher, who argues that it’s absurd to throw Newton into the trash simply because he’s dead, white, male, and may have supported British colonialism.

“Ethnically diverse students don’t tip over and fall due to the effects of gravity?” the rebuttal asks rhetorically. “Or their low-rider cars with hydraulic suspension don’t move according to Newtonian mechanics? Or their cell phone cameras do not use lenses that refract light? Or will the new Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens, which they can’t wait to download on their computers, not expose them to the concept of spherical planets and heliocentric solar systems? Don’t they deserve to be prepared and not act surprised at the absence of a giant space turtle holding the world on its back?”

In the spirit of fairness, The Post editorial attempted to find middle ground between these two equally valid views by saying that “living in the 21st century as enlightened and open-minded individuals, we duly condemn Newton’s backward, Eurocentric politics, but to dismiss his scientific discoveries on the grounds that life in Europe 300 years ago wasn’t as diverse and not as open to post-modern cultural, artistic, and sexual experimentation is to dismiss every important scientific discovery made by Africans, First Americans, Polynesians, Muslims, and for that matter, everything that wasn’t discovered in whatever time defined as ‘NOW.'”

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

Miley Cyrus Burns Bible on Stage to Promote Tolerance

Immediately following her interview, in which Miley Cyrus confessed to being “the least judgmental person in the world” and “understanding and accepting of everyone,” she started her next show by setting a Bible on fire.

In an opening act for her recent concert at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, Cyrus walked out onto the stage and held the Bible out to the crowd saying, “Here is a tribute to all you Jesus-lovers out there.” She then set the pages on fire and yelled “Hillary ’16!” before dropping the book to the ground. As the music started, Cyrus began to sing while squatting over the burning Bible and performing a sexually provocative dance with repetitive thrusting hip movements, called ‘twerking.’

A few moments later the stage went dark, lit up only by two large red inverted crosses, usually associated with satanic worship. Cyrus began to dance around a large phallic object, using it as a stripper pole, while removing parts of her clothing. At that point about one fifth of her audience got up and left the concert, telling MTV reporters in the lobby that the display was extremely offensive and they didn’t feel comfortable remaining in that environment.

After the concert, Cyrus told the journalists that her actions were meant to raise awareness and understanding of the downtrodden segments of our society. “Being a role model for millions of people, I know no better way to express the massive amount of love I have for the world, and if some crybabies are upset about it, they’re idiots and I hope they die,” Cyrus said before sticking out her tongue and suggestively spreading her legs for the cameras.

Liberal members of the media called the concert an “act of bravery,” describing Cyrus’s artistic performance as “by far the greatest example of a new, enlightened culture, unhindered by the ancient rulebook that promotes bigotry, fear, and hate.”

A conservative reviewer who happened to be at the concert referred to it as “trash not fit for viewing.” Cyrus responded to this single critical review by complaining about the ongoing massive oppression of dissent on the part of religious conservatives, noting that “That’s exactly what I’m talking about when I say that Christians are intolerant of opinions expressed by their betters. If those Jesus-lovers were upset about what I did last night, just wait until they see what I have planned for my next show.”


This story has already been debunked by Snopes:

See screenshot below (with ads removed to save space).

Nudging Voters to Make the Right Decisions by Julian Adorney

In politics, as in commerce, consumers cannot always be trusted. Sometimes they’re duped, or foolish, or just make decisions for the wrong reasons. That’s when we need government to step in and take the decision out of their hands.

I propose the passage of the Control and Help Upgrade the Market in Politics (CHUMP) Act to eliminate the inherent flaws in the political market.

A little nudge

Many intellectuals realize that consumers need to be nudged toward certain decisions.

This idea, called “libertarian paternalism,” consists of bureaucrats “self-consciously attempting to move people in directions that will make their lives better.”

Take cigarettes, for example. Consumers aren’t rational enough to research the dangers of cigarettes on their own, so governments insist that tobacco companies include graphic warnings to “nudge” people away from buying them. This light touch retains for users the option to buy cigarettes but gently moves them toward a wiser decision.

We need to move this idea into the political marketplace. Under the CHUMP Act, government will be empowered to nudge voters by asking them to read a few positive facts about certain candidates before they vote. Like cigarette buyers, voters will still be free to choose their candidate. We’ll just be offering a little guidance.

MoveOn.org recently put this idea into practice, releasing a poll with positive statements about Elizabeth Warren (and no statements about any other candidate). Warren won the poll by several points. That’s the political market at its best.

Subsidizing good ideas

We have long realized that unregulated markets produce the wrong distribution of resources. As Senator Bernie Sanders recently argued, why should we have 23 brands of deodorant when we can’t feed our children? Or, to put it another way, why does Kim Kardashian always have a show while NPR struggles to make ends meet? The market may reflect the desires of consumers, but it leads to the wrong outcomes.

We deal with this market failure by subsidizing NPR. But we don’t just need better shows; we need better politics, too.

For that reason, the CHUMP Act will subsidize some political groups. Judging by Sanders’s poll numbers, many Americans don’t care for big-government rhetoric. But so what? All that means is that there’s insufficient demand for his views. Some ideas, like NPR’s brand of reporting, are downright unpopular in the market. But we need them. What’s wrong with helping them along?

Certain policies, or rather the candidates who endorse them, should be subsidized. Each candidate should be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 (or from Ted Cruz to Bernie Sanders) and receive funding equal to $5,000 multiplied by their score. Hillary Clinton might score a 55, and receive $275,000 in subsidies for her presidential campaign. Sanders, who might score a solid 100, would receive $500,000. Who can say that money wouldn’t be put to good use educating Americans on the benefits of bigger government?

Cruz, as the scale suggests, would score 0 and receive no funding. Some ideas just shouldn’t be encouraged.

Banning bad politics

We need more than subsidies for good ideas: we need to protect people from themselves. Again, the blueprint lies in commerce, where wise bureaucrats protect people from businesses like Lyft, Airbnb, or Tesla. No matter how much people may say they like these companies, some products and services are just bad all around. I don’t care if you want to take an Uber. It’s too expensive, it’s disruptive, and its rating system is deeply flawed. If your city has banned ride-sharing services, it’s doubtless for your own good.

In the same vein, why should the government stand idly by while underinformed voters succumb to the rhetoric of extremist malcontents? We need to step in to save these misguided folks from themselves. They may say they want lower taxes or fewer regulations, but that’s only because they don’t understand the long-term consequences of casting their votes for smaller government.

But what about freedom?

Now, some naysayers may claim that political and commercial markets are different, that we should subsidize companies but not ideas. They claim that political freedom, the ability to choose freely between competing political ideas, is sacrosanct.

But a century ago, during the dark ages of the Lochner era, we said the same thing about economic freedom: “freedom of contract” was a right enshrined by the Supreme Court. Can you imagine if we still lived in an era where economic freedom was recognized as inviolable? It would be a nightmare of worker exploitation, child labor, and Kardashian shows. The Supreme Court struck down this freedom for the good of us all.

Right now, this “libertarian moment” we’re in is as dangerous as the Industrial Revolution was before reformers curbed its excesses. We no longer have child labor, but we do have people who want to eliminate welfare. We have reduced exploitation, but we still have extremists claiming that health care is not a right.

These residual reactionary views remain with us because we still believe that the political consumer’s choices are sacred. But that belief allows demagogues to be elected with no thought to the consequences.

Like toddlers who refuse to eat their veggies, some people just don’t know what’s good for them. We need to help them make the right choices. Political freedom is no more sacred than economic freedom — and should be dispensed with as easily, for the good of us all.


Julian Adorney

Julian Adorney is Director of Marketing at Peacekeeper, a free app that offers an alternative to 911. He’s also an economic historian, focusing on Austrian economics. He has written for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Townhall, and The Hill.

America Has Lost Its Identity

There is no example in the history of the world of a civilization, culture, or country that has survived without an intact family unit.

Historically, this has meant father, mother, sister, brother, grandparents, and sometimes other extended family members.  With the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution came what we now know as the nuclear family-father, mother, brother and sister.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants flooded into America in an effort to flee oppressive governments back home or to pursue greener pastures here.

It was implicitly understood that English was the de facto official language, being a good citizen was expected, and contributing to the betterment of America was one’s civic and moral obligation.

Children were taught to go to school, get a job, get married, and to raise a family.  These principles served us pretty well as a nation until recently.

Now, I no longer know what it means to be an American.

People come to this country, legally and illegally, and refuse to speak English.  Judges and politicians are redefining the family unit; gender is no longer determined at birth; the government is invading every aspect of both our public and private lives.

How is it possible for mankind to be so arrogant as to say their gender is no longer determined at birth, based on the anatomical features present when they are born?

Now that Mother Nature is getting up in age, she is beginning to make all sorts of mistakes.  Boys born with penises are claiming to be girls; girls born with vaginas are now claiming to be boys.

Some are even going so far as to say there is no longer a thing called gender; there is no male or female; but rather one can “self-identify” from moment to moment as to what their gender is.  Even President Obama has demonstrated his belief in this foolishness.  A few months ago, he made bathrooms in the White House “gender neutral.”  Bathrooms are no longer labeled as male or female. You can now choose which one to use based on how you “self-identify” at that moment.

I can’t help but be reminded of the Greek philosopher, Protagoras.  I studied him while attending Oral Roberts University.  He is considered the father of relativism, which basically said there are no absolutes.

Protagoras is best known for his statement, “Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not.”  So this insidious notion of “self-identifying,” is an extension of Protagoras’ philosophy.

According to this view, there is no God or any higher power.  Each individual is the all and be all of their existence.  There is no common moral framework by which man should live by; every man lives by his on individual moral code.

By believing thus, a society loses the very glue that keeps a people united.  Typically, language, moral values, and patriotism are some of those common threads that make a society cohesive.

I currently stand at five foot eight inches tall; but I currently self-identify as six foot eight inches tall, therefore, I should legally be recognized by that which I believe, regardless of whether it’s based on facts.

As crazy as the above sounds, is this not what Rachel Dolezal did.  She is the White woman who is the head of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP.  Last week she admitted that she was born White, but now she self-identifies as Black; thus, making her Black.  Even on legal documents she has been listing her race as Black, though her own birth certificate states that she is White.

She should be prosecuted to every extent of the law and the NAACP should have fired her immediately.

But, as usual, the NAACP’s leadership showed why no one takes them seriously as an organization.  Here is what their national office had to say about Dolezal, “One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.”  So, I guess lying is now a permitted quality for a leadership position with the NAACP.

Since there are no longer any absolutes, we now have a country where sex is no longer determined at birth and race is no longer determined by genetics or ancestry.  I can claim to be seven feet tall, though I am only five foot eight; but yet have the legal standing of being a seven footer simply because I say it’s so.

Would you go to a medical professional who only “self-identifies” as a physician; having never attended medical school?

A society without rules is a society in chaos.  You have little kids thinking they are homosexual; you have people in the country illegally who think they have a constitutional right to be here; entertainers like Kanye West and Omar Epps think it is OK for them to wear dresses.

Values are the DNA of a society and America has lost its values in the name of individual freedom.  Freedom only works within the context of shared rules or beliefs.

The game of basketball is a good example.  Everyone that plays the game agrees to a common set of rules by which the game is played.  Within these rules are opportunities for individual players to express their uniqueness.

But without a common acceptance of the rules of the game, basketball cannot exist.

So it is with America; without common acceptance of rules dealing with sexuality, morals law & order, we will no longer exist as a society.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America

Franklin Graham, How Dare He!

Do you ever get the feeling that perhaps you are the one who is crazy? It would have been easy for me to feel that way back in 2008. It appeared that every black person in America was giddy with excitement about the possibility of America electing its first black president except me.

Upon reviewing his hardcore liberal associations, anti-Semitic pastor, history of bullying political opponents out of races and admitting to Joe the Plumber his plan to redistribute wealth, I saw Obama as a far left radical Democrat, Chicago thug politician. Still, from my preacher dad to my 100 year old grandmother and everyone in between, my entire black family worshiped the ground Obama walked on. I was the odd man out; the weird one.

I find myself in a similar position today. Remarkably, famed religious leaders whom I purposely will not name are suggesting that Christians allow homosexuals to redefine God’s institution of marriage; claiming to have biblical basis for doing so. While doing interviews on Christian radio shows, I was stunned a few times by hosts who took issue with me for not embracing same sex marriage.

A few years back, I flew out to LA. A Christian youth pastor picked me up from the airport. He said his church teaches to embrace homosexuality because God is love and God does not care who we love. Have modern Bibles eliminated scriptures that list certain behaviors as sin and an abomination to God? (Leviticus 18:22)

Flipping through my TV channels this week, I saw that the Home and Garden channel ran back to back hour long programs featuring remodeling the homes of same sex couples; back to back! Even a sandwich spread commercial featured a homosexual couple. With the secular world and much of the Christian church embracing the “new normal”, it is easy for one to ponder. Am I wrong about this?

But then, invoking the same elation in me as if he wore a leotard, a cape and an “S” on his chest, Franklin Graham stood up, boldly pushing back against Wells Fargo Bank funding a commercial promoting homosexual marriage and parenting. Thanks Franklin, I knew I was not crazy.

Praise God that someone of major prominence is finally saying “no” to the Left cramming its agenda down our throats. Graham is fighting back by hitting the aggressors in their pocketbook; removing Billy Graham ministry’s hundreds of millions from Wells Fargo. Graham launched a clarion call asking Christians to boycott LGBT friendly companies.

Franklin, son of the legendary great evangelist Billy Graham wrote on Facebook: “…Let’s just stop doing business with those who promote sin and stand against Almighty God’s laws and His standards. Maybe if enough of us do this, it will get their attention. Share this if you agree.” 

Before I continue. Will someone please explain to me why suddenly corporations, the mainstream media, broadcasters and Christian churches are scrambling to please the LGBT community and further its agenda; the initiative trumping everything and everyone in America? Wells Fargo basically told Graham that pleasing the LGBT community is their top priority. Again, I ask why? For crying out loud, a CDC report said the LGBT community is less than 2% of the population, another reported slightly over 2%. 

Imagine Buffalo Bob host of the 1950s kid’s TV program, “The Howdy Doody Show” saying, “Okay kids, it’s time for another GAY FAIRY TALE!” The kids in the live studio audience cheer, “Yeaaaaaa!!!” Today on American TV, toddlers are taught homosexuality via remakes of fairy tales. In a cartoon targeted at preschoolers, a boy rescues a prince and a princess, but chooses to marry the prince. No, I am not crazy. That just “ain’t” right!

Despite the objections of parents, Virginia public school administrators figuratively told parents, screw you, the curriculum will include gender identity.

Meanwhile, Franklin Graham, a good man of impeccable character is standing strong, daring to inflame the full-blown wrath of the Left and mainstream media who will attempt to brand him as an overzealous conservative religious hater.

Step two in the Left’s Targeted for Destruction playbook is to stick microphones into the faces of influential conservatives and pastors; branding all who stand with Graham as fanatic nut-case haters. The Left will insidiously initiate the tactic of taking the slightest opposition to its agenda to the extreme. Graham and his supporters will be accused of being in solidarity with those who want homosexuals socially abused and physically harmed. This tried and true tactic is designed to intimidate people into backing away from Graham.

Graham has a history of pushing back against the Left’s War on Christianity. He spoke out when Obama blamed Christians for Jim Crow laws and slavery at the National Prayer Breakfast. The Left attacked Graham trying to shut down his “Operation Christmas Child” which has sent 100 million boxes of toys to poor children since 1993.

Graham’s latest insubordination daring to say no to the Left cramming homosexual marriage down our throats may have, as my late momma used to say, plucked the Left’s last nerve; moving Graham to the top of their hit list.

This is line in the sand time folks, Christians vs the Left’s bullying.

Exodus 32:26 – “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him.”

My fellow Christians, I feel we face a similar pivotal moment as did the sons of Levi. Who is on the Lord’s side? Support Franklin Graham. I stand with brother Graham.

Brad Thor’s message for Pamela Geller’s critics: You are pansies

This is the age of cowardice — masked as “respect” and “avoiding provocation” — and so Brad Thor is right. I am proud to call both Brad Thor and Pamela Geller my friends. If future ages revere courage at all, which is an open question in this weak and pusillanimous age, they will be remembered, and honored.

“Brad Thor’s message for Pamela Geller’s critics: You are pansies,” by Benjamin Weingarten, The Blaze, June 12, 2015:

Author Brad Thor is not one to mince words when it comes to defending free speech and challenging jihadists.

So it should come as no surprise that during an in-depth interview in connection with his forthcoming “Code of Conduct,” when the topic of Islamic supremacism versus the West came up — and in particular the Garland, TX shooting — sparks were going to fly.

Listen to what Brad had to say below, and for a sneak peek at the creepy enviro-globalist agenda at the heart of “Code of Conduct,” Brad’s assessment of the threats to the homeland and how to take it to Islamic supremacists and his endorsement for president in 2016, you can skip to the full interview here.

And I don’t care who criticized her…You are weak, and you’re a pansy for not standing behind her

Share:

The First Amendment exists to protect speech you don’t agree with. It actually is there — if all that was worthy of protection was speech everybody agreed with, we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. OK.

So you don’t have to agree with what Pamela Geller is doing, but my G-d, Pamela Geller is doing more to help reform Islam than any pansy on the left or right who is criticizing her.

And I don’t care who criticized her. I don’t care who it is: You are weak, and you’re a pansy for not standing behind her.

It makes no sense to me that you would not support someone who is trying to bring about reform in one of the most dangerous ideologies since Nazism. And it actually predates Nazism, so I can’t say it’s since Nazism.

This idea that Pamela Geller somehow deserved what they got — and she’s making it worse for people. You know I heard people say “Well why provoke all Muslims?” She’s not trying to provoke all Muslims. She’s trying to provoke a discussion.

And moderate Muslims should not be offended by the depiction of their Prophet Muhammad. They can say it’s in their book … Islam is the only major world religion that has not had a reformation. Judaism has. Christianity has. Islam has not.

And … I would encourage you to please link to probably one of the best articles ever written about the West and how we are pandering to fundamentalist Islam. It was actually — I don’t know that you do a lot of links to the Huffington Post — but it was on the Huffington Post and it was written by Sam Harris, who is on Bill Maher a lot. And Sam’s an agnostic.

And Sam wrote a great article called “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks.” And he talks about the fact that we have allowed a protected space to be carved out in the public square where every other group is expected to debate rationally on the playing field of ideas, except for Islam.

We can go ahead and talk about Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, but we can’t critique and discuss the tenets of Islam. And that’s because we are hamstringing ourselves.

And Islam needs more attention, more criticism, not less. If we don’t criticize Islam and put pressure on Islam, how do you expect reformers and again moderates to have the wind at their backs, the wind in their sails to have them do the work that needs to be done? Because we as non-Muslims can’t affect any change.

All we do, like I said, we get our civil liberties eroded.

It’s longer lines at TSA for those of us who can’t reform Islam.

We need to do everything we can to help reform it. And reforming Islam means we have to draw attention to all its failings.

It’s only when people are shown “Hey, the house is full of termites,” that maybe they’re gonna stop spending money on cable and tons of beer, and start applying the money to fixing their own house.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Max Blumenthal warmly endorses pro-jihad, pro-stoning UK Muslim leader

Australia: Islamic State collecting radioactive material to make ‘dirty bomb’

Jihadi who wanted to kill Pamela Geller said he’d kill his family if they refused to live by Sharia

There are no “lone wolves” in the jihad war

‘No Complete Strategy’ in Iraq, But Embassies Getting Complete Movie Channel Packages

The Anti-Christian Coalition in America

People of faith in America are feeling the pressure from a growing coalition bent on restricting any public display of religious beliefs. The idea that politics and religion do not mix is a false notion at the least and dangerous at its worst. Religion and politics are inextricably linked. Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

How did we get to this point in a virtuous culture based upon Judeo-Christian values?

The answer is as Franklin pointed out – government has become more corrupt and vicious and some people are demanding masters.

Who are the members of this anti-Christian Coalition? Here is a short list:

  1. Politicians both Democrat and Republican at every level
  2. Government Bureaucrats at every level
  3. Hollywood
  4. The Main Stream Media
  5. The U.S. Armed Forces
  6. The U.S. Court System
  7. Environmentalists
  8. Public Schools
  9. The LGBT Movement
  10. The followers of Mohammed
  11. Atheists, Agnostics and Satanists
  12. Communists and Socialists

What do they all have in common? They all adhere to and promote the collectivist ideology.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

Collectivism is by its very nature anti-Christian. Rand wrote, “When [Collectivism is] applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, [it] can result in nothing except brutality.” Rand notes:

Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.

Rand and a growing number of Americans understand that the U.S. Constitution “is not a document that limits the rights of man – but a document that limits the power of society over man.” Rand defines a right as “that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.” Inalienable rights means that, “Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.”

What is the shield that protects man’s inalienable rights from collectivism? ANSWER: Moral Principles!

Rand wrote, “It is true that society can abandon moral principles and turn itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a man can cut his own throat any time he chooses. But a man cannot do this if wishes to survive. And society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist… Without a moral code no proper human society is possible. Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is possible.”

Rand concludes “there can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism and Collectivism.”

Human life is the standard of value. Collectivists do not value human life, Individualist hold human life as the basis of liberty and freedom.

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. perhaps expressed the ideal of individualism best in a three minute sermon titled “The Street Sweeper”. Many believe this was his greatest sermon.

EDITORS NOTE: To download a printable copy of Any Rand’s paper What is the Basic Issue in the World Today, click here.

You Can’t Have One without the Other

A May 5, 2015 article in Scouting Magazine by Bryan Wendell, a senior editor for Boys’ Life, Scouting, and Eagles’ Call magazines, reminded Boy Scout leaders across the country that page 99 of the 2015 Boy Scout Handbook prohibits the use of toys such as water guns and Super Soakers in friendly water games.  According to Wendell’s blog posting, “It’s a good time to remind you that BSA (Boy Scouts of America) policies prohibit pointing simulated firearms at people.  Yes, that includes water guns.”

Wendell also reminded local scout leaders of restrictions contained on page 100 of the Boy Scout Handbook, cautioning that, in order to prevent serious injury during water balloon fights, scouts should use “small, biodegradable balloons,” and that balloons should be filled “no larger than a ping pong ball.”  No larger than a ping-pong ball?

When contacted by reporters, BSA spokesman Deron Smith confirmed that these policies have been on the books for quite some time, and that the Wendell blog posting was simply a reminder of longstanding safety rules.  He said, “Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot at targets, and eye protection must be worn.”

When asked why the rule was being highlighted, Smith replied that a scout leader had once told him that, “A scout is kind.  What part of pointing a firearm (simulated or otherwise) at someone is kind?”

After interviewing Smith, Todd Starnes, host of Fox News & Commentary, commented, “I’m assuming that also means kids won’t be able to cool off by running through semi-automatic sprinklers.  Don’t be surprised if the BSA bans campfires and replaces them with simulated flames on portable smartphones.  Can’t risk the kids burning their marshmallows.”

All of this was followed by a May 21, 2015 speech by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the BSA Annual Convention in Atlanta.  As the recently elected president of the BSA, Gates urged the organization to reverse its longtime ban on homosexual scoutmasters, warning that “court challenges to the ban would be inevitable, costly, and ultimately lead to the collapse of the organization.”

One wonders whether Gates might have left the Pentagon in July 2011 with a copy of Barack Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan Rules of Engagement in his pocket and simply read the wrong speech to the assembled scouts. The proposal to reverse the ban on homosexual scoutmasters comes on the heels of a historic policy change of May 23, 2013, when the BSA voted to lift the ban on gay scouts.  Fearing unforeseen financial consequences, the BSA voted to reverse its 103 year policy banning homosexuals from the organization, while postponing any decision on the issue of gay scout leaders.

The news that the Boy Scouts may soon reverse their ban on gay scoutmasters caught the eye of conservative talk radio icon, Barry Farber, host of The Barry Farber Show in New York.

In a June 9 column for WorldNetDaily, titled, What if ‘Gay Scoutmaster’ Story is Sick Joke? Farber expressed his outrage.  He said, “There’s only one way to let you know how the likely arrival of gay scoutmasters sits with me.  It may seem over-twisted to you, but don’t forget, I’m the world’s foremost authority on how things sit with me!”

To illustrate his befuddlement, Farber said, “Remember Alan Funt’s laugh-laden TV show Candid Camera?  Elaborate practical jokes were played on unsuspecting people while concealed cameras were rolling.  Innocent people were thrust into preposterous situations, and after their confusion and consternation were milked dry, the mask would come off and the announcer would proclaim, ‘Smile!  You’re on Candid Camera!’

“Now gay scoutmasters are coming!  Part of me semi-seriously suspects that all this talk of gay scoutmasters is fake, a practical joke by major media and major politicians to target me and mess up my head.  I imagine a secret conclave in a back room.  The ringleader calls for order.  ‘Let’s have some fun,’ he begins.  ‘Barry Farber is a conservative talk-host and columnist who believes in virtues and values and stuff.  We’re gonna pretend the Boy Scouts decided to lift the ban on gay scoutmasters.  Boy Scout President Bob Gates has agreed to go along with the gag, and as former head of the CIA and secretary of defense, he knows how to keep a secret and put on a good act.  Gates will put out a statement like, ‘We must live in this world as it is and not as we wish it to be, and, given society’s mounting opposition, we can no longer sustain banning overtly homosexual men from serving as scoutmasters.’

“Farber will bite the bait and get sucked all the way up the exhaust pipe and take it all seriously and stutter and sputter his way through one of his right-wing rages.  We’ll have some good, clean fun when Farber learns it was all an absurd gag and he was tee-totally stupid enough to fall for it!  Learn your roles in the hoax, everybody.  We’ll roll it out in spring of 2015.’ ”

Farber confesses, “I’d volunteer to undergo the most stinging humiliation possible if ‘gay scoutmasters’ really were a gag.  I remember full well how utterly fascinated we Boy Scouts – age 12 to 15 – were about everything having anything to do with sex.  This lifting of the ban against overtly gay men serving as scoutmasters is the one news story most deserving of being a sick joke and not a breathtaking transmogrification of the rulebook…

“Is Bob Gates seriously asking us to believe there are hordes of American parents right now stomping and screaming, ‘We won’t tolerate this mindless bigotry against gay scoutmasters.  Admit them immediately or we’ll withdraw our sons from Scouting!’  I don’t think so.  What strikes me as unsustainable is maintaining sexual distance between boys aflame with experimentation lust and gay scoutmasters challenged beyond comprehension by the temptations brought on by this incredible surrender.”

Farber concludes, “Political correctness has a brother, older, wiser and stronger.  His name is Common Sense.  That brother is now pleading to be heard and heeded.  Historian-philosopher Will Durant gave us an excellent battle cry that goes, ‘When liberty destroys order, the hunger for order will destroy liberty.’   As a suggested corollary, we might also assume, ‘When political correctness destroys common sense, the hunger for common sense will destroy political correctness.’  I hope so.  Too many innocent lives stand to be affected and afflicted.

“In my view this cave-in by the Boy Scouts does not make big trouble possible.  It makes big trouble inevitable.  And I wish the gay-agendacrats could understand that zero animosity toward gays attends this outcry.”

I tend to believe that Barry’s onto something and I’m sure he speaks for the vast majority of parents with sons of scouting age.  The gay scoutmaster thing has got to be a classic “Smile!  You’re on Candid Camera!” gag.  After all, if it is now national policy of the Boy Scouts to allow gay men to be scoutmasters, surely the Girl Scouts would have announced by now that they’re going to allow adult male heterosexuals to be troop leaders… taking our pubescent 12 and 13-year-old daughters and granddaughters off into the woods for weekend camping trips, and all with the blessing of the New York Times, The Washington Post, and every liberal politician within shouting distance of a microphone or a TV camera.

As I read Barry’s heartfelt rant, I couldn’t help but think of the 1955 song, “Love and Marriage” by Sammy Cahn and Jimmy Van Heusen, a song first introduced by Frank Sinatra in the 1955 TV production of Thornton Wilder‘s Our TownThe first stanza tells us:      

Love and marriage, love and marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage.
This I tell you brother,
You can’t have one without the other.

In other words, if parents of 12 and 13-year-old boys are going to be faced with the dilemma of whether or not to allow their sons to go off on weekend camping and canoeing trips with openly gay scoutmasters, then how long will it be before we are called upon to wrestle with the same dilemma where our daughters and granddaughters are concerned?  Or are we to assume that, while the sexual abuse laws are written to be gender neutral, parents should be willing to put their sons in harm’s way, but not their daughters?

That’s what convinces me that the gay scoutmaster thing is just another liberal gag.  Will liberal orthodoxy dictate that we discriminate between boys and girls, as we do in nearly all sex-related matters, or, in the interest of “fairness,” will they insist that, just like love and marriage, “You can’t have one without the other?”

In the meantime, Mr. Gates need not worry about the demise of the Boy Scouts of America.  When we’ve become so politically correct that 12-year-old boys are prohibited from squirting each other with water guns and Super Soakers, and when they are prohibited from hitting each other with water balloons larger than ping-pong balls, the end has already arrived and the Boy Scouts of America have become the Boy Wooses of America.

What is needed is for parents to regain control of the Boy Scouts, telling Mr. Gates, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wendell to do what all good scouts should do: “Take a hike!”

The Rouge Federal Government

I have accurately stated on many pages from The Edwards Notebook Syndicated radio commentary that the federal government has gone rouge and is now an enemy of “We the People.”  Unfortunately, not father time, or the government itself has revealed any events or details to prove my theory to be based upon pure folly, by any means.  One could readily focus on the governments iron willed focus upon keeping our republic in a constant state of potential mortal danger by refusing to properly seal and protect our borders.

Or how about the government’s unwillingness to adopt proven economic principles that would enable business activity to ramp up create more opportunities?  In fact, certain government so-called economic policies including establishing the highest corporate tax rate on earth, along with draconian EPA regulations have convinced the leaders of forty nine corporations to move their headquarters out of the good ole U.S. of A.  It has been calculated that American corporations would invest upwards of nineteen trillion dollars into the United States economy, if only the greedy and wasteful government could get out of the way.  For example, the removal of the overbearing layers of regulations.

But unfortunately, the goal of the federal government is no longer to govern on behalf of the best interest of the American people.  It is mainly geared toward making life as difficult for American born sovereign citizens as possible.  While at taxpayer expense is providing everything imaginable for illegal immigrants and American hating so-called Muslim refugees.  It has been estimated that there are well over thirty million illegal immigrants living off of tax dollars gleaned from working American tax payers.

Allied nations like New Zealand and Australia have expressed an increasing level of anxiety over the United States suffering under the Obama regime.  From day one of his presidency, Mr. Obama has kept America on course for an economic collapse or a possible military defeat at the hands of anyone who wants to take her on in conflict.  Both Australia and New Zealand are under increasing pressure from China to ditch the United States as their military ally.

The Obama administration methodically demoralized the United States military through social experimentation. For the most part, it entailed promoting unnatural lifestyle choices and open discrimination against Christians and Christian related activities. Also the Obama presidency has been on a relentless mission to dramatically reduce the size and power of the one time, most powerful military in the world.  So now, enemy nations like China, Russia and the legions of Muslim terrorists just waiting to do damage to the United States.

Under Obama’s watch, America has so distanced herself from her founding principles that no concerted effort has been discussed or probably even thought of concerning what can be done to help the abused Christians throughout the Middle East and beyond.  Christians have systematically been raped, murdered, beaded, tortured and their churches burned to a crisp by Muslims who hate them for existing as non-Muslims.

But as deviant as those developments are concerning the federal government, the refugee resettlement program ranks near the top, amongst the government’s many acts of disregard for American interest.  For years, the federal government at taxpayer expense has been bringing in so-called refugees from Syria and Somalia.  But during more recent years, the resettlement program has become an even wider door for policy for terrorist who want to come in to our republic, set up shop and wait for a chosen time to wreak havoc.

It used to be that refuges and legal immigrants were for the most part pro American and simply wanted to assimilate into American society. They also wanted to partake of the great opportunities our onetime mostly free market economy once provided.  But in more recent times, things have gone awry.  Not only has the federal government gone rouge and turned against our constitutional republic standards, but the feds are now flooding this country with known enemy muslims from Syria who will slit your throat if given the opportunity.

Tens of thousands of Muslims from Somalia have been and continue to be brought into America.  At the same time, the real victims of Middle East and African brutality, the Christians have been left to rely completely on God for any relief from the grief of unwarranted brutality.  To date, the state of Minnesota alone is plagued with over 100,000 Somalian Muslims who hate American society and are hoping to establish sharia law in our nation. Places like Dearbornistan, MI and near Fort Worth, Texas are teeming with hate filled Muslims, including those from Somalia being flooded into this country by the United Nations and the State Department and heavily subsidized by our tax dollars.

According to reliable sources, 350 subcontractors are paid 850.00 dollars for every settled Somalian Muslim.  Even progressive leaning Christian and Catholic organizations are foolishly in support of the government effort to bring in Muslims who would wipe out Christianity and Catholicism in a heartbeat. Such short sighted lack of wisdom sheds a huge light on the state of the organized church today. Despite the dire nature of the invading Muslims into our country, I am optimistic that the small window of opportunity to save and restore this nation will soon be fully utilized.

With God’s grace the tyrannical grip now besetting America will be removed and those who are focused on our destruction shall be defeated.  Wake up America.

No Strategy. No Clue.

The Wednesday, June 10 Wall Street Journal headline at the top of the page was “Obama Set to Expand Troops in Iraq.” We were 589 days into the two terms Barack Hussein Obama has served in the office of President of the United States and he is as clueless now as he was when he arrived on January 20, 2009.

“President Barack Obama is poised to send hundreds more American advisers to a new base in a strategic Iraqi region to help devise a counterattack against marauding Islamic State militants, U.S. officials said Tuesday, a shift that underscores American concern over recent battlefield losses.” It’s 450 “trainers.”

We have had losses because (1) Obama was elected on a promise to end the conflict in Iraq and (2) reelected by pulling out troops to the point that the remaining Iraqi troops—Shiites in the south—decided it wasn’t worth dying for their leaders. Can’t say I blame them, but dying at the hands of ninth century Islamic fanatics is the fate that threatens the entire Middle East, not just Iraq or what’s left of it.

This is how we lost the war in Vietnam. There was a time when Americans utterly destroyed their enemies on the battlefield. In the latter half of the last century, starting in Korea, we forgot how to do that and why that’s how wars are won.

In all candor, like a lot of Americans, I went back and forth about the Mideast conflicts. Looking back, I think George H.W. Bush showed remarkable insight when, after driving Iraq’s Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, he stopped at the border and came home. George W. had the notion he could somehow introduce democracy to the region. He couldn’t and it will likely never really occur there because Islam is the only law and it has kept the region ignorant, backward, and under the thumb of tyrants for centuries.

The Islamic State troops must be stopped at some point, but Obama is not the President who will do it. Whatever U.S. backed combat occurs will be just enough to present enough television news images to convince the gullible that progress is being made.

Obama arrived in office without any strategy and has spent the last six and a half years “muddling through” as the British say. He and the Democratic Party had only one goal; to win the elections. After that, they wanted to “fundamentally transform” the greatest nation on planet Earth. They have largely made a mess out of everything they touched from ObamaCare to Common Core.

There’s a reason why Obama will send more troops and that’s because every one of our allies has told him that, if the U.S. does not again assert its role of global leadership, they are not going to cooperate with him in a thousand different ways.

Our allies in the Mideast have told him they lack the military strength (and will) to conduct any kind of war with ISIS. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world cannot afford to sit by and let the enormous oil wealth and reserves of the Mideast come under the control of ISIS.

So, once again we read headlines about U.S. troops returning to the Mideast.

What that means is that the 2016 elections are more critical to the future of the nation than all previous ones.

I think Americans, liberals, conservatives and independents alike have had more than enough of President No Strategy. I think there are enough older Americans who remember and take pride in a nation that was unabashedly the world’s leader in the pursuit of peace and democracy. And I think that the thirty percent or so of brain-dead liberals are not sufficient to affect the outcome of a 2016 election devoted to restoring the nation’s economy and leadership.

It can be done. John F. Kennedy was on his way to doing so. Reagan did so. In 590 days from now, we can begin to do so again.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLE: President Obama’s Failed ISIS Strategy in Iraq

How Policing Works in a Privatized City by Jeffrey A. Tucker

“All the common areas of Atlantic Station including the streets, sidewalks, parks, and alleys are private property.”

Thus reads one line buried in the Rules of Conduct for Atlantic Station, Atlanta, Georgia: a marvelous city within a city. But it’s this one line that makes the critical difference. It’s why this one-square mile in the heart of this great city has done more to model beauty, prosperity, diversity, and happy living than 50 years of “urban renewal” and other government programs.

The entire community was built on top of the old Atlanta Steel Mill, which opened in 1901 and closed in the 1970s, leaving desolation in its wake. Atlantic Station opened 10 years ago as a visionary entrepreneurial venture — the brainchild of The Jacoby Group, headed by Jim Jacoby — funded mostly with private money (the city helped with tax breaks and some infrastructure funding).

It is not a gated community walled off from the public for only the elite. There is no charge to get in. Everything is public access, and subject to all the laws governing commercial property. The difference between the public and private city, however, is huge.

You can tell when you have entered the space. Whereas many areas of Atlanta struggle, this area in the heart of the city is clean, bright, ebullient, bustling with enterprise and life.

On an evening recently, on the way to the movies in the spectacular theater there, I sat outside on the patio of a Mexican food restaurant and watched adults and children playing games and having fun on the green space that serves as a mini-park in the middle of this urban experiment in capitalism. There were people from all races, classes, and ages. They listened to the live band and sang along.

As I sat there, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the sense of a mini-utopia. It’s like an idealized scene you see in a commercial for soda or some happy vacation getaway. It was one of the most blissful city scenes I’ve ever witnessed.

It was a typical evening, and it was all taking place in a place that was, only twenty years ago, a burned out, low-rent, disaster zone, the kind of place people flee. Now, the migration patterns have changed. Atlantic Station is a place where you want to live and work.

I was walking along and a uniformed police office greeted me good evening. I responded with delight, and we had a nice conversation. She wanted to know if I was enjoying the evening, made a few bar recommendations, we chatted about the weather, and I went on. She was uniformed, yes, and probably armed, but in a non-threatening way. She looked sharp and helpful, as well as official.

Then it struck me: the police in the community are privately employed by main stakeholders in the community, which are the merchants, apartment owners, and other service providers. (The streets are also private but public access.) For this reason, the police themselves have a deep investment in the well-being of the community and the general happiness of the consumers who shop there. They are employees of the free enterprise system. In particular, Atlantic Station owners contract with Chesley Brown for experienced service.

Sometimes in today’s overly-militarized environment, it is easy to forget: policing is a completely legitimate, useful, important profession. They are there to make sure that everyone is keeping the rules and to apprehend the vandals and criminals who break the rules. You might even call them the thin-blue line.

What makes the difference here is the private nature of the contract that employs them. Just as every other employee in this community, they have a direct stake in the value of the space. They are there to serve customers, just as every merchant in this community does.

The more valuable the community, the more valuable their own jobs. They have the incentive to do their job well, which means enhancing the experiences of rule keepers while driving out those who do not keep the rules.

The rules for Atlantic Station are rather strict, more so than I would have thought. There is a curfew for teens. You can’t wear gang-related or obscene clothing. You can’t carry weaponry. You can’t use indecent language. You can’t smoke. You can’t be boisterous. You can’t shout or be vulgar. You can jog, but you can’t just take off running through streets like an animal.

If rules like this were imposed by a city government, people would rightly complain about the violation of rights. So why aren’t these rules violations of rights? Because it is private property and the owners determine them.

More importantly, the point of the rules is not to control people and run their lives; it is to enhance the value of the community for everyone. They can be changed depending on circumstances. They can be imposed strictly or not. It all depends on what’s best for Atlantic Station, and, yes, what’s best for business.

But you know what’s interesting given all the rules? You don’t really feel them. They are not really posted anywhere. You just sense that they exist, and you feel a desire to behave well. The culture of cooperativeness and good behavior is ever present. And the rules have the effect of freeing you from annoying things, not restricting your behavior. It doesn’t feel like an imposition. It feels orderly. The rules are enforced but with gentleness and care.

The first time I entered Atlantic Station was about 18 months ago. I had some sense that something was different about the place, but I hadn’t understood that it was entirely private. I stepped out on the sidewalk and lit up a cigarette. One of these very nice private policeman came up and greeted me and politely asked me to put it out, on grounds that this was against the rules in this private community. I said, you mean by this building? He said, no, for the whole community.

I didn’t resent it. In fact, I was delighted to comply. I even thanked him for being so kind. There were no tickets, no yelling, no moments of intimidation. No one is taking your stuff, threatening to arrest you, or even giving you tickets. You have the right of exit. The rules themselves become part of a larger market for rules.

Another interesting feature is how Atlantic Station has marketed itself. It is not seen as an experiment in capitalist living. All the promotion uses all the usual lefty buzzwords about energy efficiency, sustainability, diversity, renewable this and that, certifications by various green groups, and so on. None of it matters in the slightest. This is about private property. Period. It’s ownership that realizes the ideals, whatever they are.

The lesson I derive from all of this is that institutions matter. You can have the same principles and laws in two places, one enforced publicly and one enforced privately. The code of conduct can be identical, but the results can be completely different.

Where monopolistic, tax-funded enforcement can be cruel, inflexible, and violent, the same enforcement brought about within the matrix of an exchange economy can yield results that are humane, orderly, and beautiful. The right to just walk away makes all the difference.

The implications for policing are perhaps the most interesting, given the current controversy over police abuse. When the police function is part of the market order, the phrase “to serve and protect” takes on substantive meaning. It’s this feature of public vs. private property that is decisive.

There must be many of these communities appearing around the country. Governments at all levels are out of ideas and out of money. When was the last time you heard of some hugely expensive urban renewal program, or massive public housing structure, that was to be built in a major city?

These visions are less and less part of our lives and our future, thankfully. With governments bowing out of the planning business, private enterprise is increasingly moving in with real efforts at restoring community.

Private enterprise is gradually bringing about what governments only promised to do, and it is happening without much fanfare. In fact, I’ve not seen a single headline story about this community, whereas there should be thousands that read something like “Private commerce saves Atlanta!”

Private property and inclusive commerce: it’s the magic sauce that makes life beautiful. Come to Atlantic Station and see for yourself.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Anything Peaceful.

Special Interest Groups Moving the Goalposts on Religion

There is an enormous chasm between policy-centered political fights on issues such as tax rates, education policy and healthcare policy, and the growing fight to preserve religious liberty in our beloved country.

The effort to divide and silence Christians by a small, but vocal and powerful, collection of interest groups, is gaining strength. I fear that we are rapidly approaching a tomorrow where generations-old beliefs in the teachings of Christ will be used as a reason to stigmatize, punish, and divide his followers tragically, in a country founded by brave men and women escaping faith-based persecution.

I am increasingly worried about this small, but powerful, group of organized interest groups and their intimidation tactics. These groups are attacking anyone they unilaterally declare to be an enemy of their cause, despite any evidence of intention to cause harm. I am also concerned about the desired ends that these groups seek to achieve. It seems as if they have moved their goalpost closer—from dangerous ideological suppression, to the extremely dangerous realm of forced ideological conformity.

Being personally attacked and smeared by these organized groups for being a Christian or a conservative is a sad state of affairs, but it has become the price of doing business and it’s already baked into the cake for Christians and conservatives in the political arena. Apparently this attack and smear strategy is no longer satisfactory for the division warriors on the Left as they have now resorted to the use of government force. As we saw with the recent Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act debate, and the subsequent calls for violence against an Indiana pizza place that didn’t toe the ideological line, along with the recent bombshell report that Oregon state officials colluded with interest group activists against private business owners, the rules of engagement for the organized Left’s activist front have devolved.

I am not a preacher, and I am not trying to frighten anyone. But, I am sounding the alarm because we are not doing enough to fight back. We have allowed these interest groups to use isolated examples of sinful behavior by many Christians as a weapon in their war against any standards AT ALL. It is telling that Christ chose as messengers Paul, who hunted down and persecuted Christians, and Peter, who in a moment of weakness would deny Christ three times. Although I dare not pretend to understand the motivations of The Lord, I cannot help but believe that he came here not to speak against sin, but to forgive, and to save the sinner.

I am a sinner. I have failed many times as a friend, a brother, a son, a father, and a husband. I have never forgiven myself for those failures and I never will. But I will never allow my failures to separate me from The Lord, nor will I use them as an excuse to disavow the high standards The Lord asks of us, despite my many failures to meet them.

Speaking out to spread The Word, and to share the immeasurable value of benevolent sacrifice is not our attempt to judge the soul of another. This simple fact is often confused within the activist community wishing to condemn Christians. Spreading The Word, even by the sinner trying to reclaim his own soul, is an attempt to spread The Word of Christ, not of man. This isn’t an act of judgment, because that is exclusively the domain of The Lord. But it is an act of faith.

We also have to do a better job of weeding out the false prophets of our movement. Although we are all sinners, it is not our duty to follow those motivated by self-aggrandizement or riches and wealth, rather than those with a genuine desire for a better tomorrow through The Lord’s guidance. We should seek out those who fall short but consistently get back up and learn from those failures, using those experiences to guide their future efforts and sacrifices, as the people we can get behind.

To conclude, this devolution from a civil debate about religion and spirituality, to personal smear attacks, to the co-opting of government force and the acceptance of violence as a legitimate means of forced coercion to your ideological goals, is truly frightening. Conservatives and Christians are not the only people frightened by these developments. As reported this past week by the left-leaning online outlet Vox, even liberal professors on college campuses are under assault and risk their livelihoods for presenting material that challenges far-left dogma. Sadly, many of the pre-existing biases against Christians and conservatives have blinded liberals to the incremental damage being done to their freedoms during this slow march towards attempted ideological conformity. Now that many of them are under attack I’m hoping that they will join forces with conservatives and Christians, hardened from this ongoing fight, and stand up for the right to speak out, and the right to follow their own spiritual path.

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

The Duggars Next Door

Hidden from relatives, communities, schools, and neighbors, incest is underreported, underrecognized, and often goes unpunished, leaving child victims to suffer in silence and adult survivors to manifest myriad psychosocial problems (Daie, Witztum, & Eleff, 1989).

There was a time well into my middle age and decades after I had been teaching children in public and private schools when I had never heard of the term “sibling incest” and, quite frankly, never even imagined such incidents.  I never dreamed that there were Duggars next door, and most of my naïve friends still have no concept of the depth and breadth and prevalence of the Duggars next door – genuinely hardworking families that bear horrendous secrets, normally to their graves.

When my husband and I, both with doctorates and very well read, launched a new life by bringing into our home a family of children to adopt, we took every required course, completed every assignment, and asked every question we could think of, except, “What do we do when our new little children are attempting to make sexual contact with each other?”

We did not ask the question because we did not comprehend the possibility of such a crisis.  Yes, it is a crisis when you must hire at least two babysitters anytime you have a meeting, in order to separate sexually-active children, ages seven, from each other.  Yes, it is a crisis when you must watch three children closely, carefully, without lapses 24 hours each day.

Tragically, sibling incest could well be next door to you right now, and the young victims are living in trauma, despite the fervent Duggar denials in their media broadcasts.  All childhood sexual contacts are traumatic in the sense that children lose control over their bodies, their personal space, their privacy, and their dignity.  Loss of control is traumatic, especially when a beloved family member rules your body with his or her whims and desires, inflicted upon you in an unguarded moment.  Incest victims must always be on guard, especially in their own homes.

Children who resist are commonly mocked, ridiculed, physically forced into sexual acts, pinned down, rejected, ostracized, threatened, intimidated, harassed, and silenced into painful submission.  If the goal of childhood is independence; then the infliction of sex upon a child is to end childhood, which, indeed, it does.

What about all the child victims who plead for help from their suffering siblings looking on or from adults in positions of authority and power?  The answer to this question is appalling.  Children plead for help and frequently get none, even from officials designated to protect them, especially when the officials believe childhood sex to be “natural.”

Children who plead for help and receive none are scarred deeply and irreparably.  They have been violated by their sibling predators and then abandoned by their trusted adults.  These attacks upon human trust are devastating to the normal development of children.

A true-life example bares the cruelty of sibling incest left unaddressed and still haunts me today.  In one of my cases in which I advocated for several victims of a teenage predator, a young girl was repeatedly abused through multiple types of sexual acts by her much-older and larger brother, who also set fire to her doll.  The mother, upon learning of the abuse, decided to confide the secret sex to her fellow social worker, and they made a pact together to conceal the sexual abuse, which had extended to other young children in the community as well.

Weeks later, the victims were finally blessed to have  hospital staff report the abuse, causing the teenage predator to be arrested, convicted, and put out of contact with his victims, temporarily.  Months thereafter, he was brought, at over six feet tall, by his mother to a youth soccer game at the Indianapolis Jewish Community Center, watching his little victims playing nearby.

Years later, the teenage predator, who was reunified with his sibling victim again living in the same house, posted his deeply-troubled writings on the Internet accompanied by a close-up photo of his friend brandishing an assault rifle:

… you cannot see what I see
that is inside of me.
The monster in me
so corrupted
so hating
so lonely ….
No
no one can see
except maybe me …
the hideous thing
inside of me …
the blackness that surrounds
my soul
the hideous soul
damned for Eternity ….
The voices in my head
they’re so crazy and angry
they fill me with dread
I catch myself wishing me dead
the madness is rising
I’m always despising ….

Today, 10 years later, the Internet postings of this predator are filled with lewd photographs of females and song lyrics and videos depicting bloody scenes and embracing extreme violence, including beheadings.

Recently, one of his victims, now a teenager herself, posted an inappropriate photograph of herself in a frame labeled “Spank me.”  She also posted an electronic communiqué with a friend discussing an upcoming fashion show that she worried might lead to sexual slavery.  Get the picture?

Another victim, now a teenage male, is posted with his real name on the Internet walking in a hot pink mini-skirt, bare midriff, and fur boots with the caption below, “the prostitute.”  Other Internet photographs show him wearing a woman’s leopard lounging outfit dressed like “dancing boys,” who are used to entertain men at affluent parties.

It is your responsibility, if you are living or working in the vicinity of childhood sexuality, to protect the victims with tireless abuse reports or other measures to safeguard the victims; for they know not how to protect themselves, and their own parents may protect the predators instead of the victims.

Protect.  Protect.  Protect.  We cannot accept results like the real-life, real-time consequences I have personally witnessed when sibling incest was left unchecked and community leaders concealed known crimes against children for the sake of preserving false images to the public.

Neither Christians nor Jews can abandon our children in their times of crisis and trauma.  It is our sacred duty and trust to keep them safe from predation always, always, always….

Media jihad: Diet Coke vs. Decapitation by Pamela Geller

“A blatantly revealing moment of radical media activism, otherwise known as ‘news coverage.’”

“Media jihad: Diet Coke vs. decapitation,” by Pamela Geller, WND, June 7, 2015:

Last week brought us a blatantly revealing moment of radical media activism, otherwise known today as “news coverage.”

Two news stories. In one, an American was targeted for beheading by members of the American Muslim community because the target would not adhere to the blasphemy laws under the Shariah. I was the target, and this was the media coverage:

CNN’s Erin Burnett asks Pamela Geller: Don’t You Really Relish All These Muslim Terrorists Trying to Kill You?

“Activist says Boston beheading plot targeted her; police express doubt”

Who is anti-Islamic activist Pamela Geller?

Pamela Geller Calls Allegedly Being Targeted for Beheading by Terror Suspect ‘Chilling’

The depraved media have tried to distract and obfuscate the real story here, which is that ISIS and its devout followers in America are targeting for death Americans on our home soil. I have been targeted for assassination twice in just four weeks. The headline Reuters ran, “Activist says Boston beheading plot targeted her; police express doubt,” is false and vicious.

Meanwhile, Associated Press ran the truth on Friday: “Police confirm Pamela Geller was initial target of Boston Muslims’ jihad terror plot.”

The other news story: A 31-year-old terror-tied Muslim woman went on social media and decried United Airlines for not giving her a can of Diet Coke in the way that she demanded: unopened. Under the hashtag #IslamophobiaIsReal, she wrote: “I am sitting on a United Airlines flight in the air 30,000ft above and I am in tears of humiliation from discrimination. The flight attendant asked me what I would like to drink and I requested a can of diet coke. She brought me a can that was open so I requested an unopened can due to hygienic reasons.”

A fellow passenger claimed that Diet Coke Muslim Tahera Ahmad was a rude liar. Other passengers fear coming forward for fear of being publicly smeared as Islamophobic! Bigoted! Racist! – even though Islam is not a race.

post

Heads exploded in an Islamophobia-fueled frenzy in newsrooms everywhere.

The New York Times covered only one of these two stories. Guess which one. In fact, it ran three stories about this Muslima supremacist’s whining complaint (since proven false) that the reason she could only get a full cup of Diet Coke and not an unopened can was because of Islamofauxbia. While it lavished coverage upon the Diet Coke jihad, the New York Times did not cover the beheading plot at all.

This became national and international news – the media were outraged at United Airlines. The National Catholic Register declared: “Fight Islamophobia in America.”

Muslim Woman Says She Faced Discrimination on United-Linked Flight” – New York Times

Islamophobia in the skies: United Airlines bans accused worker” – The Guardian, London

United fires attendant who told Muslim Tahera Ahmad she couldn’t have Diet Coke” – Daily Mail, London

United Airlines apologizes to Northwestern chaplain …” – Chicago Tribune

‘There is no middle ground in racism:’ On Tahera Ahmad” – Fusion

Islam is not a race.

Muslim chaplain: Derogatory remarks made on United flight” – Boston Herald

Don’t ask for a soda can on United Airlines if you are a Muslim” – The Express Tribune (Pakistan)

Meanwhile, who is Tahera Ahmad? In late December, she attended the MAS-ICNA, or Muslim American Society-Islamic Circle of North America, conference, which featured prominent Muslim leaders with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

One month earlier, Ahmad posted a picture to Facebook of her with Suhaib Webb, who was then Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston, where Boston Marathon jihadis Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and many other jihadis worshiped. Webb was once a friend of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Ahmad is also “well-known” to Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim cleric who once called for jihad against non-Muslims. She was part of a Muslim Public Affairs Council, or MPAC,delegation to the Obama White House; MPAC was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members. She has recited the Quran at an Islamic Society of North America convention; ISNA is yet another Muslim Brotherhood-linked group.

United’s first statement, now erased from the web, said the flight attendant “attempted several times to accommodate Ms. Ahmad’s beverage request.” The flight attendant has been fired after the media-waged jihad against United.

I expect this from the media, but I will never fly United again.

And as for the enemedia, they are aligned with the jihad force, and their mission is to destroy the few who dare speak candidly about the jihad threat.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Syria, Maronite patriarch denounces ‘death of the world’s conscience’

Egypt summons U.S. ambassador over D.C. Muslim Brotherhood meetings

Turkey: Christian schools shut down for distributing Bibles to Muslim refugees from Syria

We The People must not let the Constitution of the United States Die

Today, it would seem, that Barack Obama has run into brick walls in the form of the various courts in the land. Which is a good thing. But the still scary thing is that Hillary Clinton is still out there with high poll numbers. Still high enough to win her the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America. This is a woman with scandal after scandal, out on the campaign trail touting her nearly 40 years of public service that somehow makes her the perfect choice for the next President. I am still trying to figure out what she has done all of those nearly 40 years. And it appears her supporters are still trying to figure it out as well since none of them can tell us what she has done specifically.

I do hear a lot about her wanting to be our “Champion” and how she wants to take care of all of us. The problem with taking care of us is that she and other Liberal Democrats trounce on the Constitution. But, the thrashing of the Constitution is not limited to Democrats. Republicans have done it as well. In fact some Republicans that have run for President have written and helped pass laws that limit our freedom of speech. You remember the McCain-Fiengold elections law don’t you? The big argument here is that money is not equal to free speech. The real reason for this law is to limit opposition close to an election. This is not the American way. Not by the standards of the Constitution. And we have Democrats running for President right now that think the Citizens United case was wrong and will do whatever it takes to get it reversed and limit the free speech of every American, not just the rich.

Let me be very clear, I do not believe most politicians in either major party have our best interests in mind. Oh they may say they do, but it is all too clear that their actions say otherwise. After all, how can you say you are for freedom and choice when you allow and even protect, in some cases, a law that takes away a major choice for all Americans? Obamacare is not greater choice and freedom. It is far less. How can they claim they are for greater freedom when they make laws that limit choice, attack the very freedoms that are written within the Constitution and tell us it is for our own good and safety? Seriously, do you honestly believe that limiting your freedoms is better for you and your family and your business? Well, of course not. In fact, we have more laws on our books today than ever before. We have laws that contradict some other laws. We have laws that are so confusing that it is nearly impossible for prosecutors and judges to adjudicate them. We have laws that fly directly in the face of the Constitution limiting the everyday freedoms of the average American.

Let’s face it, we have been the frog in the pot for far too long. It is time we jump out of that pot and reclaim what is rightfully ours. The Constitution guarantees us our freedom. The courts are supposed to make sure of this and the executive branch is supposed to make sure those rights are safe. Let me be clear, I love the United States of America. No, it’s not a perfect country. No, it does not have a perfect and innocent history. However, after living in or visiting other nations, I can honestly tell you, there is no other place as nice or as free.

But it seems Americans are eager to elect those who are more than happy to strip those rights from us. This I just do not understand. I would fight and die willingly to protect and preserve what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to give me and my heirs. I will support anyone who will truly support the Constitution of the United States. I will fight to defend the rights of all of those who disagree with me for the reason that differences of opinion have helped make our nation so great. But what I cannot stand by and let happen is a bunch of politicians stomp on the graves of our Founding Fathers and strip the Constitution bare. Oh, the carnivores are feasting on the American people’s rights and the American people seem to keep serving them up with beer to wash it all down.

But that is not America. That is not American. This Constitution loving American wont serve up his rights. You should not do so either. You should, in fact, demand that the rights you have lost be returned. You can demand this by voting for those who stand up for the Constitution and for Americans. Just think about what I have said. Take an hour or so and read the Constitution. It is YOUR Constitution. It belongs to all of us not just a few and you should know what you are giving up when you vote for those who say they want to help or want to take care of you. In the end, they only help and take care of themselves and they do so at your expense.

When you vote, and obviously you should not vote for a liberal Democrat, vote for the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution, just like the colors that represent this great land, does not run. Never, never, never let your colors run. My colors do not run. Never have. Never will.