How to Win the Christian Baker/Same-Sex “Wedding” Cake Debate

A homosexual couple goes into a known Christian bakery and asks for a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage,” is refused and then files a government complaint or sues. “Intolerance! Bigotry! Equal access!” is the cry. Many Americans have read of such stories in the news. Often the attempted purchase is a set-up, with activist-minded individuals targeting bakers whom they know will decline the request and then be vulnerable to state persecution by zealous bureaucrats.

It’s a new front in the war on faith, legitimate freedom and private property rights. Many point out that it constitutes an unprecedented trampling of religious liberty, and this is true. It also violates the principle of freedom of association, which isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but should be upheld. But neither of these arguments should be the centerpiece of the fight against the tyranny in question. There is another, far more powerful argument:

Freedom of speech.

Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.

And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech.

Some homosexuality activists have likened the bakers’ refusal to provide faux-wedding cakes to a denial of service to blacks. This is a false analogy. A race-specific refusal is denying service based on what a person is; in the wedding-cake incidents, denial was based on what message was being requested.

In point of fact, none of the targeted bakers had erected signs stating “No shoes, no shirt, no heterosexuality, no service.” Nor did they apply a sexuality test to customers. Homosexuals could patronize their establishments and purchase cookies, bread or any products anyone else could; they could even buy wedding cakes for normal weddings — as anyone else could. And, of course, probability would dictate that homosexuals did buy from those bakers at times.

What actually is analogous to the wedding-cake controversy is a black person asking a baker for a cake expressing a racial message such as “Black Power” or “Fight the Blue-eyed Devils.” Of course, it could also be a white person with a white-power message or a neo-Nazi asking a Jewish baker to craft an anti-Semitic one.

Some may now assert that while a faux-marriage message is positive (in their eyes, anyway), the above messages would be hateful. But the nature of a message doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a message. To drive the point home, should a liberal baker be compelled to craft the message, “Celebrate Gun Rights,” “Life Begins at Conception” or “Marriage is One Man, One Woman”?

Here’s another point: It has often been emphasized that unless the First Amendment protects even unpopular speech, it’s “protection” is a sham. After all, popular speech’s popularity is protection enough. Likewise, however, it’s also true that if the right to refuse to participate in speech doesn’t include the right to refuse to participate in popular speech, it is no right at all.

Note here that many commentators have made the “Nazi and Jewish baker” and “white supremacist and black baker” arguments, but they often take a freedom-of-association approach. This gives the other side the opportunity to counter with, “But Nazis and white supremacists aren’t ‘protected groups’; homosexuals are” (I reject the notion of “protected groups,” but the principle currently exists in law, and this is about crafting airtight legal arguments). Emphasizing the speech aspect presents the opposition with no such avenue of attack.

Some may now claim that messages vs. people in the baker controversies is a distinction without a difference, asking “Who else but homosexuals would request a faux-wedding cake?” First, there are many heterosexuals advancing the homosexual agenda, and it’s conceivable that such a person could order such a cake, for symbolic value, to serve at an activist gathering. This is in the same way a white person (N.Y.C.’s mayor Bolshevik Bill comes to mind) could order a cake with a black-power message. Or, a heterosexual wedding planner could attempt to order a faux-wedding cake. None of this matters, though. That a message may be characteristic of a certain group doesn’t change the fact that it’s a message. And forced speech isn’t free speech.

In the baker controversy, the free-speech argument should be superior in the courts of both law and of public opinion. While we ought to enjoy completely unfettered freedom of association, Americans long ago became inured to its trampling, and the courts universally accept the “public accommodation” rationalization. So it’s currently a non-starter. The religious-freedom argument is more effective, but it has two weaknesses relative to the free-speech strategy. First, there are many more limitations placed on religious practice than on speech; examples would be the outlawing of human sacrifice and polygamy. Thus, there’s more of a precedent for further limitations on religious practice. In the area of speech, not much is out of bounds aside from “yelling ‘fire!’ in a movie theater” and issuing threats.

This difference is evident in the burden placed on a person whose religious practice has been outlawed. As the Harvard Political Review points out, the “‘Sherbert Test’ requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. If these are established, the law is unconstitutional unless the government proves a ‘compelling state interest’….” No such burden is placed on those exercising unpopular speech, however, and the government cannot prohibit it based on “compelling state interest.”

The second issue is that in these secular times, many Americans aren’t sympathetic to religious-freedom arguments. But freedom of speech enjoys much broader support, and the fear of its violation is far greater. Remember, only the religious engage in religious practice — but both the religious and non-religious engage in speech.

Of course, it should lastly be mentioned that the argument I’ve outlined would be applicable not just to bakeries, but anytime a message-oriented product or service is at issue.

It’s hard to imagine a sane court (which, unfortunately, leaves out a good portion of today’s judiciary) not finding in favor of the free-speech argument. It is airtight, and rationalizing it away would take far more complex intellectual contortions than the freedom-of-religion argument would require. Because, quite simply, forced speech is not free speech.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Florist refuses attorney general’s options to settle lawsuit over same-sex weddings

Kingsman: The most anti-Elitist/anti-Environmentalist film ever

I went to see the film Kingsman: The Secret Service and was astounded at how anti-elitist and anti-environmentalist it was. The film is riddled with statements and images showing how the elite want to survive at the expense of the common man and woman. The film also showed the villain Valentine, a black man, meeting with the President of the United States (Obama) and convincing him that the only way to save the planet from global warming is to “cull” the population. Valentine’s final solution to global warming.

From the official trailer (below at the 2:00 minute mark) you hear the character Valentine, the modern day Eugenicist villain played by Samuel L. Jackson, state:

Mankind is the virus, and I’m the cure.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, would be proud, as she wanted to purify the “racial stock” and “to create a race of thoroughbreds” in America, which means Samuel L. Jackson should have been aborted. Sanger would have loved the scene near the end of the movie where the mother of the main character Gary “Eggsy” Unwin is trying to kill her baby with a meat cleaver.

That one statement by Valentine sums up the strategy and goal of environmentalists globally. The “cures” for population reduction include but are not limited to: abortion (birth control), smart growth initiatives (controlling property in the U.S.), UN Agenda 21 (controlling property globally), control of the food supply (Ethanol, using food for fuel) and of course carbon taxes (EPA’s war on coal, oil and natural gas).

A World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, signed by 1600 senior scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates states:

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.

Lester Milbrath, professor emeritus and author, Learning to Think Environmentally (While there is Still Time), wrote:

We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.

Valentine sounds very much like these eminent scientists. Of course in the film, Valentine uses science and scientists to fulfill his Eugenicist dream of culling the world’s population using modern technology (cell phones). Valentine’s final solution is immediate and violent, where as the current path of today’s elite Eugenicists is more long term in its nature, using ever expanding governmental policies (e.g. EPA war on coal).

One of the most interesting scenes shows President Obama’s, and his entire cabinet, head exploding, along with those of elitists around the globe. So much for those elite politicians and their wealthy supporters. It is all about surviving at the expense of the 99%.

Hollywood depicts graphic violence and mayhem in this film. Their target is Evangelical Christians. The evil character Valentine uses his powers to control people’s emotions remotely to bring havoc to a church where the message of sin and repentance is being spoken from the pulpit. Just prior to the mayhem Harry Hart, a Kingsman says:

I’m a Catholic whore, currently enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. Hail Satan, and have a lovely afternoon madam.

That sums up the attitude of progressives, atheists, homosexuals and Democrats in America and the Labor Party in the United Kingdom.

Jim Galizia from MoviePilot.com lists the church scene is one of six reasons to see the film. Galizia describes the church scene as follows:

Another reason to see this movie is the soon to be infamous “Church Scene”. Allow me to paint a picture. A church is filled with the most offensively over the top radical Christians during a service. I’m talking racist, sexist, homophobic monsters of people having a service where the priest is shouting how Jesus will smite those who are deemed unworthy.

That’s how Hollywood sees Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular. As offensive people, who believe in Jesus Christ, are depicted in the movie as deserving to be graphically slaughtered – much like what the Islamic State is doing in the Middle East and posting the slaughter on Facebook. The problem is when the Islamic State comes to America people like Galizia will be among the first, after Jews and Christians, on their list for slaughter.

I do not suggest this film to anyone under 18-years old.

Assyrian Christians Defending Their Homeland from Islamic State Genocide

In a “Crime Against Humanity” on January 8, 1914 a Jihad was declared by the Ottoman Empire against “all Christians”; it was a government ordered genocide against Greeks, Assyrian, and Armenian Christians, the genocide resulted in the brutal murders of over one million Christians over the next two years.  For over the last 3 years, the world has been witnessing another “Crime Against Humanity”; today the same type Jihad that was perpetrated against Christians over 100 years ago by the Ottoman Turks, is being perpetrated by ISIL and Al Q’ieda in another bloody genocide against Syrian in Syria and against Assyrian Christians on the Plains of Ninveh in Iraq.

The Plain of Nineveh is the 2000+ year old ancient homeland of Aramaic speaking Assyrian Christians in what used to be Mesopotamia, but is called Iraq today.  The Assyrian Christians pride themselves on being the oldest ethnic Christian community in continuous existence since Jesus Christ walked the face of the earth; they speak the same language Christ spoke, worship in churches the Christ’s Disciples founded, and since Roman times theses courageous Assyrian Christians have been persecuted and murdered for refusing to denounce their faith in Jesus Christ.  The Pope called the Assyrian Church “The Martyr Church.”  Hundreds of ancient Assyrian Christian Churches, some that go back as far as 1800 years are being burned to the ground, along with their ancient religious artifacts and historic bibles by ISIL and Al Q’ieda; the Tomb of Jonah has also been destroyed.  For over 3 years particularly vulnerable Assyrian Christians have been fleeing their ancient ancestral homeland in the Nineveh Plain from the onslaught of ISIL and Al Q’ieda, seeking protection from the Kurdish Pershmerga Forces from the bloody genocide that has been underway for many years, as have thousands of peaceful Muslims who refuse to support the Jihad of Christians by Radical Islamic Terrorists.

For over 3 years the international media has reported that ISIL and Al Q’ieda has been insisting on mass conversion to Islam or death; hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Assyrian Christians, are being horrifically targeted for religious cleansing by Radical Islamic Terrorists.  The terrorists are brutally torturing, crucifying, beheading, burying Christians alive, shooting them execution style, dowsing them in oil and burning them alive, cutting the young Assyrian Christian children in half, raping & murdering female children and women, conducting mass executions, and selling some of the Assyrian Christian women into white slavery (there are hundreds of photos of those atrocities on the worldwide net).  The Greek Catholic Relief Agency has reported that 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christians refugees have been seeking resettlement in the US thru the UN Muslim Resettlement Program, but they have been rejected by the UN and by the Obama administration.

Leaders of the International Community have been raising their voices in opposition to the current “Crime Against Humanity.”  The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Royal Family in England, the UK Prime Minister, the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt, the President of Kurdistan, the Prime Minister of Japan, the Prime Minister of Australian, President George W. Bush, Reverend Billy Graham, the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Prime Ministers of NATO nations, the Prime Minister of Israel, Christian Religious Leaders of every denomination from throughout the world, and the Secretary General of the United Nations have all raised their voices in unison to demand that the bloody genocide of Christians in Syria and Iraq stop.  The occupant of the Oval Office has not joined world leaders in their condemnation of the genocide of Christians by ISIL & Al Q’ieda in this latest “Crime Against Humanity”: Obama refuses to utter one word of condemnation, nor has he called on the Radical Islamic Terrorists to stop the bloody genocide of defenseless Christians—his silence for the last 3 years has been deafening.  However, Obama did refer to Christians in a recent prayer breakfast, the same way Radical Islamic Terrorists refer to Christians, as “Crusaders.”

Less than 400,000 Assyrian Christians survivors of the 4,065,000 Assyrian Christians who once populated 70 Urmia villages in the Nineveh Plain remain in Iraq; many Assyrian Christians have fled the country and are among the 300,000 Christian refugees seeking entry into the US as refugees.  For over 3 years, the 400,000 Assyrian Christians have been desperately seeking military weapons and logistic support from the Obama administration and the Iraqi government.  Very little of the US military and logistic support, that is being sent to Iraq by the US, has been funneled by the Iranian controlled Iraq government to the Kurdish Pershmerga Forces.

For the last 3 years, the Iranian controlled Iraqi government has rejected distribution of any weapons and logistic support to the Assyrian Christians to save them from ethnic cleansing, or to the Sunni tribes who once allied themselves with US military forces in support of the “Surge” during the Iraqi War.  The friendly Sunni tribes have been persecuted by the Iranian controlled Iraqi Shite Government ever since friendly US military forces were summarily pulled out of Iraq by Obama. US Forces were completely pulled out of Iraq at the end of the Iraqi War, despite warnings from US military general officers and US senior intelligence officials, who warned that removing a residual US military force would destabilize Iraq, and allow Al Q’ieda to grow once again.  Future US military and logistic support from the US must to delivered directly to the Kurdish Pershmerga Forces, Assyrian Christians, and friendly Sunni tribes who once allied themselves with the US military during the “Surge.”

The Assyrian Christians in Iraq who make up the Assyrian Iraqi Democratic Movement (AIDM) have sought and obtained support from US Assyrian communities.  The American Mesopotamian Organization (AMO) and other Assyrian organizations in the US; have jointly developed a project entitled “Restore Nineveh Now” with AIDM    AMO is soliciting and collecting donated funds to equip and train 4000 Assyrian Christians volunteers in an newly developed Assyrian Militia, called “The Nineveh Plain Protection Units.”  Currently 600 volunteers are being trained to lead and mobilize “The Nineveh Plain Protection Units” in two locations in eastern Iraq.  The Nineveh Plain Protection Units will defend their fellow Assyrian Christians from being massacred in ISIL’s and Al Q’ieda’s Jihad (the below listed article provides specific details on the training that is underway).

The Combat Veterans For Congress support a coalition of 55 US Congressmen who have asked Obama to take immediate action to provide weapons and logistic support directly to the Assyrian Christian’s Nineveh Plains Protection Units and, after 3 years, to finally speak out against the bloody genocide being perpetrated by Radical Islamic Terrorists designed to annihilate the Ancient Faith Community of Assyrian Christians on the Plains of Ninveh.  Kindly click on the below listed link to watch a video of a Congressional spokesman for the 55 US Congressmen that was provided to us by Foster Friess.

Watch this 3:45 minute video from U.S. Representative Trent Franks:


‘We Love This Land’: Iraqi Christian Men Fight to Keep ISIS Away From Homes

A battalion of Assyrian Christian men train at a former U.S. military facility outside the city of Kirkuk, Iraq. (Photo courtesy: Kaldo Oghanna)

Athra Kado had never shot a gun before, let alone seen a battlefield.

Until recently Kado, 25, spent his young career in a classroom, teaching high school students how to speak Syriac, his native language.

But Kado is one of hundreds of Assyrian Christian men—many with no military experience—taking up arms to protect their towns from ISIS terrorists who invaded this part of Iraq early last year.

“If we don’t have land to live, what’s the purpose of teaching a language?” Kado tells The Daily Signal in a Skype interview from a former U.S. military facility outside the city of Kirkuk, where he is finishing up a training camp with 500 or so amateur fighters.

Recruits to the new Christian militia, or battalion, say their villages and families were abandoned by Iraqi government and peshmerga forces last summer, letting the terrorists seize control.

Since then, some 30,000 Christians have fled the Nineveh plains—an area inhabited by minority groups such as Iraqi Christians, Yezidis and Shabaks.

Without official government support, and with minimal equipment primarily funded through donations, the young Christian men—most in their early to mid 20s—feel a responsibility to defend their own.

“We saw that nobody was doing anything for us,” says Kado, whose home town, Al Qosh, is the only Christian town in the Nineveh plains free of ISIS control. “We know that we don’t have another chance if we don’t fight for ourselves. No one is protecting us. We want to make a change.”

Last summer, Iraq’s most prominent Christian political party, the Assyrian Democratic Movement, issued a call for volunteers from minority groups to form a local defense force to fight ISIS, the Sunni militant group also known the Islamic State or ISIL.

In late January, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s peshmerga—a leading force fighting ISIS that receives American support—offered up the Kirkuk training facility as the grounds for the Assyrian Christian battalion to learn military might.

“This is our right as human beings and as indigenous people: to protect our people and ourselves,” says Kaldo Oghanna, a party official from the Assyrian Democratic Movement who oversaw the training. “It is not logical for people south of north [of here] to secure this area.”

”This is our right as human beings and as indigenous people: to protect our people and ourselves,” says @KaldoRamzi.

Kado, the young fighter, said at least four Americans—volunteers with military experience—are helping train the men to use weapons such as automatic rifles, mortars, machine guns, AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades.

Fighters acquire skills fast, because they have to. They train from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day.

“When someone wants badly to do something, everything is easy for him,” Kado says.

“Me and my friends are getting this information so fast. We want to do that. We will go to our villages and towns and protect them so ISIS can’t come to our families.”

The training wraps up Thursday, when the civilian fighters are expected to be able to defend their turf.

“I know I am ready,” Kado says.

500 iraqi christian fighters

Some 500 amateur Assyrian Christian fighters learn how to be a disciplined fighting force. (Photo courtesy: Kaldo Oghanna)

Help Wanted

Oghanna says the training of Iraqi Christian fighters has occurred without financial support from the Iraqi, Kurdish or U.S. governments.

Donations, mostly from Assyrians abroad, fund everything from guns to bullets to food.

He hopes the United States steps forward—help that may be on the way.

The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act, approved in December, includes language to train and equip fighters against the Islamic State.

As part of the legislation, up to $1.6 billion should go toward support for units such as the Iraqi Army, Sunni tribal fighters, peshmerga and local forces protecting “vulnerable” minority groups in the Nineveh plains.

“The U.S. supports many groups [fighters], especially in Syria, where many of them convert to join ISIS,” Oghanna says. “We know it’s complex [to decide who to support], but we are for sure not going to convert to ISIS.”

‘My Land’

The Assyrian Christians, who consider themselves the indigenous people of Iraq, want to survive on their terms.

For Kado and the battalion fighters, that means staying in their villages, no matter that ISIS militants want to wipe Christianity out of Iraq.

Oghanna says there are currently less than 400,000 Christians living in Iraq, down from about 1.6 million in 2003. Most have fled.

Kado will not. His family’s roots in Al Qosh date back 400 years.

More than 400 families from other Christian villages have come to Al Qosh to seek shelter. So Kado stays.

“We don’t want to be refugees in another country,” Kado says.

Adds Oghanna, “It would be bitter for us to migrate to Europe and the U.S.”

Kado has great respect for America.

He listens to American music, and he learned English through the songs and lyrics of Whitney Houston.

Two of his brothers live in Detroit.

“I want to vacation in the U.S.,” Kado says, smiling sheepishly, listing Las Vegas as a spot he hopes to visit. “But I want to stay and live here.”

Kado is risking everything to stay—to be the guardian of his religion, his land.

“I have thought about dying,” Kado says. “But the most important thing I’ve learned in the camp is discipline. It’s not just Christianity. If it was just Christianity, I could be Christian in Europe. It’s a matter of … this is our land. We want to live on it. We love this land.”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a battalion of Assyrian Christian men training at a former U.S. military facility outside the city of Kirkuk, Iraq. (Photo courtesy: Kaldo Oghanna)

Florida ranked as the ‘Freest State in the Union’ — But…

What state is the freest? According to the John Locke Foundation, the answer is Florida. However, in some categories Florida is far from being ranked first. The John Locke Foundation ranked the states using four metrics: fiscal policy, education freedom, regulatory freedom and healthcare freedom. All of these metrics focus on government intervention into personal freedom.

The social issues, such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to petition elected officials, were not measured. While this ranking is useful it is not complete. When the John Locke Foundation includes social freedoms then the index may have greater validity.

The George Mason University’s Mercatus Center “Freedom in the 50 States” gives a more complete analysis of freedom in each state. The Mercatus Center ranks Florida at 23rd on its freedom index. While Florida ranks first in the John Locke Foundation index it falls short in several areas. Florida ranks 45th in regulatory freedom and 30th in healthcare freedom according to the John Locke Foundation index. Mercatus Center ranks Florida as 36th in personal freedom and 32nd in regulatory freedom.

Michael Hausman from IJReview in a column titled “What States are the Freest? This Map Shows Americans Where to Go If They Crave Liberty” writes:

The John Locke Foundation just published its First In Freedom Index, a report that compares and ranks the relative freedom of all fifty states.

The North Carolina-based think tank says it has an institutional commitment to “individual liberty and limited, constitutional government,” weighed four different variables to compile the rankings.

The most significant consideration was fiscal policy, which measures taxes and budgetary measures. This aspect generated 50 percent of each state’s score, with 20 percent given each to education and regulatory policies, and the final 10 percent to health care policy.

[ … ]

The overall results from the report show:

  1. The ‘freest’ state is Florida, followed by Arizona, Indiana, South Dakota, and Georgia.
  2. The ‘least free’ state is New York, followed by New Jersey, California, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Read more.

The map below shows the overall index ranking of each state:

freest states in the union

For a larger view click on the image.

Hausam includes in his column the George Mason University’s Mercatus Center “Freedom in the 50 States” map, which includes more than 200 economic and personal variables in their calculations.

RELATED ARTICLES:

You Might Be Surprised By Which State Grabbed the Top Spot for “Well-Being”

Freedom of Press Across the World, “Dramatically Worse,” U.S. Slips Further Behind

The 10 Best (and Worst) States to Find a Job

The Black Reagan

On February 15, 2013, I published a column titled “The Black Reagan,” in which I compared Dr. Benjamin Carson, former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, in Baltimore, to Ronald Reagan, the most beloved president of the 20th century.  Now, as we approach the 2016 presidential campaign, we find Dr. Carson launching his political career in much the same way that Reagan did on October 27, 1964.  It was on that day that Reagan made a speech on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater that few conservatives, or liberals, will ever forget.

Dr. Carson’s February 7, 2013, speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, will also be remembered as a historical turning point.  To put it bluntly, with Barack Obama seated within spitting distance, Dr. Carson proceeded to take Obama and all of his liberal friends out behind the woodshed for a long-overdue public ass-kicking.

Dr. Carson, is a black man who typifies exactly what any young man or woman… regardless of race, creed, or color… can achieve in the United States with a little bit of non-Benjamin Spock parenting, some good study habits, a solid work ethic, and some intelligent life choices.  In fact, Dr. Carson is the exact polar opposite of the long-oppressed plantation slaves that liberals and Democrats want black men to be because the very existence of the Democratic Party depends on the continued belief among black Americans that they are the victims of white racism.

Dr. Carson is the product of a single parent home in Detroit.  His mother, who dropped out of school in third grade and who married at age 13, worked two or three jobs in order to make ends meet.  Yet, as her two sons were growing up, she was wise enough to limit the amount of time they spent watching TV each day.  Instead, she required them to read two library books each week.  And although she, herself, was unable to read, she required her sons to write book reports on each of the books they’d read.

After earning an undergraduate degree in psychology from Yale University, Carson attended the University of Michigan School of Medicine.  Following med school he served his residency in neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, where he eventually became Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery.  Finally, having proven himself to be the ideal role model for black children… far beyond what liberals and Democrats would ever expect or want a black man to achieve… he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush on June 19, 2008.

In his 1964 speech, Reagan reminded us that the Democrats were attempting to convince the people that the primary issues of that election were the “maintenance of peace and prosperity,” and that “we’ve never had it so good.”  In response, Reagan said, “But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future.  No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income.”  He continued, “Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than we take in.  We haven’t balanced our budget in 28 out of the last 34 years.  We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times greater than the combined debt of all other nations in the world.”  Multiply those 1964 statistics by a factor of ten and Dr. Carson could have used the same statistics in his 2013 prayer breakfast speech.

In his 1964 speech, Reagan ridiculed Senator Joseph Clark, (D-PA), who once described liberalism  as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”  Reagan said, “This was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize…  A government can’t control the economy without controlling people.  And they knew (that),  when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.”

Dr. Carson opened his remarks by quoting Proverbs 11:9, which King Solomon must have written with Barack Obama in mind.  The proverb tells us, “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”  Obama should have taken that as a hint that he was about to receive a major league tongue-lashing.

In a direct challenge to Obama’s idea of “fairness,” Dr. Carson said, “When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see?  I see the fairest individual in the universe… God.  He’s given us a system.  It’s called (the) tithe.  Now, we don’t necessarily have to do it, 10 percent, but it’s the principle.  He didn’t say, if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes.  He didn’t say, if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes.  So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality.  You make $10 billion, you put in $1 billion.  You make $10, you put in $1… but now some people say, that’s not ‘fair’ because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made $10.  Where does it say you have to hurt the guy?  He’s just put a billion in the pot.  We don’t need to hurt him.”

But the most interesting parallel to be drawn between the Reagan speech in 1964 and the Carson speech in 2013 is the way in which both speakers made the point that it is not liberals and Democrats… those who exist by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t… who are the most loving, caring, and compassionate.

In commenting on the cruel way in which Democrats attempted to demonize Goldwater in 1964, Reagan told his audience some things about Goldwater that few people were aware of.  He told of how, before he entered politics, Goldwater instituted a profit-sharing plan in his business long before trade unions ever thought of it; how he provided health insurance for all of his employees; how he set aside 50% of his business profits, before taxes, in order to establish a retirement plan for his employees.  And he told of how Goldwater sent a regular monthly check, for life, to a former employee who was ill and could not work, and how he provided daycare for the children of mothers who worked in his stores.

Reagan told the story of a returning serviceman, during the Korean War, who found himself stranded at the Los Angeles International Airport in the week before Christmas, trying to get home to Arizona.  Many other returning GIs were having the same problem; there simply were no seats available on any of the commercial airlines.  But then a voice came over the public address system saying, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such.”  When they arrived at that location they found Sen. Goldwater waiting there in his plane.  Then, in the days before Christmas, Goldwater spent every day, all day long, flying planeloads of Arizona servicemen from Los Angeles to their hometown airports in Arizona.

In his Prayer Breakfast speech, Dr. Carson described how, some16 years earlier, he and his wife heard of an international study which showed that, in terms of their ability to solve math and science problems, American eighth graders ranked 21st out of the 22 countries surveyed.  It was then that he and his wife created the Carson Scholars Fund.

Instead of receiving only sports trophies for victories on the playing fields, the Carsons saw to it that schools and students were also recognized for scholastic achievement.  The Scholars Fund awarded scholarships to students from all backgrounds for superior academic performance…  Those who demonstrated academic excellence received cash awards.  As Dr. Carson explained, “The money would go into a Trust.  They would get interest on it.  When they would go to college they would get the money…”

According to Dr. Carson, “Many teachers have told us that when we put a Carson Scholar in their classroom, the GPA of the whole classroom goes up over the next year.  It’s been very gratifying.  We started 16 years ago with 25 scholarships in Maryland, now we’ve given out more than 5,000 and we are in all 50 states, but we’ve also put in Reading Rooms.  These are fascinating places that no little kid could possibly pass up.  And they get points for the amount of time they spend reading, and the number of books they read…  In the beginning they do it for the prizes, but it doesn’t take long before their academic performance begins to improve.”  It’s the sort of thing that conservatives regularly do.  Liberals, on the other hand, are noted only for their generosity with other peoples’ money.

In his prayer breakfast remarks, Dr. Carson told the story of a very successful young businessman who loved to buy his mother exotic gifts for Mother’s Day.  When he ran out of new ideas he came across some very expensive birds.  The birds could dance, they could sing, and they could talk, but they cost $5,000 apiece.  He was so excited, he bought two of them.  And when he sent them to his mother he couldn’t wait to call her up on Mother’s Day.  He said, “Mother, mother, what did you think of those birds?”  To which she replied, “They was good.”

The young man was horrified.  He said, “No, no, no, Mother!  Surely you didn’t eat those birds.  Those birds cost $5,000 apiece!  They could dance, they could sing, they could talk!”  To which the mother replied, “Well, they should have said something.”

Ronald Reagan said something very important in his 1964 speech and it was the launching pad that ultimately sent him to the White House.  Dr. Ben Carson also said some very important things in his speech on February 7, 2013, and it will be interesting to see how far and to what heights it takes him.  Like Ronald Reagan, Dr. Carson knows what he believes and does not have to pause to think about which political constituency he might offend before he speaks.  His honesty and sincerity, like Ronald Reagan’s, is such that it appeals to nearly all Americans.

Conservatives have been hungering for a true conservative leader since the day that Ronald Reagan left the White House in January 1989.  It is easy to see how Dr. Ben Carson, the “black Reagan,” could fill those very large shoes.

RELATED VIDEO: Dr. Carson’s comments at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast:

AUTHORS COMMENTS: In a spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to mention that, in the days following the writing of this column, I was contacted by the group that is actively promoting Dr. Ben Carson’s presidential campaign. As a result of that conversation I have agreed to join the organization’s editorial task force and to become a member of their think tank.

In recent months I have had the opportunity to offer what I think was some good advice to the Oklahoma coordinator for the Carson organization. When asked what they could be doing to help build a large grassroots organization, I replied, “Nothing. At this stage of the game the only thing Dr. Carson can do to promote his political ambitions is for him to continue doing exactly what he’s doing… which is to appear before as many large and influential audiences as possible. He has done that quite successfully and we find that, at events such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and the Iowa Freedom Summit, Dr. Carson has regularly come in second in the straw polls.

I would also predict that Dr. Carson will do quite well in the first Republican primary debate, but it will be the second and thirds debates that will be critically important. When he matches or exceeds expectations in the second and third debates he will quickly emerge as one of the front runners. However, being realistic, I think that Dr. Carson may very well end up in the second spot on the ticket, running with Gov. Scott Walker or another conservative with greater name recognition. I’m convinced that, if Dr. Carson can draw even 17% of the black vote… which is eminently doable… it will be nearly impossible for the Democrat candidate to win.

What should Christians ask of the GOP nominee?

If Republicans win all three branches of government in 2016, what legislation will get passed?

Economic growth, ending middle-class stagflation, reversing the debt divide in college students, repealing Obamacare. Into the policy mix, social conservatives have an important question to ask themselves: What is it we want for our country from a potentially historic GOP victory in 2016?

gop crossRussell Moore laid down an important marker in a recent Wall Street Journal article, which I would translate as God Talk Is Not Enough:

In recent years candidates have assumed that they can win over evangelicals by learning Christian slogans, by masking political rallies as prayer meetings, and by basically producing a long-form new birth certificate to prove they’ve been born again. This sort of identity politics is a luxury of a past era when evangelicals were part of a silent majority in the U.S., with our First Amendment freedoms assumed and guaranteed. That is not the present situation.

Indeed it is not. Let me speak for traditionalists of all religions for a moment.

A few months before the Supreme Court is likely to rule on gay marriage, the incidents causing concern about what gay marriage will mean for dissenters (especially traditional Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims) multiply:

Gordon College students are banned from tutoring public-school students, because of the college’s embrace of standard orthodox Christian rules (no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman); the request of its college president for a religious exemption from President Obama has now triggered a possible threat to its accreditation.

Meanwhile, Marquette University (a Jesuit institution) is attempting to strip Professor Scott McAdams of his tenure and his job because he blogged critically about the way a college instructor (and grad student) treated an anti-gay-marriage student.

Kelvin Cochran, whose rags-to-riches rise from Shreveport poverty to police chief of Atlanta is as inspiring as any, was fired for self-publishing for his Bible-study class a book that contains two paragraphs exhorting his fellow Christians to live by Biblical sexual values.

In Lafayette, Calif., parents of 14-year-old public-school students are suing because their children were asked in English class whether their parents would embrace them if they were gay — and then these Christian students were publicly shamed and humiliated when they supported their parents’ values.

A Ford Motor Company worker (contractor) was invited to comment on pro-gay-rights material circulated by the company — and then fired for leaving an anti-sodomy comment on the blog.

Note the similar strategies here: invite or force public comment and then discipline those who say the “wrong” thing.

Angela McCaskill was disciplined by her federally chartered university for simply signing her name to a petition putting same-sex marriage to a vote in Maryland.

A judge in Washington State was found guilty of an ethics violation for saying privately in chambers (in response to a staffer’s question) that he would not perform same-sex marriages.

The great god of gay equality demands a sacrifice of $150,000 from Oregon bakers Melissa and Aaron Klein for the sin of refusing to bake a gay-wedding cake.

More than 70,000 people signed their names to a petition saying Mozilla founder Brendan Eich must either publicly recant his opposition to gay marriage (evidenced solely by a relatively small donation to the Prop 8 campaign) or be fired.

This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but it points to where I think the greatest threats lie: closing down educational and work opportunities to traditionalists who dare to speak.

If the GOP would like to leave a legacy that makes a difference, I would argue for generous anti-discrimination protections for those who favor or oppose gay marriage (unless they work for an organization whose substantial purpose is to favor or oppose gay marriage).

A new poll shows 57 percent of Americans believe small-business owners should not be forced to provide wedding-related services. It also shows 44 percent of Americans favor gay marriage, 39 percent oppose it, and a whopping 15 percent are unwilling to offer an opinion in the current environment. Threatening people with losing their jobs is a very effective way to silence and intimidate.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave a high-profile press conference offering to provide substantial new protections for gay people provided that robust religious-liberty protections are part of the deal. Live and let live is the offer on the table. So far the official voices of gay rights don’t like it: James Esseks, who directs the LGBT project of the American Civil Liberties Union, told ABC news that the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom “does not give any of us the right to harm others, and that’s what it sounds like the proposal from the Mormon church would do.”

One important marker will come out of Utah, where we will find out if it is possible to craft live-and-let-live legislation or whether gay-rights supporters value legislation primarily as a club to suppress dissent.

The report on the poll includes this comment from a respondent: “Why make an issue out of one florist when there are probably thousands of florists?” asked David Kenney, who’s 59. “The gay community wants people to understand their position, but at the same time, they don’t want to understand other people’s religious convictions. It’s a two-way street.”

Not yet. If social conservatives want to be taken seriously as a political force, we need to do what a handful of Common Core moms have just done: push our concerns into the presidential race.

And for me, if I were to prioritize, the right not to lose my job or my tax exemption because I publicly oppose (or support) gay marriage should be at the top.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Republicans in Congress Demand Answers About Military Chaplain Disciplined for Referencing the Bible

Former Fire Chief Sues Atlanta, Mayor for Firing Him ‘Solely’ Because of His Beliefs About Marriage

AFA Parental alert for McDonald’s and Starbucks

The American Family Association (AFA) is reporting that, “Public Wi-Fi hotspots are attracting pedophiles and sex offenders to McDonald’s – where we bring our children to eat and play – and where illegal p*rn can be accessed easily with anonymity. According to federal officers, open Wi-Fi like that at McDonald’s, Starbucks, and other companies is being increasingly used to traffic child p*rnography and the sexual solicitation of children – serious criminal felonies that are hard to stop because of the anonymity offered by open Wi-Fi.”

“He spent 12-15 hours per day at the McDonald’s because of the free Wi-Fi. Tonight, a sex offender is arrested – caught using free internet in public to download child p*rnography…

Detectives say the 25-year-old spent the past two years using the free Wi-Fi at the McDonald’s… He worked on his computer and was a known regular of sorts in the children’s play area at the restaurant.”News story here.

AFA notes, “Because there are no filters to block online p*rnography and child p*rnography in these restaurants that so many families like yours and mine frequent, this toxic illegal content is readily available in every Starbucks and McDonald’s in America.”

The best way to combat this growing trend – and to protect our children – is for you and me to pressure companies like McDonald’s and Starbucks to implement filtering to block p*rnography on their public Wi-Fi networks.

Both McDonald’s and Starbucks have already proactively filtered their public WiFi services in other nations including the United Kingdom and Australia.

“If they can protect children in other nations, then why won’t they protect our children here in America – where they are headquartered?” asks AFA.

AFA is asking concerned citizens to sign a letter of petition to McDonald’s and Starbucks to be delivered to the CEO’s of both companies and their Board of Directors. AFA will include only your name and state on the petition.

AFA notes, “Your support will help us get protective WiFi in McDonald’s and Starbucks 25,000 combined locations to protect children and families.”

Traditional Marriage: A Most Perfect Union

Opponents of traditional marriage try to equate any union as a perfect one. Two recent studies prove them wrong. The Daily Signal’s Leslie Ford reports:

“Those who marry are more satisfied than those who remain single,” claims a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

But does marriage itself influence happiness? Or is it just that happier people are more likely to wed?

This study gives support to the idea that marriage itself contributes to happiness. (In other words, even the grumps that get married may find themselves happier because they are married.) Another finding from the study is that that friendship is a mechanism that may explain the link between marriage and life satisfaction. In fact, those who see their spouse as their best friend benefit even more from marriage.

Read more.

Joe Miller in a column titled “New Research on Same-Sex Households Overwhelmingly Shows Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad” reports:

A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (U.S.) National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

[ … ]

Vocal critics, soon to emerge, will likely home in on the explanatory mechanism—the fact that two mothers or two fathers can’t possibly both enjoy a biological connection to a child—in suggesting the results of the study reveal nothing of value about same-sex households with children. On the contrary, the study reveals a great deal. Namely, there is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer. It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it. Some critics might attribute the emotional health differences to the realities of “adoption by strangers,” but the vast majority of same-sex couples in the NHIS exhibited one parent with a biological relationship with the child. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Even research on “planned” same-sex families—those created using assisted reproductive technology (ART)—reveals the significance of biological ties. (Read more about the research on the same-sex households HERE)

Traditional marriage, defined as between one man and one woman, is here to stay. Why? Because it is a most perfect union.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Apple Fires Employee on Same Day He Was Targeted For His Pro-Family Stand

First Open Homosexual Chosen for Pentagon Chief of Staff; Ban on Transvestites to be Lifted

Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se”(suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

That “opinion” has been accepted. The despotism has befallen us. The oligarchy reigns.

In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:

“No.

No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, insofar as the central government or judiciary violates it, it renders itself illegitimate. As the governor of my state and head of its executive branch, I am charged with the enforcement of its laws. And we will recognize no more unconstitutional juridical or federal dictates.”

(Note: while my main focus here is our much abused judicial review, I’m advocating the same course with respect to all unconstitutional dictates.)

If this seems radical, note that even Abraham Lincoln agreed, saying in his first inaugural address, “[I]f the policy of the government, upon the vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The process I’m advocating here is known as nullification. And should anyone still think it radical or unprecedented, know that we’d only be taking a leaf out of the Left’s book. Explanation?

What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?

They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.

What do you think is happening when states (e.g., Colorado) and leftist municipalities ignore federal drug laws? Nullification is happening.

Yet no matter how egregious, un-American, unconstitutional and despotic the federal or judicial usurpations, the conservative response is typified by what Utah governor Gary Herbert said — feeling oh-so principled, I’m sure — after the federal faux-marriage ruling: “[U]ltimately we are a nation of laws and we here in Utah will uphold the law.” Yes, we’re supposed to be a nation subject to the rule of law.

Not the rule of lawyers.

And our governors are allowing subjection to the latter, feeling noble playing by rules the Left laughs at.

It’s not surprising that revolutionary spirit has been cornered by liberals. The only consistent definition of “liberal” is “desire to change the status quo” — it is revolutionary by definition. In contrast, the only consistent definition of “conservative” involves something antithetical to revolution: the desire to maintain the status quo. Of course, it completely eludes conservatives that today’s status quo was created by yesterday’s liberals. And one modern status quo is to lose culture-war and political battles to the Left. And, boy, do conservatives ever maintain that one. They’re like a guy who goes into a fight, gets poked in the eyes and kicked in the kneecaps, loses, and then the next time still thinks he’s got to follow Queensbury rules.

We hear a lot of talk about “states’ rights.” Ex-Texas governor Rick Perry was a good example of a big talker. But where’s the beef? Merely flapping lips doesn’t sink big-government ships. There have been nullification efforts by state legislatures, mainly regarding federal gun-control law, and many sheriffs across the country have vowed not to enforce such law. And Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore is currently defying a federal faux-marriage ruling. This is laudable, but why are the chief executives MIA? If only we had a governor with the guts of a good sheriff.

We’re meant to be a nation of states, not a nation state. But rights mean nothing if you’re not eternally vigilant in their defense, if you don’t actively stand against those who would trample them. In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder threatened Kansas with legal action over a new anti-federal-gun-control state law. If the courts ruled against the state, what would Governor Sam Brownback do? Make some “principled” comments about the rule of law (lessness) and then assume the prone position?

This is why I say not one governor is truly qualified to be president: If a chief executive will not oppose federal tyranny while the head of a state government, why should we think he’d oppose federal tyranny once head of the federal government?

History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776 and it won’t happen now. People are generally quite zealous about increasing their power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision — by the Supreme Court.

That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.

Of course, unilateral declarations of power are not at all unusual historically. It’s what happened whenever an agent of tyranny — whether it was a conquering king, communist force or crime syndicate — took over. But these despotisms were enforced, as Mao put it, “through the barrel of a gun.” It wasn’t usually the case that the subjects rolled over like trained dogs lapping up lawyer-craft. Oh, it’s not that I don’t see the crafty lawyers’ position. I might like to crown myself Emperor of America, but, should I insist I possess this unilaterally-declared status with enough conviction, I may get a stay in a mental institution. The courts get to dictate to everyone else and spread insanity all the way around.

Perhaps it needn’t be stated, but the power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution. So is it any wonder that a federal court, concerned about Barack Obama’s comments relating to the judiciary, asked his administration in 2012 to submit a formal letter indicating whether or not it recognized the power? Judicial review, being an invention, is dependent upon the acquiescence of the other two branches of government.

Oh, and what is Obama’s actual position? He believes in the court’s power — when it serves his agenda. Otherwise, he’s willing to ignore court rulings himself, as he did when suing Texas over voter ID in 2013. (In fact, never mind the courts. Obama ignores duly enacted federal law he doesn’t like.)

The lesson?

We can even learn from Obama.

The idea of judicial review is thoroughly un-American. As Jefferson also pointed out, judges are not morally superior to anyone else, having “with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Despite this, he wrote in his letter to Roane, while we’re meant to have “three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another,” judicial review has given “to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others”; moreover, he continued, this power was given to the very branch that “is unelected by, and independent of the nation.”  Jefferson then warned that this has made the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” And our country is being twisted along with it as patriots twist in the wind.

Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification — when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions.

It’s waiting there for you, governors, glory and God’s work. We just need a leader, someone with greater passions for principle than “for party, for power.” It’s waiting.

Rise, American hero, rise.

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

The Marijuana Report: If we can see the difference, why can’t we speak the difference?

The green tubes in the picture above contain a cannabinoid, one of more than 100 components scientists have identified in the marijuana plant. This particular cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), or Epidiolex, which GW Pharmaceuticals extracts from the marijuana plant, purifies, and mixes in oil to treat children with rare forms of epilepsy. Some 98% of this medicine is CBD with trace amounts of other cannabinoids, including less than 0.2% of THC, the cannabinoid that produces a “high.” Epidiolex is in FDA clinical trials in the US and is expected to be approved soon. If it is, doctors will be able to prescribe it for children who suffer intractable seizures. No laws will need to be changed.

Pictured below Epidiolex is a marijuana plant. Add another 400 chemical components to the cannabinoids it contains. Few have been studied. Legalization advocates, and marijuana growers, processors, and distributors who stand to make fortunes, have convinced most Americans that this whole plant is medicine, or “medical marijuana.”

marijuana plant
But the promise for medicine lies in the plant’s cannabinoids, not the whole plant itself. That promise is being investigated by scientists who are studying cannabinoids in test tubes or in animals but, with rare exceptions, not yet in humans. That hasn’t stopped legalization advocates from claiming that the whole marijuana plant itself can produce a result in humans that a specific cannabinoid has produced in a test tube. But a test tube result is not a fact; it’s an indication that a scientist should take the next step in the research process. And a finding that a single cannabinoid has a specific effect in a test tube cannot be applied to the whole marijuana plant consumed by a human.
 
At the 2015 annual meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Science (NAAS) last Saturday, researchers conducted a symposium titled “Cannabis and Medicine: A New Frontier in Therapeutics.” According to materials promoting the symposium and press accounts of it, the researchers used the terms “medical marijuana” and cannabinoids interchangeably, an odd thing for scientists, for whom precision matters, to do.
 
One, Dr. Igor Grant of the University of California, San Diego, asserted, “‘There is no evidence for long-term damaging effects [of marijuana use] in adults,’” according to an account of the symposium written for Science Magazine, the publication of the NAAS. “Preliminary data linking marijuana use to an increased risk of schizophrenia have not been supported by further studies.”
 
That was Saturday. Yesterday, The Lancet published a study by 23 scientists who found that daily use of high-potency marijuana (about 16% THC and no CBD) quintupled the risk of developing a schizophrenic-like psychosis and weekend use tripled the risk among people ages 18 to 65. A major finding of the study is that potency and frequency of use are critical to determining the effect of marijuana on mental health, factors, according to one report, that are often overlooked by doctors.
 
Ironically underscoring the need to be precise in our language is a dispute reported today in Oregon where medical marijuana growers have asked a legislator for a bill that will ban the growing of hemp in counties with large medical-marijuana grows. They fear hemp will pollinate their high-THC marijuana and turn it into low-grade, 60s pot. “It basically makes the medicine worthless,” one grower said.
 
Click here to read an account of the NAAS marijuana symposium.
Click here to read an account of The Lancet study.
Click here to read The Lancet study itself.
Click here to read the Oregon story.

ABOUT THE MARIJUANA REPORT:

The Marijuana Report.Org is published by the Marijuana Studies Program, a project of National Families in Action and its partners. The report is a news aggregator website that links browsers to daily news coverage of the marijuana issue. A one-page e-newsletter highlights key issues for subscribers each week. We are grateful to Monte Stiles, Derek Franklin, the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention, and others who contribute stories to this website.

Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter

First, a note from the author to the reading audience: None of the terms or phrases used in this article are of my own invention; every term or phrase (including the title itself) is derived exclusively from primary Islamic sources (i.e., the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law).  I encourage everyone to access the hyperlinked references, then evaluate each statement in this article for accuracy and completeness.

fitna definition

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to introduce the complex, abstract concept of Fitnah to those in the West (i.e., the non-Islamic world) who are concerned about the apparent rising tide of global violence associated with Islam.  After several years of intense study and discussion with colleagues, I have come to believe that Fitnah is the most essential motivational component of Islamic theology, i.e., it is the cornerstone of an adversarial, confrontational worldview that inevitably leads to a state of perpetual conflict with the non-Islamic world.

In fact, fighting against the multi-faceted threat of Fitnah is such an essential part of a Quran-based worldview, that it is both the Strategy & Tactics and the ‘BeatingHeart’ of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM).  Removing Fitnah from the world is so fundamental to Islamic ideology that every primary source contains extensive references to this concept.

It also follows, that if overcoming Fitnah is the gravitational force behind the GIM, then some essential Tactical elements (aka ‘Operative Verbs’) must also be involved.  For this reason, two of these key tactical verbs (Qital and Kharaj, or ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel,’ respectively) are discussed in this article.

You will also notice that, except for brief references within a discussion of Quran 2.217 and several major Fatwas (see Five Major Fatwas below), this article does not include an analysis of the word Jihad.  My three-fold reason for this is that the verbs Qital and Kharaj are not only [1] much more graphic and violent than the word Jihad, and [2] occur several times more frequently in the Quran than Jihad, but they are [3] much more revealing, in terms of gaining a Quran-based perspective of the Strategy & Tactics of the GIM.

Another assertion I will present here is that Fitnah, as defined in Quran and Hadith, etc., has been re-formatted into what I call a ‘Secular-Political Narrative,’ which has gained a remarkable (ominous) level of international influence.  Those who are concerned about growing threats against free speech have probably already guessed that I’m referring to the term ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA.’  According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) homepage, ‘Islamophobia is a closed-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.  An Islamophobe is an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.’  Putting aside this highly subjective definition, Islamophobia is really just another ‘non-religious’ word for Fitnah.

Can We Hope To Ever Understand The ‘Global Islamic Movement’?

On December 28, 2014, Major General Michael K. Nagata, commander of American Special Operations forces in the Middle East, made the following public statement: ‘We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it.  We have not defeated the idea.  We do not even understand the idea.’

Retired Admiral James A. Lyons made a similar observation on August 29, 2014, when he wrote ‘America’s inconsistent response to the current Islamic State atrocities indicates that we are failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology…As a result, our warfighters and law enforcement agencies have been denied critical information on combating the Islamic jihadists we are fighting today.’

At this point in time, more than thirteen years post-9/11, is it possible for those of us in the non-Islamic world to ever ‘understand the movement’ and/or ‘the facts that drive the terrorist organization’s ideology’?  My firm assertion is that the answer is ‘Yes.’  We may not like the answer, but if we go to the primary sources of Islamic theology/ideology (as highlighted just above), we can ‘understand the movement’ with absolute clarity.  However, once we do begin to comprehend what really ‘drives the terrorist organization’s ideology,’ the next challenge becomes ‘What then shall we do?

Fitnah In The Quran

The Arabic root of Fitnah (Fa Ta Nun / ن ت ف) occurs 60 times in the Quran, in five derivative forms, sometimes as a noun, and other times as a verb.  Fitnah can be translated in a variety of ways, using many different descriptive adjectives.  In my experience, one of the most insightful translations of Fitnah is the word ‘Opposition,’ so for the sake of simplicity and continuity, I will use the word ‘Opposition’ throughout this article.

For additional clarity and brevity, I have summarized 16 of the most commonly encountered renditions of Fitnah in Table 1 below.  In addition, the right-hand column of Table 1 includes a list of non-Islamic activities and/or responses that, from a Muslim perspective, are seen as Fitnah.  For example, what those in the non-Islamic world see as a legitimate effort to resist the implementation of Shariah Law is seen as resistance, aggression or even incitement to violence (aka Islamophobia) by multitudes of Muslims who support and promote the world-wide expansion of Islam.

Strategy of the Global Islamic Movement – The Religion of Allah Will Prevail in the Earth

Going back to the earlier remarks by Major General Michael K. Nagata and Admiral James A. Lyons, I would now like to address the question, ‘What is the Strategy of the GIM’?  According the Quran, the Strategy of the GIM comes from the phrase Wayakuna Al-Dinu Lillahi, which means ‘The religion should all be for Allah.’

Although this concept (The religion should all be for Allah) is emphasized repeatedly in the Quran, it is most clearly summarized in verses 2.193 & 8.39, which are nearly identical in content and say ‘And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion should all be for Allah.’ 

Note: In just these two verses (2.193 & 8.39), different respected Muslim scholars translate Fitnah as either Disbelief, Hostility, Idolatry, Mischief, Opposition, Oppression, Persecution, Polytheism, Temptation, Tumult, Unbelief, and/or Worshiping of Others (also see Table I below).

Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain, the host of a popular television program in Pakistan called Alim Online, put it into more modern terms in August of 2010, when he paraphrased verse 2.193 as follows: ‘Fight those who interfere with establishing the rule of Allah.’  Of course, the ‘rule of Allah’ he mentions here is Shariah Law.

This tactical approach (‘Fighting until there is no more Fitnah’) so that ‘the religion should all be for Allah,’ is so essential that it forms the ideological foundation for the Muslim Brotherhood and other macro-groups like Boko Haram, the Global Jihad Front (aka Al-Qaeda) and ISIS – along with virtually every other Islamic organization in the world today (and in the past).

Note: For additional detail, see the section below entitled Five Major Fatwas

Meanwhile, according to another well-known Islamic scholar, the mission [Strategy] of Islam…is to ‘Shine with the light of Allah, and gather all the people that have taken the wrong turns, and have gone out in the darkness of the lost paths, and show them where the straight line, where the straight path of light is, that will take them to Allah.’

This scholar also states that the US [and the West] is becoming a ‘fertile ground for Islam, in spite of all the opposition by Zionists and secularists.’  The ‘Opposition’ that he mentions here is just another way to describe Fitnah, which in this case comes from ‘Zionists and secularists.’

In one sense, the dominant theme that emerges here is remarkably simple: The Strategy of the GIM is to continue fighting against Fitnah (Opposition) until Islam becomes the dominant religion in the world.  According to the Quran, this fighting remains obligatory for all Muslims until the non-Muslim world finally stops opposing the advance of Islam.  This deliberate and intentional opposition from the non-Islamic world is just another description of Fitnah, as well as another way of defining Islamophobia.

Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement – Elimination of Fitnah

Now we come to the question, ‘What are the Tactics of the GIM.’?  According to the Quran, once Fitnah (Opposition) is encountered by members of the global Islamic community (aka the Ummah), the Quran provides explicit tactical instructions for Muslims to continue fighting against the Fitnah, until it is finally eliminated.  I refer to these explicit instructions as ‘Operative Verbs.’  The two most dominant operative verbs are [1] Qital (Qaf Ta Lam / ل ت ق), which means ‘Kill/Slaughter/Slay’ and occurs at least 170 times in the Quran, and [2] Kharaj(Kha Ra Jim / ج ر خ), which means ‘Displace/Drive Out/Expel’ and occurs at least 182 times in the Quran.  In contrast, Jihad occurs only about 40 times in the Quran.

Qital is an obscenely violent word that implies abject, utter humiliation, desecration and debasement, while Kharaj, which is no less violent, implies forceful, merciless expulsion of any- and every-one who does not submit to Islam.  We see real-life examples of this every night on the news – think of Boko Haram slaughtering more than 2,000 people in 16 villages on January of 2015, or ISIS relentlessly driving the Yazidis from their homes in August of 2014.  The tactics of Qital and Kharaj are also the underlying force behind the Palestinian group Fatah vis-à-vis Israel (for more on this subject, see the article entitled If Abbas Is A ‘Moderate,’ What’s A ‘Radical’?).

In other words, these are not just two obscure words that are rare exceptions in a list of otherwise benign, peaceful Quranic verbs and nouns.  It is also important to note that these two Operative Verbs occur frequently in the imperative tense, which is a ‘grammatical form that commands, demands attention or action, implying an unavoidable obligation or requirement.’  Simply put, these verbs are seen as absolute commandments to the Islamic Ummah to never stop fighting against Fitnah, whenever and wherever it is encountered, until the world as we know comes to an end.  It is a call to perpetual warfare, often by cadres of otherwise peace-loving Muslims who are nonetheless ‘provoked by uncontrollable, irresponsible incidents.’

I use the allegory of a chemical reaction to help explain the relationship between Fitnah and the Operative Verbs of Qital and Kharaj.  If you put pure, elemental chlorine into a flask with pure sodium, they will not react.  However, when a catalyst is added (in this case, water), the two elements combine violently in what is called an exothermic reaction (light- and/or heat-releasing).  The by-product of this particular reaction is NaCl, aka common salt, which has an entirely different nature than the original inert elements.  In this allegory, the catalyst (water) is Fitnah, while the otherwise inert elements (chlorine and sodium) are Qital and Kharaj.  In other words, Islam exists as a religion of peace (‘inert’)…until it encounters the catalyst of Fitnah, and then it becomes suddenly, violently explosive.

As with the Strategy of the GIM, these Tactical verbs are discussed extensively in the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law, but are perhaps best summarized in verse 2.191, which says ‘And kill/slaughter/slay them wherever ye find them, and displace/drive out/expel them out of the places whence they drove you out, for Fitnah is worse than slaughter.’  Put another way, no punishment is too great for the crime of Fitnah, including the devastating loss of property (Kharaj), and life itself (Qital).  Also notice that this verse commands Muslims to ‘slaughter them wherever you find them,thus advocating  intentional planning and forethought.  The Muslim conquest of India, and the Armenian Genocide, are two among many examples of the global advance of Islam based on these doctrines.

Ibn Kathir Tafsir (Commentary) For Quran 2.217

Quran 2.217 is similar to verse 2.191, but the Tafsir (Commentary) for verse 2.217 includes some very revealing insight vis-à-vis the concept of Fitnah.  In his introduction to this Tafsir, a famous Islamic scholar known as Ibn Kathir wrote the following: ‘Allah made it obligatory for Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress [=Fitnah] against Islam.  Az-Zuhri said, ‘Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind.’ 

Next, Ibn Kathir adds the following comments to verse 2.217: ‘Fighting [Qital] therein [during the Sacred Months] is a great (sin) but a greater (sin)…is to prevent mankind from following the way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him…and to drive out [Kharaj] its inhabitants, and Fitnah is worse than killing.’  In this case, the ‘great sin’ of Fitnah is caused by those who would prevent mankind from following the way of Allah.

Every Islamic group in the world today agrees with Ibn Kathir, thus claiming that both secular rulers in Muslim countries, and non-Muslim leaders in western countries, ‘prevent mankind from following Allah’ with malicious intent.  Therefore, it is obligatory for all Muslims to fight against such Fitnah, using whatever means possible.  As mentioned earlier, the shorthand term for such ‘malicious intent’ has become known as Islamophobia.

Five Major Fatwas

Have modern leaders of the GIM followed the Strategy & Tactics of warfare, as authorized in the Quran?  Absolutely.  Here is a summary of five of the most significant Fatwas issued in the last 17-plus years.  Several of them were released to coincide with the Arab Spring, and each one is solidly based on the imperative command to fight against Fitnah, using the operative verbs of Qital and Kharaj, as found in Quran 2.193, 2.217, 8.39 & etc.

[1]           On February 23, 1998, Osama Bin Laden (along with a coalition of four renowned Sheikhs and the leaders of 12 other Islamic caliphates) issued a now-infamous Fatwa, calling for perpetual global Jihad against ‘The Jews and the People of the Cross.’  The introductory paragraph includes the following statement: ‘The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim…This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression [Fitnah], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.’  In this case, the phrase Al-Dinu Lillahi (‘the religion of Allah’) is translated as ‘justice and faith in Allah’ (see earlier discussion of verses 2.193 & 8.39 above). This is because the Arabic word ‘Din’ can be translated interchangeably as either Religion, Law, or Justice.

[2]           On September 10, 2010, Mohammed Badie, who was the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood at the time, made the following declaration: ‘Resistance [Jihad] is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance & tyranny…Islam is capable of confronting Oppression & Tyranny [Fitnah]…the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah.’  Remarkably, this Fatwa was issued right in the middle of the Arab Spring movement, which was promoted as a popular pro-democracy revolution in support of ‘Freedom and Justice.’

[3]           On January 08, 2011, Imad Mustafa, a prominent scholar at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, issued the following Fatwa: ‘Fighting against non-Muslims is…a prescribed duty in cases of aggression [Fitna] from the infidels against Muslims, for we must resist them, make Jihad against them, and defend against them.  This is according to the Quran, for Almighty God has said ‘Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.’ This Fatwa cites Quran 2.190, which is similar to Quran 2.191, 2.193, 8.39 & etc.

[4]           On January 17, 2011, Anwar Al-Awlaki issued a Fatwa based on Kharaj (Displace/Drive Out/Expel), which stated: ‘Not only was Jihad financed by war booty, but also throughout our early history, when the Islamic treasury itself was mostly dependent on income generated from Jihad.  A tax called Kharaj was placed on land opened [stolen] by Muslims, enslaved POW’s would be sold, and the people of the book paid Jizyah [i.e., a protection tax].’

[5]           On July 05, 2014, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi gave his first public sermon at the Grand Masjid of Mosul City, Iraq.  During the course of his message, Al-Baghdadi quoted directly from Quran 8.39, saying that ‘He the Most High says, And fight them until there is no Fitnah, and the religion, all of it, is for Allah.’

Note: Quran 8.39 is one of ISIS’ ‘favorite’ verses; it is usually narrated in the background of their official anthem, as well as in the execution (beheading) videos they produce.  According to ISIS, all the Fitnah in the world is caused by the Kufarin (Non-believers).  This means that all of the violence and suffering such non-believers endure at the hands of ISIS is their fault, not the fault of the soldiers of Allah.

Summary

Now we come to the heart of the matter.  Apologists for Islam, or advocates of the current political narrative, will insist that the premise for this article is wrong, maybe even dangerous, and that I have misinterpreted the Quran.  My answer would be, ‘Absolutely not.  It may be unpleasant, but it is not wrong.’

The interpretations of the verses included in this article have been established for hundreds of years; the authorized Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement have not changed in nearly 1,400 years.  It is only in relatively recent times – post WWII – that modern technology has made it possible for the Islamic world to promote the global spread of Islam and/or fight the non-Islamic West at near-parity.

According to the Quran, any effort by non-Muslims to oppose the advancement of Islam is considered a flagrant, abhorrent crime.  Also known as Fitnah, such crimes are seen as so egregious that people can be slaughtered, honor-killed, beheaded or crucified (and yes, all of these punishments are found in the Quran, with added endorsements and insights in the Hadith & Tafsir).

Compared to the Fitnah (Islamophobia) of dishonoring Mohammed, or opposing Shariah Law, or calling Jihadiststerrorists,’ or any of a hundred other outrageous offenses, the loss of life and property is considered as less than inconsequential.  For proof, just run an internet query of Charlie Hebdo Cartoon Protests, and you’ll see how violent and widespread these demonstrations have been.  Enraged crowds in Islamic countries around the world have screamed obscene threats, destroyed property, burned churches [Kharaj] and killed people [Qital].  And this is just the latest episode.

Concluding Observations – Where Do We Stand?

On January 27, 2015, retired former DIA Chief Michael Flynn said that the Obama administration is ‘paralyzed and playing defense in the fight against Islamic militancy,’ adding that ‘you cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,’ that the ‘administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem,’ and that ‘there are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,’ so they ‘accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.’

On September 19, 2014, retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps, publicly stated that President Barack Obama’s strategy to defeat ISIS didn’t have ‘a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding.’

President Obama could hardly argue with General Conway’s assessment of ISIS, because on August 28, 2014, he said, ‘I don’t want to put the cart before the horse: we don’t have a strategy yet.  I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.’

During the same interview, President Obama also said: ‘This should be a wake-up call to Sunni, to [Shi‘ite], to everybody, that a group like ISIS is beyond the pale; that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people.’

The problem is, groups like ISIS, Hamas and Boko Haram et al., do have a vision, and an ideology, that goes well beyond the initial spasms of violence, chaos and slaughter (ironically, these are all adjectives describing Fitnah).  However, we in the non-Islamic world will remain ‘paralyzed and playing defense,’ as long as we fail to acknowledge the Quranic origin of their strategic vision, and the true nature of the tactical threat we face.

Adding further irony, Congressional hearings on ISIS were held in September of 2014, sandwiched right in between the comments by President Obama and General Conway.  During the hearings, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both tried to explain some of the apparent contradictions of our ever-evolving policy vis-à-vis the threat from ISIS.  In the end, it became very apparent ‘that there is, and will continue to be, a gaping hole at the heart of our ISIS strategy.’

We’ll close with a final observation: The word ‘Phobia’ has two meanings – either to hate something intensely, or to fear something intensely.  Using these two meanings, it could be said that Muslims and non-Muslims both have ‘Fitnaphobia’ – Muslims because they hate Fitnah, and non-Muslims because they fear it.

However, in the case of the non-Muslim world, it appears that we are much more concerned about causing Fitnah (by Opposing the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement), than we are about protecting our western civilization from the increasingly aggressive promoters of Shariah Law.

The President’s Conference and its message: “Think Again, Turn Away”

Today starts a three day conference in Foggy Bottom at which President Obama will appear before an audience of representatives from 60 countries dealing with the threat of “violent extremism”.  The White House and State Department have made it abundantly clear that they refuse to identify the perpetrators and the victims of the Paris Charlie Hebdo and Kosher Supermarket attacks, this weekend’s attacks in Copenhagen, among them Jews, and the grisly beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya by ISIS.  The critics of this no name policy suggest that if you cannot define the threat of radical Islam and its basis, Qur’anic doctrine and Sharia Islamic law,  that you can’t develop a strategy for “degrading “and” defeating” the Islamic State.

Given what happened in Egypt’s Sinai and this past weekend in Libya, the area of conflict with IS might be expanded to include North Africa and, obviously, the West, given the attacks in France, Belgium and Denmark, as well as America and Canada. Thus the “violent extremism” conference will focus on warning potential IS recruits of foreign fighters from across the globe to “Think Again, Turn Away.” That message is  being  refined by the State Department  Center  for Strategic Counter-terrorism Communications (CSCC) set up under an executive order issued by President  Obama in 2011. Otherwise, the recruits might end up dead either as suicide bombers or at the hands of IS masterminds. The CSCC has a daunting task. According to its website:

CSCC is comprised of three interactive components. The integrated analysis component leverages the Intelligence Community and other substantive experts to ensure CSCC communicators benefit from the best information and analysis available. The plans and operations component draws on this input to devise effective ways to counter the terrorist narrative. The Digital Outreach Team actively and openly engages in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, and Somali to counter terrorist propaganda and misinformation about the United States across a wide variety of interactive digital environments that had previously been ceded to extremists.

As a New York Times (NYTarticle on the conference pointed out the State Department CSCC coordinator, Ambassador Alberto Fernandez is leaving shortly after trying to lead the messaging effort across a broad spectrum of competing internal State, Homeland Security and intelligence echelons. This comment by former State Department counterterrorism coordinator Daniel Benjamin sums up why Fernandez will retire in April, 2015. “After its first year or two, it was never taken seriously and got little support from higher-ups.”

The CSCC has endeavored to communicate that the IS Salafist jihadist slick presentations in videos, tweets and Face book pages corrupts the central message of Islam of “peace and justice” – that is only to adherents of the faith. In point of fact, the IS following in the way of Allah, Jihad.

How slick is the IS agit-propaganda spewed out on-line to the unwary recruit? One recent example is reflected in a new release translated by MEMRI, entreating recruits to come to Libya and join the gateway to the Conquest of Rome – a thought that should be unnerving to Pope Francis. The NYT CSCC article cited as examples of effective “messaging”:

One online image two years ago, for instance, showed photographs of three American men who traveled to Somalia and died there, including Omar Hammami, a young man from Alabama who became an infamous Islamist militant. The accompanying message reads, “They came for jihad but were murdered by Al Shabaab.”

Another image showed a young man weeping over a coffin. The message read, “How can slaughtering the innocent be the right path?”

Each of the online posts carried a warning: “Think again. Turn away.”

Last June, Islamic State supporters warned fighters to beware of the center’s Twitter account and not to interact with it.

The reality of the CSCC mission, is that it has been corrupted- to quote Egyptian President Al-Sisi- by the origin of  IS and Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).  As late as January 2015, the State Department was caught in a conference with alleged Egyptian MB leaders.  There were graphic messages on twitter set against the backdrop of the Seal of the State Department by one of the participants flashing the ‘rabbia’ hand sign-a signal to support ousted President Morsi and hundreds of others currently being tried for sedition in Egypt.  Last May, the State Department was embarrassed by a tweet it sent about the presence at a White House meeting on messaging with Sheik Bin Bayyah, a deputy to notorious MB preacher, Yusuf Al Qaradawi.  Bin Bayyah had been there before along with another Egyptian legislator and member of a terrorist group in 2013.

The President’s Conference on Violent Extremism is being stage managed by a skilled media expert, Richard Stengel, former Time Magazine managing editor, who was appointed in 2013 as Undersecretary Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  Stengel will be assisted at the Conference by Ambassador Rashad Hussein, current Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and former Deputy White House Counsel with MB connections.  Stengel admits that countering the ISIS supremacy in messaging its appeal to young impressionable Muslim recruits is daunting. He was cited by the New York Times saying, “We’re getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content…. These guys [meaning IS] aren’t BuzzFeed; they’re not invincible in social media.”

Last fall, Stengel was interviewed by the Voice of America while in the midst of the propaganda war with IS:

VOA: What are some challenges in terms of dealing or confronting the ISIS propaganda machine?

Stengel: There are a lot of challenges. They are very sophisticated. They will stop at nothing, so to speak. They are not bound by the truth in any way. There are structural problems in the Middle East and the Arab world that can sometimes make Daesh’s ideology attractive, attractive to young men who don’t have jobs, who don’t see a great future for themselves, who have only heard a kind of misbegotten idea of Islam. So that is part of the challenge. What we’re trying to say, along with the coalition partners, is that Daesh is not the true face of Islam, it doesn’t represent what the prophet or the Koran stands for, and that the vision they’re creating of a caliphate is a false vision where none of the things they say are true are true.

Clearly, Stengel is toeing the White House line that IS is ‘misinterpreting’ Islam, even as  some scholars believe it is reflecting the core doctrine of Salafist/Jihad.

Last October, Stengel appeared at a forum on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California’s Center for Public Diplomacy (CPD).  Watch the video of his talk and Q&A here:

USC Professor of Journalism and International Relations Phillip Seib in a CPD article suggested that countering ISIS messaging capability is in the wrong place at State’s CSCC. Rather it should be transferred to the CIA. He wrote:

A much more effective approach to combat their message would be a bare-knuckles operation: no disclaimers and a product that matches up better against the videos coming from Al Hayat, ISIL’s video production arm (the name stolen from the pan-Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat).

These videos should feature imams denouncing ISIL’s tactics and women urging their sisters not to be enticed by ISIL’s recruiting messages. They should include video testimony from disillusioned ISIL fighters who have returned home. And they should show the ravaged Muslim communities that have been attacked by ISIL. But few anti-ISIL speakers want to participate in a State Department-branded video. And even fewer jihadist recruits believe it. American credibility in the region remains low, and many Muslims are wary of a new round of U.S. involvement in their homelands.

Our comment on the President’s “violent extremism” Conference this week in Washington is soft power is trumped by raw Islamic Jihad every time. That is embodied in failure to recognize the Qur’anic doctrine behind the rise of IS. To paraphrase the CSCC motto, “Think Again, Turn Away” from Taqiyya – lying for Allah.

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic supremacist groups including Hamas-linked CAIR say Obama terror summit wrongly singles out Muslims

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

In ‘Progressive’ Madison, Wisconsin, an Outbreak of Antisemitic Hate

Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit reported on a Ha’aretz article  on an outbreak of Antisemitic screed spray painted on garage doors in liberal Madison, Wisconsin, Thirty Madison, Wisconsin Homes Spraypainted With Anti-Semitic Slurs.”   A h/t to Ken Lamb of Pensacola for forwarding this  hate screed attack  plastered on garage doors in Wisconsin’s capital.  However, as the Ha’aretz report notes there were over 30 such reports of Antisemitic hate reported in Madison in 2014. Perhaps time for Gov. Walker to investigate the hate mongers ringing Lake Mendota. Are these KKKers, white supremacists?  How could this ferment occur in liberal Madison?

At least thirty Madison, Wisconsin homes were spray-painted with anti-Semitic slurs this weekend.

Haaretz reported:

At least 30 homes in Madison, Wisconsin, were vandalized overnight Friday, some with anti-Semitic slurs and swastikas.

Other residents awoke to derogatory words geared toward women and other minorities sprayed on their homes, cars, garage doors, mailboxes and driveways, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism.

One resident, Jim Stein, told Wisconsin television station WISC TV, “Everyone in the neighborhood is pretty upset.”

Stein woke up Saturday morning to discover “F— Jews” scrawled on a garage door across the street and a swastika on the driveway.

“It was, of course, extremely disturbing to me,” Stein, who is the president of the Jewish Federation of Madison, told the station. Other graffiti included a garage door defaced with the words “KKK Bound.”

There have been over thirty confirmed antisemitic incidents reported in Wisconsin in 2014.
JS Online reported:

There were 33 confirmed incidents of anti-Semitism of those reported in 2014, compared with 13 a year earlier, the audit says.

They included an unprecedented number of swastikas drawn on public and private property, continued harassment of Jewish middle and high school students, and attacks on Zionism and Israel that went beyond legitimate political criticism to attack Jews personally, according to the audit.

Among the confirmed incidents:

■ At least nine swastikas were drawn, carved or painted at various places, including public streets, the driveway of a Jewish high school student’s home and in an elevator of a Jewish institution. Swastikas and a Star of David were carved at two golf greens, causing $5,000 in damage. Another included a reference to “1488,” a known white supremacist symbol.

■ A man entered a Jewish facility shouting “All Jews will (expletive) burn.”

■ At one business, a hairdresser told a potential client that she doesn’t cut “Jewish hair.” At another, an employee called his boss a “stingy Jew” when he refused to give him a raise.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Obama accidentally draws a picture of Mohammed

Most of us have probably seen Obama’s recent video in which he makes faces, poses in front of the mirror, blames himself over cookies, and draws a picture of Michelle Obama.

It is a little known fact, however, that when the President first took the pencil and focused on random visual ideas, he accidentally drew a picture of Mohammed. The filming stopped. The ruined sheet was ripped out of the sketchbook and tossed into the waste basket.

On the second attempt, as Obama sat in front of the blank sheet and tried not to think about Mohammed; his hand moved making random lines, which in the end, taken together, looked like Mohammed. That sheet also went into the waste basket.

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

On the third, fourth, and fifth attempts Obama kept drawing Mohammed, in spite of his sincere efforts to draw just some random doodle. When on the sixth try Obama drew another picture of Mohammed, he asked for a break. The filming crew and the President had some milk and cookies, chatting about random things, like Tourette syndrome, Freudian slips, Rorschach blots, and obsessive-compulsive behavior exhibited by various random folks.

When, after the break, Obama drew the seventh picture of Mohammed, one of the filmmakers volunteered to draw a different picture for the President. This man was a storyboard artist, and even though he was not a real artist, he could still trace an image from a photograph. The only photograph in the room was that of Michelle Obama, and that’s what the man drew in the President’s sketchbook.

Obama then took the pencil and pretended that he was drawing his wife for the camera, but everyone in the room knew that he didn’t draw that.

A similar story happened with a different scene in the film, in which Obama was directed to try to dip an oversized oatmeal cookie into a narrow glass of milk. According to the script, the cookie wouldn’t fit and Obama was supposed to say sarcastically, “Thanks, Obama!” thereby gently mocking his critics who tend to blame everything on the President.

Instead, Obama kept trying to dip the cookie into the glass over and over for eleven minutes without saying anything. “No, Mr. President,” said the film director. “Try to dip it twice, then say sarcastically, ‘Thanks, Obama!'” The camera started rolling again. Obama tapped the cookie on the rim of the glass and said, “I know, this is Bush’s fault.”

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

It took seven more takes for the film crew to finally tape the President dipping the cookie correctly while saying the scripted sarcastic words “Thanks, Obama!” instead of blaming Bush and insisting that he inherited this glass of milk from the previous administration.

It was already getting late, so the film director decided to abandon the script and asked the President to simply do random things he usually does when no one can see him. “I like to play air basketball and make faces in front of the mirror. Oh, and I also like to wear sunglasses and pretend to be a cool dude shooting random folks,” said Obama.

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

And that’s what they did, so the rest of the film was improvised and everyone had a lot of fun doing it.

And now you know the rest of the story.

WATCH THE VIDEO: Hilarious video reveals what President Obama does when he thinks no-one else is around

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

Islamism: If You Can’t Say it, You Can’t Fight it

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam.

While the world was reeling from last month’s terror attacks in Paris, there was finally some acknowledgment of the one-sided religious war being waged against the West, as French officials identified the perpetrators as radical Muslims and called for international solidarity against Islamist extremism.

After turning a blind eye for so long – and after enabling extremist organizations such as Hamas and facilitating resurgent anti-Semitism – Europeans finally spoke truth over political correctness. Whether they have the fortitude for sustained confrontation with theological totalitarianism is another matter, but for at least a brief moment in time they recognized the threat for what it is.

In contrast, the Obama administration continued to ignore any connection between terrorism and radical Islam, instead referring to the perpetrators as extremists without identifying their motivating beliefs. In a recent interview the president actually referred to the attack on the kosher market in Paris as “random.”

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism. Just as the government’s characterization of the Fort Hoot shootings and Oklahoma beheading as “workplace violence” ignored the national ramifications of the terror threat, the president’s refusal to concede the doctrinal roots of the Paris tragedy showed an astonishing failure of world leadership.

This refusal to acknowledge the obvious may be political, but it is also myopic – and it undercuts any serious effort to combat global terrorism.

The left seems to have no problem accusing Republicans of fascism, racism or any other malignant “isms” that come to mind, but they simply cannot speak the truth regarding radical Islam. And by dialoguing with organizations suspected of having extremist ties, by treating the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas as political organizations, by supporting those who delegitimize Israel, and by providing safe harbor for progressive anti-Semites, the left has actually helped advance the Islamist agenda.

Progressives seem compelled to excuse Islamism or pretend it doesn’t exist, even when doing so compromises their commitment to constitutional principles. Whenever radical Islamists strike, the progressive impulse seems to be to defend Islam before comforting the victims. In response to beheadings of westerners in Syria, Mr. Obama lectured the American public that ISIS was not Islamic, and after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the perpetrators were not Muslim. On what exactly do they base such assertions?

They are misinformed at best and disingenuous at worst. Though certainly not all Muslims support ISIS, it does represent a militant form of Islam similar to that which sparked an era of jihad across the Mideast, Asia, Africa and Europe starting in the eighth century. Moreover, the Paris attacks were motivated by a fundamentalism that endorses violence against blasphemers and infidels.

While ISIS, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood do not represent the views of all Muslims, their beliefs are certainly grounded in scripture and theology. It defies logic to say that such groups are not Islamic simply because other Muslims think differently or disagree with them. The same people who hold thus seem to have no problem blaming all conservative Christians for the acts of a minority of anti-abortion zealots. The inconsistency is glaring.

This is not to say that all Muslims condone the actions of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, or that all supported the terror attacks in Paris, the massacre at Fort Hood or the attacks of 9/11. Many Muslims, particularly those acculturated to western democratic values, publicly condemn attacks against non-Muslims. But the question remains whether the wider Arab-Muslim world is philosophically or morally opposed to religious extremism.

Although millions, including Muslim clerics, turned out for the French solidarity march, it remains to be seen whether the event signaled an organic rejection of all forms of terrorism or instead was limited in time and scope. The question hangs heavy in the air amid reports that members of the French government attempted to dissuade Binyamin Netanyahu from attending, but thought it appropriate to invite Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas’s attendance at the rally received front-page coverage, but the press failed to discuss his unity government with Hamas, whose charter calls for jihad and genocide, or to mention that the Palestinian National Covenant continues to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish People. Likewise, the media did not discuss the PA’s continuing support of terrorism, anti-Semitic incitement, and glorification of those who kill Jews. The image of Abbas lauding free speech was surreal considering that the PA and Hamas routinely stifle expression and quash dissent in territories under their control. That Abbas was invited at all suggests a failure to recognize or acknowledge these incongruities. He subsequently praised Hezbollah after its recent terror attacks in the north of Israel.

Those who understand the concept of taqiyya (deception of the infidel) have to wonder how much of the anti-terror sentiment expressed by clerics in Paris was genuine. It does not matter what they say in public before the western media; what matters only is whether they intend to preach tolerance, respect and acceptance in their schools and mosques, and whether reformative change will be reflected in the streets.

The desire for true reformation will only be impeded by those in the west who are more concerned about protecting the sensitivities of a global religious community that numbers more than a billion strong and characterizes outsiders as infidels. Change will not be motivated by those who blame all friction between the West and Muslim society on western chauvinism, but who ignore the historical role of jihad and Islamist supremacism. Neither will it be facilitated by politicians who reflexively deny any connection between radical Islam and terrorism, but who nevertheless accuse their domestic political opponents of the worst kinds of fanatical excesses and malign Israel as a colonial occupier.

Democrats are not all in the leftist camp, but their party has been tilting that way since Barack Obama was first endorsed in 2008. The party’s more progressive elements seem compelled to empathize with nonwestern ideologies they consider to be expressions of indigeneity, but to disparage political opponents who advocate freedom of speech, belief and worship. It is ironic that some progressives accuse Republicans of fascism while giving political cover to extremists whose ideology is truly thuggish and totalitarian. This hypocrisy stems from a traditional affinity for radical ideologies and statism, whether expressed as fascism in the early to mid-twentieth century, or communism until well into the Cold War.

Indeed, as well-documented by author Jonah Goldberg in his book, “Liberal Fascism,” there were many progressive admirers of fascism before Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany attacked Poland four years later. Mussolini’s supporters included H. G. Wells, who in the 1930s exhorted fellow progressives to be “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” and who wrote of being struck by fascism’s “relentless logic.” Muckraking journalists adored Mussolini, among them Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell. So did influential publishers, such as Samuel McClure, who described Italian fascism as “a great step forward,” and George Soule, editor of the New Republic, who commended the Roosevelt administration for “trying out the economics of fascism.”

Other progressives expressed admiration for Hitler, including W. E. B. DuBois, co-founder of the NAACP, who described the rise of Nazism in Germany as “absolutely necessary to get the state in order” and who asserted that the Nazi rise to power afforded more democracy than Germany had seen in years.

If statism can be defined as the belief that economic and/or social policy should be left in the exclusive control of government, then the left’s affinity for any kind of totalitarianism should not be terribly surprising. When progressive anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel are factored into the mix, the left-wing’s reluctance to condemn Islamists whose world outlook is totalitarian, or to acknowledge their connection to terrorism, seems quite logical.

Those who preach empathy for Islamists never hesitate to condemn conservative Christians for their views or traditional Jews for their adherence to observance. Yet, they refuse to challenge a supremacist theology that is antithetical to the liberal ideals they claim to hold dear. Liberals often cite the U.S. Constitution to justify perverse political correctness, but the First Amendment does not mandate acquiescence to religious extremism or the acceptance of pernicious dogmas. Though freedom of belief is absolute under the Constitution, freedom of practice may not be when it infringes on the rights and liberties of others. Government has a legitimate interest in monitoring ideological movements that threaten public safety and order, whether comprised of white supremacists who preach racial hatred or radical Islamists who believe in jihad and genocide.

Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama’s media acolytes have drawn false comparisons between activist conservatives and Islamists, implying that the former are just as prone to violent terrorism as the latter, and perhaps even more so. Such comparisons, however, are dishonest and purely partisan.

A common ploy for minimizing the peril of Islamism is to claim that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat in the United States. But if Christian radicalism can be measured by opposition to abortion, a review of law enforcement statistics shows that it simply is not comparable. Although there has been occasional violence against abortion providers and clinics in the U.S., including arson and a few murders since 1993, such acts – reprehensible though they are – pale in frequency and severity to those of Islamist terrorists, who have attacked and killed tens of thousands of Jews, Israelis, westerners, and even their own people.

Moreover, extreme anti-abortion violence is generally condemned by mainstream Christians, who prefer to express themselves through the political process. In contrast, terrorism against infidels and blasphemers is often celebrated in the Muslim world. It seems ironic that progressives prefer to tarnish all conservative Christians for the acts of a very few, but refuse to condemn supporters of real terrorism.

If President Obama were serious about confronting global terrorism, he would acknowledge the ideology motivating much of it and the historical antecedents that make it possible. This can certainly be done without impugning all Muslims, particularly those who wish to eliminate extremism in their own communities. The president’s failure to do so, and his apparent willingness to appease extremist sensitivities, does not auger well for the war on terror or the continued relevance of American foreign policy.