What Bastiat Had to Say about Police Abuse by Jeffrey A. Tucker

When it comes to being employed by the government, membership has its privileges. How far do these privileges extend? It’s a question that is central to political philosophy. It is most poignantly addressed by one of my favorite pieces of writing, Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law (1850).

The same question is being debated on the streets in every U.S. city today. Videos of citizen abuse at the hands of the police are everywhere. It seems the cops have been empowered to do to us what we would never be allowed to do to each other. Some cases have made it to grand juries and trial juries. People are asking pointed questions regarding the relationship between the state and its citizens.

From the mainstream media to the courts, disagreement usually revolves around questions of the motivation, the character, and the behavior of police officers. Are they following the regulations? Abusing their authority? Motivated at some level by racism? Some would like to confront the related question: What level of citizen noncompliance justly prompts the police to use extreme force?

But there’s a question everyone wants to avoid here: Are the laws themselves just?

Many of the most famous beatings and killings at the hands of the police began with small infractions such a selling contraband cigarettes, evading criminal prosecution for the failure to pay child support, carrying knives, or small-time dealing of illegal substances. Then there are the many cases of asset forfeiture that never make it to YouTube, ongoing acts of plunder that aren’t flashy enough to inspire mass protests.

If the debate stays centered on police actions alone, we will never reach the core issue.

What is the law — and what should it be?

These are the bigger questions that are not yet part of public consciousness. Every law and regulation, no matter how small, is ultimately enforced by the threat of violence on the part of public authority. Laws are not “nudges”; they are mandates enforced by the legal use of coercion against person and property.

Bastiat tried to get people to think hard about what was happening and how the law had become an instrument of plunder and violence, rather than a protector of property and peace. If the law itself is not just, the result is social division and widespread discontent. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled becomes distorted, and a sense of systemic injustice pervades the culture. Bastiat observed this in horror in his time, and it’s a good description of our own:

The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

Further, and most poignantly in our time: “Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.”

Indeed.

Whether this happens at a traffic stop, at the arbitrary hands of an angry cop, or due to a tax or regulation passed by a legislature doesn’t change the nature of what is happening.

Bastiat’s essay asks fundamental questions that most people go through life never having thought about. The problem is that most people accept the law as a given, a fundamental fact of life.

As a member of society, you obey or face the consequences. It is not safe to question why. This is because the enforcement arm of the law is the state, that peculiar agency with a unique power to use legal force against life and property. The state says what the law is — however this decision was made — and that settles it.

Bastiat could not accept this. He wanted to know what the law is, apart from what the state says it is. He saw that the purpose of law is, most fundamentally, to protect private property and life against invasion, or at least to ensure that justice is done in cases in which such invasions do take place.

This is hardly a unique idea; it is a summary of what philosophers, jurists, and theologians have thought in most times and places. It’s what most of us think, intuitively, that the law should be about. What makes Bastiat different is that he takes that next step, the one that opens the reader’s eyes as nothing else does. He subjects the state itself to the test of whether it complies with that idea of law.

He takes notice, even from the first paragraph, of the corruption that ensues when the state turns out to be a lawbreaker in the name of law keeping: the state does the very thing that law is supposed to prevent. Instead of protecting private property, it invades it. Instead of protecting life, it destroys it. Instead of guarding liberty, it violates it. And as the state advances and grows, it does these things ever more, until it threatens the well-being of society.

Even more tellingly, Bastiat observes that when you subject the state to the same standards that the law uses to judge relations between individuals, the state fails. He concludes that when this is the case, the law has been perverted in the hands of the governing elites. It is employed to do the very thing that the law is designed to prevent. The enforcer turns out to be the main violator of its own standards.

The law, wrote Bastiat, is supposed to protect property and person from arbitrary attack. When the law becomes a tool for providing legal cover for such attacks, as it has from Bastiat’s time to our own, its whole purpose has been turned upside down and inside out.

What Bastiat was seeking, as the embodiment of justice, was a consistent ethic of public life. The law should be the same for everyone. We should all obey the same rules. Neither the state nor any of its functionaries can be exempt from the rules they purport to enforce.

We cannot permit the state to judge itself by a different standard. Indeed, when Marilyn Mosby, Maryland’s state attorney, announced that the she was prosecuting the cops who beat and killed Freddie Gray, she struck a chord that resonated far and wide. She might be a left-liberal Democrat, and she might not share libertarian values across the board, but when she said, “no one is above the law,” she was echoing Bastiat and the entire liberal tradition.

What are the social consequences of having a different sets of laws, one for state agents and one for everyone else? Bastiat believed that the result is lawlessness:

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

In this case, the law becomes a perpetual source of hatred and discord. It even “tends to destroy society itself.” Whether this destruction takes place in the controlled environment of a legislature, the routine quietude of the bureaucracy, or on the streets through looting does not change the essentials of what is happening.

What does this say about abuse at the hands of the police? According to Bastiat’s standard, the law should regard such abuse as the violation of another’s rights. Period.

The passion, the fire, the relentless logic of Bastiat’s monograph have the power to shake up any reader. Nothing is the same after you read The Law. That is why this essay is rightly famous. It is capable of shaking up whole systems of government and whole societies — a beautiful illustration of the pen’s power.

It is a habit of every generation to underestimate the importance and power of ideas. Yet the whole world that we live in is built by them. Nothing outside pure nature exists in this world that did not begin as an idea held by human beings. That’s why an essay like Bastiat’s is so powerful and important. It helps you see the injustices that surround us, which we are otherwise inclined to ignore. And it helps provide the response to them.

Seeing and explaining are the first steps to changing.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

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

Video of Boston Islamic Terrorist Suspect Usaamah Rahim shooting

Boston Police Department release shooting of Islamic Terrorist Usaamah Rahim.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan Muslim scholars: Jihad groups have “nothing to do with Islam”

Saudi Supreme Court upholds guilty verdict against blogger for insulting Islam

Islamic State burns 80-year-old Christian woman alive

ESPN Diminishes Arthur Ashe’s Legacy

Am I the only one who is thoroughly offended by ESPN giving Bruce Jenner “The Arthur Ashe Courage Award” during next month’s ESPYS award ceremony?

ESPN claims to be the global TV leader in sports coverage and is owned by The Walt Disney Company.  Disney is also the parent company of ABC Television (which will air the ceremony).

Disney is one of the most radically aggressive pro-homosexual companies in the world.

According to ESPN’s website, “Bruce Jenner won the 1976 Olympic decathlon, setting a world record and becoming an international sports star. Jenner later became an actor in a number of TV movies, a race car driver (winning the 12 Hours of Sebring in 1986) and a successful businessman. Jenner married his third wife, Kris Kardashian, in 1991, and became part of the E! network series “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” in 2007. (Kris and Bruce Jenner were divorced in December 2014.)…Bruce has received many accolades over the years for being one of the greatest Olympians of our time, but The ESPYS are honored to celebrate Bruce becoming [his new name—I refuse to use it],” ESPN executive producer Maura Mandt said. “[He] has shown the courage to embrace a truth that had been hidden for years, and to embark on a journey that may not only give comfort to those facing similar circumstances, but can also help to educate people on the challenges that the transgender community faces.”

Tell me you are kidding?  Please tell me this is a bad dream.  “Courage?”

This is a total insult to the legacy of Arthur Ashe and diminishes what he accomplished in his life. Courage is not admitting you are homosexual.  Jenner’s worst day doesn’t come close to what Ashe had to overcome being Black in America and playing as a professional in one of the whitest sports at the time.

Arthur Ashe was the personification of courage.  He grew up in the segregated south of Richmond, Virginia in the 40s and was a top ranked tennis player in the 60s and 70s.  According to Ashe’s website, “he [Ashe] was the first African-American male tennis player to win a Grand Slam tournament.  He was much more than an athlete though.  His commitment to social justice, health and humanitarian issues left a mark on the world as indelible as his tennis was on the court.  This site is dedicated to providing a unique multimedia resource for understanding and promoting the legacy and values embodied in the life and work of Arthur Ashe as a conscience leader, humanitarian, educator and athlete.”

Ashe faced serious discrimination in his attempts to integrate professional tennis; he was arrested several times for protesting against South African apartheid; was intimately involved in the Civil Rights movement; and was a noted humanitarian.  Ashe died of AIDS in 1993 from receiving a blood transfusion after heart surgery.

So, can someone please tell me how we get from the legacy of Arthur Ashe to the freak show called Bruce Jenner and by extension, the Kardashians?  Every Black person should be offended by ESPN’s actions.  But not just Blacks, but anyone who knows anything about the contribution Ashe made to the world.

Ashe used his life to change America for the better and left his fingerprints on the world; and Jenner put on a dress!

I would hope that Ashe’s widow, Jeanne Moutoussamy-Ashe, would ask ESPN to remove her husband’s name from the award because what ESPN is doing is not compatible with who Arthur Ashe was.

Name one thing Jenner has done that was “courageous;” name me one thing he has done to make America better; name me one thing he has done to make the world better.

ESPN created this award in 1993, which was well received.  A few previous winners have been Pat and Kevin Tillman; Tommie Smith and John Carlos; and Nelson Mandela.  No one could argue against these individuals receiving the Ashe award; they indeed did represent everything Ashe stood for.

Now ESPN has turned Ashe’s award into a vehicle to promote homosexuality.  The last three winners have been, Robin Roberts, Michael Sam, and now Bruce Jenner.

According to ESPN, “The Arthur Ashe Courage Award is presented to the sports-related person(s) or team, irrespective of gender or sport contested, adjudged to have made the most significant or compelling humanitarian contribution in transcendence of sports in a given year.”

Publicly declaring you are homosexual is not a “significant or compelling humanitarian contribution in transcendence of sports.”

Ashe actually sacrificed money, tennis matches, and his life to make it possible for the Williams sisters to play tennis; to end Apartheid, and to defend those without a voice.  Name me one sacrifice Roberts, Sam or Jenner has made to make America better?

We, in the Black community, must stop allowing others to expropriate our heroes to promote their own liberal agendas; especially when the expropriation is not consistent with the person’s values and lifestyle.

Caitlyn Jenner? Hello Sucker!

It doesn’t matter that Bruce Jenner, famed Olympic athlete and member of the Kardashian family, thinks that he is female. He can never be female no matter what surgery he undertakes to make it reflect the fantasy in his head. Born a male, his body is a billion cells and nerve contacts whose DNA determines his true gender.

That’s why those who are buying into the pop cultural myth and news coverage of Jenner’s announced transformation should be greeted “Hello, Sucker!” It’s worse than just plain stupidity; it is the tip of a massive effort to alter society that dates back to those arrogant and deluded founders of communism who thought that, for it to succeed, the family as a key element of all societies, had to be eliminated.

TakedownDr. Paul Kengor, Ph.D., is a leading scholar on Communism and the author, among other excellent books, of “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century” and, just out, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has sabotaged Family and Marriage.”

The only way progressives—communists—know how to advance their agenda is to lie about it in every way. Even a short look at the lives of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the authors of Communist manifesto, Das Kapital, tells you what motivated their wish to destroy the family.

As Dr. Kengor points out, Engels had written that he “favored that marriage should not be a legal relationship, but a purely private affairs” noting that Engels “revealed a highly promiscuous attitude toward sexual morality and marital relationships.” Between the two men, they had many mistresses. Of the six children Marx fathered, four died before he did and two committed suicide. Both men leached off of Engel’s inheritance, never working a day in their lives. Marx’s family finally refused to lend him a dime; in brief, two men with a disdain for traditional marriage and widely held Judeo-Christian moral values.

Therefore, to understand why we are drowning in anti-family propaganda and efforts to change the laws affecting what marriage is and is not, Dr. Kengor notes that “Even way back when, in the mid-1800s, the far left had its sights on the family, with marriage at its epicenter. And this particular component of the extreme left—the communist left—was devoutly atheistic in its orientation ambition, and mission. It rebelled against God, a rebellion against the Creator that was central to its new direction and fundamental transformation.”

“Fundamental transformation”? Where have we heard that term before? Oh yes, from President Barack Obama’s lips. This was the candidate for President who said marriage was strictly between a man and a woman before he was elected and “evolved” into supporting same-sex marriage. Hello, Sucker!

“Same-sex marriage,” says Dr. Kengor “is hardly a Marxist plot, a latent communist conspiracy. It is, however, a crucial final blow to marriage—the only blow that is enabling a formal, legal redefinition that will unravel the institution”, adding that “what the left has steadfastly said and written and done to marriage and the family over the last two centuries cannot be ignored.”

“Much of the wider American culture, outside of the far left, has also become secular and dismissive of traditional religious teaching on matters such as family and marriage…The radical left could never have achieved this ultimate takedown of marriage without the larger American public’s broad acceptance of gay marriage.” If you can believe that two men or two women can and should get married, than you will believe anything. In five thousand years of civilization, we are close to letting all of the moral and civil lessons learned in the past be ignored, forgotten or rewritten.

We have, as a society, been tending more and more in this direction, dramatically when the Supreme Court legalized abortion and, in its forthcoming decision on same-sex marriage, likely a similar acceptance. When that occurs, our society will be just decades away from a serious breakdown. As it is, more and more children are growing up in single-parent family settings, lacking as often as not, a father.

If you want to look at men dressing and acting like women, tune in America’s most famous drag queen, RuPaul’s television show. He’s male. Those on the show are male.

There are among us, men and women, whose sexual preference takes them in the direction of their own gender. They constitute 1.8% if the U.S. population. There are those who, born male, now claim to be female. That is their problem deserving of no special laws or attention. Changing our entire society and culture to benefit this slim nitch of society is a very bad idea.

Bruce Jenner’s absurd claims will make him a rich man. Not a rich woman.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

John Wayne Walding: An American Hero [Video]

The actor John Wayne was one of my silver screen heroes as I was growing up. I admired his true grit. Another young man named John Wayne Walding (or JW2) is a real American hero and his story is one that I hope film makers like Clint Eastwood take notice of and promote in film what JW2 has done and is doing.

Watch this short video about JW2:

John-Wayne-Walding-RECOIL-01-670x446

John Wayne Walding. Photo courtesy of Recoil Magazine.

Recoil Magazine recently Zeroed in on John Wayne Walding in a column titled “Still Standing“. Here are some notable excerpts from that article on JW2:

Highly Decorated All-American John Wayne Walding was the First Amputee to Complete Special Forces Sniper School. Now He Has His Sights Set on a New Mission: Empowering Veterans Through 5 Toes Custom.

[ … ]

As all-American as it gets, John Wayne Walding was born on Independence Day in Groesbeck, Texas. Ever the hard worker, John worked his way up the Army totem pole to 3rd Special Forces Group, where he served on Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) 3336 as a communications sergeant and at the sniper detachment as a sniper instructor. Life for John changed forever on April 6, 2008, during the Battle of Shok Valley in Afghanistan.

On a pursuit mission to kill or capture a high-ranking commander of the terrorist organization known as Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin, Walding’s 10-man S.F. unit and 60 Afghan commandos went up against at least 250 insurgents — at some 10,000 feet in elevation. Due to the terrain and weather, John’s ODA found themselves surrounded and stranded on a mountainside for six-and-a-half hours, being pelted with a constant shower of enemy fire and rocket-propelled grenades. So desperate was the situation that they radioed for “danger close” air strikes some 70 times during the fight, which rarely happens even once during most ground combat efforts.

During one relocation maneuver, fate gave John the hardest obstacle of his life. He was struck just below the knee by enemy fire. “I rolled over to see what happened, and my leg was folded over at a 90-degree angle, only holding on by an inch of flesh,” Walding says. “It hurt. Bad. It was the most debilitating feeling I’ve ever felt, and I felt no shock. I felt every single ounce of pain coming from the wound.”

All told, eight of the 10 S.F. soldiers were shot, and their lead interpreter (an Afghan named Edris “CK” Khan) was killed. The ODA had to make their way down the mountainside to try to medevac the wounded out via helicopter. This was a seemingly insurmountable task for the newly crippled John, whose leg was literally hanging by the skin. “I had to fold my leg into my crotch, hold it between my legs, and literally carry my leg off the mountain,” Walding says. “Then I had to scoot on my butt to the side of the cliff, roll off, fall, and scoot to the next ledge to fall off, and basically fall my way down the mountainside. Now I’m in pretty good shape and was in even better shape for the ODA, but I promise you, it took every ounce of strength to keep lifting myself to fall and keep moving forward. Easily the hardest thing I’ve ever done.”

Read more.

JW2 is a humble man and is doing what he can with his God given skills. He has overcome diversity, been tested under fire and continues to stand with his fellow wounded warriors.

I cannot think of anyone more deserving of our admiration, respect and emulation. I think John Wayne, if he were alive today, would say the same.

ABOUT 5 TOES CUSTOM (5TC)

5 Toes Custom is an idea of helping combat wounded vets and giving back to charity by building handcrafted precision rifles. When the founder, John Wayne Walding, lost his leg in Afghanistan, he had trouble trying to find his new “North Star”. He found his star through his close, yet unlikely friend, David Feherty. David and John met in 2008 they have played 0 rounds of golf but shot more than 10,000 rounds of ammo together. It was their love for long-range marksmanship that drove the idea to manufacture the most accurate rifle. John then found a master gunsmith, by the name of Dick Cook, to show him the art of handcrafting rifles. After months of empty Red Bull cans and broken bits Dick was able to teach a not so old dog a new trick.

John built one, two, then ten rifles and realized his new passion in life. But he couldn’t just build rifles; he needed something that meant more to him. 5 Toes Custom became a place where combat wounded vets could also come find their North Star. Knowing that there is many other transitioning vets; the decision to give them the opportunity for the same direction was an easy one.

The next step to ensuring something bigger is by giving back to charity. Even though 5 TC is a FOR PROFIT company, they will always give back by donating a portion of profits to deserving charities.

This is what makes 5TC unique. By providing the finest handcrafted custom rifle, built by great Americans, and giving back to charities, 5TC will always succeed in the firearms industry.

Jihadists of Tomorrow

european nazisAnti-Semitism is growing among German Muslim students. Following Koranic teachings, the early childhood brainwashing, and school books rife with politically biased indoctrination, these students openly declared that they will kill Jews, specifically threatening Max Moses Bonifer, student spokesman for the school system in Offenbach, Germany, a city of more than 16,000 Muslims. Teenage students in Landsberg, near Leipzig, were reported to be using Nazi slogans, and greeting “Heil Hitler,” with some sporting Hitlerian moustaches. Yet, despite the increase in anti-Semitism, Muslim and other immigrant students were exempted from partaking in the concentration camp visits required with the Holocaust educational programs.

”Severe intolerance and hatred does not happen overnight,” explains Dr. Tawfik Hamid, himself under threat from his co-religionists for teaching a peaceful understanding of Islam. “The indoctrination process, incremental and subtle, occurs in three stages – hatred, suppression of conscience, and desensitization to or acceptance of violence.”  It is completed when the formerly young and innocent are capable of violence without remorse, no different than the Muslims who attacked synagogues in Germany after Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas, or the Nazis who participated in the Kristallnacht pogrom of November 10, 1938.

The hate and intolerance of the Koran is reinforced during prayers five times daily.  Beginning in early childhood, toddlers are taught to behead dolls, and young men delight in the worst animal cruelty that Australians have ever witnessed being done to their exported cattle.  Films from Gaza show Palestinians “kneecapping” the cattle, stabbing their eyes, and hacking their throats open on the streets.  Severe animal suffering precedes the slaughter of animals for the celebration of Eid Al-adha or Feast of Sacrifice (it also generates an extraordinary cash windfall for some of Pakistan’s most dangerous militant groups).

These Muslim German students, along with their agitating professors, should be learning about the Holocaust through newsreels, books, and visits to the concentration camps.  The excuse that their culture had nothing to do with this period of history is both untrue and irrelevant; history shows that Arabs were in lockstep with the Nazis. Islam, like Nazism, is an ideology that teaches superiority and subordination, consigning slaves, women, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others to different levels of humiliation and wretchedness.  It is their theological imperative that Jews (and Christians) be subservient to Muslims; the success of infidels is an insult to Allah.  Therefore, the chants and false accusations of “settlements,” “apartheid,” “colonizers,” “occupation,” are diversions and key words needed to trigger hatred and violence against Jews and Christians worldwide, as they have throughout their history.

Mohammed’s wrath began with the Jews, who remained faithful to the Torah and rejected the Koran – with its more than 100 verses advocating the use of violence to spread Islam, and 123 verses about killing and fighting. .It continued when Muslims encountered the formidable Christian opposition in Eastern and Western Europe. Massacres were conducted when Christians primarily (but Jews, as well) earned “too much” wealth and power in Granada (1066), and when Christian communities in Middle Eastern countries identified with Crusaders.  Muslims killed the Mongols, who had earlier destroyed their caliphate, together with their Christian and Jewish collaborators.  Envy was a consequence of their teachings, causing Muslims to rage and slaughter when they noted the superior economic status of Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Therefore, in 164 verses, the Koran encourages jihad and looting from their victims, so that they may own what belongs to their perceived enemy.  True to character, Muslims are unable to tolerate Israel’s superiority, the achievements of a mere 67 years of statehood.  It is not about settlements or deeds but a deep-seated envy, exemplified by the Khomeinist International Union of Resistance conference held in Beirut (May, 2015).  Resentful Muslim scholars came together to formally accuse Israel of all Islamic nations’ failures.  The attendees admitted that they wished to “counter the arrogant world,” a reminder of their shame for not achieving the greatness of the West, the greatness they’d been promised in their Scriptures.

In a warped attempt to reverse their feelings of inadequacy, Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, as well as antiquities, artifacts and shrines worldwide. To overcome their deficiency, they produced an extensive, extravagant museum exhibit that lays claim to “1001 Inventions, the Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilisation,” many of which (perhaps all) may be traced to the ingenuity and industry of their conquered and forcibly-converted victims.

Islamists called Israel “arrogant” for being first responders to people who suffer from natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, famine) and for providing medical care to the victims of Islamic unrest (including surgery for Mahmoud Abbas’s wife and medical treatment for a Hamas leader’s sister).  They sent no humanitarian aid to the infidel victims, but accused Israel of harvesting organs of the dead in Haiti when, in fact, families showed their gratitude for their care by naming their newborns “Israel.”

These desert people, whose Sharia law, ironically, is named for “the way of water,” have just witnessed Israel’s new capability of recycling water, producing enough to make their land flourish with food, and having more than enough potable water for themselves and a generous supply for wasteful Palestinians, (more than required by the Oslo Accord. California is already using Israeli water technology to combat its worst drought in history.  Muslims are seething with resentment, yet the achievements that earn praise in the Islamic world are terrorist attacks.  They cannot stand to be upstaged, but hope only to be the “best” when everyone else is gone.

In a June, 1938 letter, the Syrian Alawites told the French prime minister that the new Zionists “brought prosperity over Palestine without damage to anyone or taking anything by force,” and American historian Walter Laqueur noted, “No one doubted that the Arabs had benefited from Jewish immigration.” (The Arab population almost doubled between 1917 and 1940, wages increased, and the standard of living rose higher than anywhere else in the Middle East.)  Still, Israel’s contributions made some Arab leaders in the Palestinian area become increasingly hostile to the Jewish community. Many affiliated with the rising Nazi movement, incited and instigated mob attacks against the Jews in 1920, ’21, ’29, and 1936-1939.

The connection between Islam and Nazism is undeniable. Palestinian Arab leader Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, an admirer of Adolph Hitler, recruited a Bosnian-Muslim Waffen SS unit, the notorious “Hanjar troopers,” that slaughtered 90% of Bosnia’s Jews and burned countless Serbian churches and villages.  SS chief Heinrich Himmler favored the recruits and established a special Mullah Military school in Dresden.

Anti-Semitism among these German-Muslim students has become critical and life-threatening, and continues as they fail to integrate into their host society.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “It is absolutely necessary to counteract religious and political indoctrination among Muslim youth.”  These words should have been spoken and acted upon yesterday, because the Muslim children of today have been groomed to become the jihadists of tomorrow.    

Florida Voters Refused To Listen – Now They Have Been Taken Again!

Many of us have done the research and then try to teach exactly what is happening with our lawmakers. Florida’s reputation for corruption and deceit is at the top of the charts. There is a great deal to be said regarding one party being in control for far too long – and that is certainly the case in Florida.

We have been lied to over education, environmental issues, Enterprise Florida, Charter School legislation, Public Private Partnerships and the list goes on.

Today we find out the Florida lawmakers have made very little progress in regard to budget negotiating sessions and their special session is almost over. Standing at the fore front of the disagreements between the Florida House and Senate are health care, education and the environment.

Now comes the truth – House members want to borrow nearly $300 million in bonds for projects related to Amendment 1, a referendum passed by the very voters we tried to educate before the last election showing the false statements being made in relationship to the environment. Legislators were contending they were going to use the money for conservation and environmental clean-up projects.

Voters didn’t listen to the warnings!

Sen. Alan Hayes, R-Umatilla doesn’t want to use any bonds in relationship to any Amendment 1 projects. “B-O-N-D is a four letter word” Hayes said.

House environmental budget chief Ben Albritton, R-Wauchula, withdrew bonding from the House’s latest offer Sunday, calling it an “olive branch.” “I cannot be any more clear: the House is very interested and supportive of bonding as (budget negotiations) go forward ,” Albritton said.

Now why would the legislators want to do this when Amendment 1 didn’t call for raising taxes one nickel; using bond money or borrowing any funds? Amendment 1 was merely about prioritizing, forcing the state to set aside a tiny percentage of its massive budget for clean water, fresh air and preserved land. (Specifically, we’re talking a third of existing doc-stamp taxes on real-estate, which equals about 1 percent of the state’s $77 billion budget.)

At least that is what the legislators wanted us to believe. Today, June 7, 2015 Scott Maxwell of the Orlando Sentinel did a marvelous job of exposing the Florida legislators and the massive shell games they continue to play:

Remember the Lottery?  Florida Politicians May Try the Same Shell Game With the Environment!

by Scott Maxwell

Most Floridians are painfully familiar with the Florida Lottery shell game.

It was the political con of the century — one that involved tens of billions of dollars.

It started in 1986 when voters were told that, if they approved a lottery, the money would go to education.

We even called it “The Education Lottery.” That way, when you plunk down 10 bucks for a scratch-off, you’re not really gambling … you’re donating to a scholarly cause. How altruistic of you.

Well, folks started “donating” by the droves. A billion bucks. Then $10 billion. Then $20 billion … all of it supposed to improve our schools.

But Floridians didn’t notice much change in education. We still had one of the lowest-funded school systems in America. We still do.

In fact, 20 years after the lottery started, the Sentinel did an investigation and determined that education funding had actually dropped from 59 percent of the state budget in 1987 to 51 percent in 2007.

Yes, after the “Education Lottery” raised billions of dollars, the percentage actually went down.

How? Well, politicians played shell games.

Yes, they spent the lottery money on schools. But they took money they had previously spent on schools and started spending it on other things.

Admittedly, it was important things, like renovating the Legislature’s dining room, but it was other things, nonetheless.

Now, we may be doing the whole sick shell-game thing again … only this time with the environment.

Last fall, Florida voters approved Amendment 1 to demand that Florida spend more on the environment.

The amendment didn’t call for raising taxes one nickel. It was merely about prioritizing, forcing the state to set aside a tiny percentage of its massive budget for clean water, fresh air and preserved land. (Specifically, we’re talking a third of existing doc-stamp taxes on real-estate, which equals about 1 percent of the state’s $77 billion budget.)

It’s hard to overstate how overwhelming the support was. Amendment 1 passed with 75 percent. No statewide candidate got anything close to that.

But Legislators are once again playing shell games.

For instance, the House budget proposes spending $38 million of this money on existing payroll for the state’s park services and $40 million on existing forest service employees.

Gov. Rick Scott’s proposal included $17.5 million for a wastewater-treatment project in the Florida Keys.

The Senate has $10 million for salaries in the Environmental Protection division.

Were you able to keep your eye on the pea? Did you see the shells move?

Most of those endeavors aren’t new. None of them involve land preservation.

Environmental groups are crying foul. So are government watchdogs. The Florida Today newspaper in Melbourne took the rare step of running a front-page editorial last week demanding that lawmakers “Respect voters, Obey Constitution on Amendment 1.”

Many critics complain there isn’t enough money for Florida Forever land preservation — practically nothing ($8 million-$15 million) this year compared to the days when Jeb Bush was governor ($300 million).

I don’t think we should be buying land simply for buying’s sake. But I do think we need to honor the amendment.

That means protecting natural areas, restoring wetlands and cleaning up our water supplies. Fixing the Everglades, improving the Indian River Lagoon and providing recreational trails.

There is no shortage of worthy ways to spend money in a state where water is both polluted and scarce enough that we have restrictions.

The amendment’s title was clear: “Water and Land Conservation: Dedicates funds to acquire and restore Florida conservation and recreation lands.”

And this time, those pushing it were smart. They included a provision that said this money can’t be “comingled” with the general funds the state had already been using.

That means if legislators play shell games with this money, there may be grounds to sue them.

It needn’t come to that.

Lawmakers and Gov. Rick Scott are looking at a record budget. And they are free to spend 99 percent of it on education, roads, incentives, public safety, their own health-care plans — or whatever else they want.

They simply have to dedicate 1 percent to the environment.

It’s what voters wanted — and now what the constitution demands.

Scott Maxwell June 7, 2015 Orlando Sentinel  smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

I smell a lawsuit in relation to the use of the funds to be collected from the doc-stamp taxes on real-estate. The Florida legislators have proven to us numerous times they are not to be trusted and this reaches to Governor Scott’s office also.

The lies, deceit, manipulation and corruption have been on-going for far too many years. Time for them to have to answer to the people who not only pay their salaries, but put them in those seats in Tallahassee.

Democratic Treachery

As we enter the preliminaries for the 2016 presidential election, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media… including such heretofore “fair-minded” journalists as Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday… are trotting out their favorite “gotcha” questions, reserved exclusively for Republican candidates.  To date, their two favorites are: “Are you personally opposed to gay Americans or same-sex marriage?  And, “If you knew then what you know now, would you have sent U.S. ground troops into Iraq in 2003?”

No less a liberal icon than Bob Woodward of the Washington Post has set the record straight on the buildup to the Iraq War.  In a May 25, 2015, appearance on Fox News Sunday, Woodward agreed that George Bush may have made mistakes, but that to say he had lied to get us into war was “grossly unfair and inaccurate.”  He said, “I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq… lots of mistakes… but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, ‘Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD.’  He was the one who was skeptical.”

Woodward continued, “And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it’ll only take a week or two.’  And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or eighteen months, and so Bush pulled the trigger.  A mistake certainly can be argued, and there’s an abundance of evidence.  But there was no lie in this that I could find.”

Throughout calendar year 2002, policy-makers in Washington and around the world searched for ways in which to eliminate the threat posed by the weapons development programs of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  Finally, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council adopted, unanimously, Resolution 1441.  Under Resolution 1441, the Security Council recognized “the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security.”

Resolution 1441 affirmed that Security Council Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, authorized member nations to “use all necessary means (emphasis added) to uphold and implement Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660, and to restore international peace and security in the area.”  It was the authority of the U.N. that member states relied upon in their decision to use military force against Iraq.

Few members of Congress were anxious to see American ground forces engaged in a ground war in the Middle East.  Accordingly, during the summer of 2002, under the theory that no dictator can remain a dictator unless his people believe him to be both omnipotent and omniscient, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Porter Goss (R-FL), authorized funds for an “Infowar,” or SOFTWAR, offensive against Iraq… where SOFTWAR is defined as “the hostile utilization of global television to shape another nation’s will by changing its view of reality.”  The goal of the SOFTWAR offensive was to remove one or both of the omnipotence/omniscience advantages from Saddam, advancing the day when the Iraqi people would find it beneficial to overthrow the dictator.  (The SOFTWAR concept was the brainchild of my longtime friend, Chuck de Caro, an Information Warfare lecturer at the National Defense University and other agencies of the U.S. defense/intelligence establishment.)
The SOFTWAR offensive authorized by HPSCI, as a supplement to its FY 2003 defense authorization, read, in part, as follows:

SOFTWAR

The budget request contained $63.9 million in PE65710D8Z for Classified Programs for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence)…

The Committee notes that information operations (IO) is increasingly becoming a more significant weapon in modern military, and moreover, asymmetric operations…

The Committee is somewhat concerned that insufficient consideration is paid to developing a capability to shape the information sphere for asymmetric operations…  The Committee understands that there has been proposed a concept called Infowar, in which intelligence analysis of the threat Infosphere is coupled with the knowledge management functions of television, and an offensive management plan is developed for execution.  The Committee notes that this concept is different from more traditional IO approaches in that it does not “attack” the threat directly, but rather through the threat’s intended public information consumers.  The Committee believes this is a worthwhile new approach and believes the Intelligence Community should pursue it vigorously.

Therefore, the Committee recommends $73.9 million in PE65710D8Z, an increase of $10.0 Million in Classified Programs-C3I, for the SOFTWAR program.

However, the U.S. Senate, comprised of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, changed from Republican to Democratic control on May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) left the Republican Party to become an Independent, aligning himself with senate Democrats.  As a result, when the HPSCI authorization arrived in the U.S. Senate as a supplement to the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations bill, senate Democrats decided that it was more important for them to have a political issue to use against George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection campaign than to avert a ground war in Iraq.

During the months of September and October, 2002, when the HPSCI proposal was hopelessly stalled in the U.S. Senate, I assisted Chuck de Caro in lobbying key senators, seeking to gain their support for HPSCI’s SOFTWAR offensive.   We met with senior staff aides to then-Senator Dick Shelby (R-AL), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and then-Senator John Warner (R-VA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  And we met on several occasions with senior aides to then-Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who, along with the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, were the key players in the effort to fund the SOFTWAR offensive in Iraq.  But the enthusiasm of aides to Rockefeller and Byrd were not in sync with the political games that their employers were playing.

While Democrats made impassioned speeches on the floor of the senate, insisting that the Congress could not give George W. Bush the war powers he sought, and that a way had to be found to remove Saddam Hussein through non-violent means, they were busy behind closed doors instructing the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee to kill the HPSCI SOFTWAR authorization… our last best hope of averting a ground war in Iraq.  Senate Democrats were so intent upon creating an issue to use against George W., Bush that when they were asked to fund the project for a single dollar, just to get the offensive “in the pipeline,” with supplemental funding to be added during the 108th Congress, they refused even that.

Thus, as coalition forces prepared for war with seeming unstoppable momentum, the Iraq War Powers Act, P.L. 107-243, passed the Republican-controlled House on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133, and the Democrat-controlled Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.  Twenty-eight Democrats, including Senators Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry, and Biden voted in favor of the war powers resolution.

But that was not the last we heard of Sen. Rockefeller’s role in sabotaging the Iraq war effort.   In the December 3, 2005 edition of the Canada Free Press, writer Joan Swirsky published an article describing events before and during the Iraq War, titled, “Rockefeller’s Treachery,” republished in the May 21, 2015 edition of the Renew America website.

Ms. Swirsky reminds us of Rockefeller’s November 14, 2005 appearance on Fox News Sunday, during the period in which he served as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  In that interview, Rockefeller recalled, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 (months before the HPSCI proposal was approved by the House of Representatives) to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.”  It was an entirely baseless charge.

Ms. Swirsky went on to say, “By himself, and fully armed with America’s most sensitive intelligence, Sen. Rockefeller decided to go to three Arab countries – including Syria, which is on the State Department’s list of terrorist regimes and a close ally of Saddam Hussein – and literally alert them to what might befall a neighboring Arab state.”  Putting this sharply into context, Ms. Swirsky reminds us that, “This was Sen. Rockefeller’s judgment only four months after September 11th and a full year before President Bush expressed any intention to go to war.”

Finally, on March 20, 2003, with all multi-national coalition forces in place, the invasion of Iraq commenced.  And while Democrats continue to this day to try to convince the American people that George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to launch the Iraq War, there is a strong case to be made that it was their own politically-motivated treachery that was most responsible for our entrance into the war.  In that war, some 4,500 American men and women, and countless Iraqis, paid with their lives.  Clearly, their blood is on Democrat hands, not on Bush and Cheney’s hands.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Shutterstock.

Obama Cabinet Secretary is Booed and Jeered by American Jewish Activists

It is not often that Obama Cabinet secretaries get booed and jeered by American Jewish activists in public for presenting the Administration’s case for a possible P5+1 deal with Iran’s nuclear program.  Former Israeli Security officials were publicly accused of undermining military action ordered by Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Security Cabinet in 2010 against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But that is exactly what occurred at the Marquis Marriott in Midtown Manhattan Sunday June 7, 2015 at the annual Jerusalem Post Conference. Former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani, who also spoke on the Iran nuclear agreement issue at the Conference, told  the audience,  “You would have to be stupid not to be worried by a nuclear Iran,” run by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Further he suggested that Iran’s nuclear program was a more important security issue than the Islamic State.

Obama Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew endeavored to give the audience the Administration’s position on the possible P5+1 agreement with Iran that may emerge for Congressional review in 22 days. His speech was frequently disrupted by boos and jeers jarring him, despite requests by Jerusalem Post editor in chief Steve Linde to respect Lew and let him speak.   The Jerusalem Post reported Lew telling the crowd, “I would only ask that you listen to me as we listen to you.” A colleague, Professor Jay Bergman, Professor of Russian History at Central Connecticut State University, who attending the conference and witnessed the uproar reported,

I turned my chair and faced the rear while Lew was speaking — the way NYC cops did to de Blasio last winter.

I’d say about 1/3 of the audience booed Lew and jeered him repeatedly for the duration of his speech.

You can read the text of Lew’s speech here.

The Algemeiner reported:

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew faced a booing and jeering crowd on Sunday at the annual Jerusalem Post conference in New York.

As the Treasury secretary discussed the Obama administration’s commitment to Israeli security, the audience erupted into boos, with some laughing.

As Lew broached the topic of the current framework for a deal with Iran to contain its nuclear program, somebody called out “Chamberlain,” referring to the British prime minister who pursued a policy of appeasement with the Nazi regime in the years leading up to World War II.

At one point, The Jerusalem Post’s Editor-in-Chief Steve Linde took to the microphone urging audience members to quiet down, and calling the heckling “disrespectful.”

“I only ask that you listen to me as we’ve listened to you,” said a slightly flustered Lew, following his hostile reception from an audience about two-thirds full, at the Marriott Marquis events hall.

Lew went on to rebuff a recent report by the New York Times stating that Iran’s nuclear fuel stockpiles had gone up since signing an interim agreement in 2013, supposedly freezing its fuel production. Lew said the fluctuations were normal and expected.

He said Russia and China would not have veto power at the U.N. over the automatic “snap back” of sanctions should Iran be found to be cheating on the comprehensive nuclear deal, which faces a June 30 deadline.

Russia had previously said it would reject any “automaticity” in reimposing sanctions should inspectors discover Iran’s cheating on a nuclear deal, and many critics of the emerging agreement have insisted an international sanctions regime would be near-impossible to re-enforce once the current sanctions are lifted.

Additionally, the secretary of the treasury said the U.S. would continue to go after individuals and interests from Iran supporting terrorist activities in the Middle East.

Following Lew’s address, Israeli Infrastructure, Energy and Water Minister Yuval Steinitz attempted to simmer tensions by thanking Lew for his efforts to secure a spot for Israel in the elite Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development when he was Deputy Secretary of State.

Steinitz remarked, however, that under the current framework agreement, the details of which were announced in Lausanne, Switzerland in April, Iran might be able to reduce its breakout time for a nuclear weapon from 12 months to six months.

Watch this JPostTv YouTube video of Treasury Secretary Lew speech at the Jerusalem Post Annual Post conference amidst boos and jeers by audience members:

If that wasn’t enough pushback, there was the confrontation by Jerusalem Post columnist Carolyn Glick of former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and IDF chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi over the alleged refusal to honor an order by the security cabinet of Israeli Pm Netanyahu in 2010, because as Dagan contested, “it was an illegal order”.  Israel Matsav commented on his blog:

The exchange was:

“In 2010, according to a report from 2012 on the Israeli news program Uvda, we learned that two of the men on this panel were given an order to prepare a strike against Iran’s military installations and they refused,” Glick said.

“Because it was an illegal order,” Dagan interjected.

“You were ordered by the security cabinet,” Glick said.

“You don’t know what happened there,” Dagan answered.

It is not in your expert legal opinion to determine whether or not the prime minister of Israel and defense minister of Israel have a right to order Israel to take action in its national defense. We would not be where we are today. We would not now be faced with a situation where no international coalition will be built, where now we are seeing the United States moving forward at the end of the month to conclude a nuclear agreement with Tehran that will enable them to acquire the bomb. We would be in a different position,” Glick charged.

Ashkenazi said that what Glick was saying was “stupid,” later apologizing and saying he meant “insulting.” He rejected the idea that the military echelon could prevent the political echelon from attacking Iran.

Watch the JPostTV YouTube video of the Glick-Dagan-Ashkenazi exchange:

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

Pope Francis said to back sainthood for anti-Semitic priest

Canonization in the Roman Catholic Church has already become a charade, with recently deceased popes whose records are likely to be viewed by history quite differently from how they are now rushed to sainthood the way Roman Emperors used to be deified right after their deaths (no matter what rogues they had been in life), but this is even worse: it’s a validation of anti-Semitism, and indirectly of the jihad against Israel, at a time when the Pope should be declaring his solidarity with Israel as the nation bearing the brunt of the jihad that has devastated Christian communities across the Middle East.

The Catholic Church formally rejected anti-Semitism in all its forms at the Second Vatican Council. Why is it going in the other direction now?

No doubt Francis believes that to speak frankly about the jihad against Christians and Jews would be to harm the “dialogue.”

The Catholic Church hierarchy is following a disastrous and ultimately un-Christian line of weakness, willful blindness and submission in the face of evil; many Christians will die as a result.

“Pope Francis said to back sainthood for anti-Semitic priest,” Jerusalem Post, June 5, 2015 (thanks to David):

Leon Dehon, whose beatification was delayed in 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II, founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart order.

Pope Francis on Friday went on record as supporting the candidacy for sainthood of a French priest who is alleged to have espoused anti-Semitic views, the AFP news agency reported.

Leon Dehon, whose beatification was delayed in 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II, founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart order.

According to AFP, although he had been declared venerable by John Paul II, his path to sainthood hit a snag when Pope Benedict XVI ordered a commission to probe Dehon’s alleged anti-Semitism.

Despite questions about Dehon’s past, Pope Francis on Friday was quoted by media outlets as saying that he wished for the beatification process to “end well” and that the late priest should be judged within the context of the times in which he lived.

Dehon is reported to have called the Talmud a “manual of the bandit, corruptor, social destroyer” and anti-Semitism as a “sign of hope.”

He also believed that Jews were “thirsty for gold” and that “lust for money is a racial instinct in them.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope Francis Accepts Resignation of American Archbishop After Sex Abuse Scandal Fallout

Islamic State video calls for jihad in Balkans on eve of pope’s visit

Islamic State recruiting ‘highly trained foreigners’ to produce chemical weapons

How can they attract “highly trained foreigners” when they represent, as every Western authority will tell us, a twisted version of Islam that outrages all of the true, peaceful principles of the religion? The cognitive dissonance is absolute, but no one in any position of power or influence seems to notice or care.

“Isis recruiting ‘highly trained foreigners’ to produce chemical weapons,” by Alexander Ward, the Independent, June 7, 2015:

The terrorist group Isis is recruiting “highly trained professionals” to make chemical weapons – and has already used them in an attack.

The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, said the group was now undertaking “serious efforts” to develop their chemical weapons arsenal.

Speaking to the Australia Group, which is composed of nations against chemical weapons, she said: “Da’esh [Isis] is likely to have amongst its tens of thousands of recruits the technical expertise necessary to further refine precursor materials and build chemical weapons,” Ms Bishop added.

Ms Bishop’s speech is the latest concern that Isis is attempting to acquire nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, after India warned the extremists could obtain a nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

It was reported in March that Isis had been attacking Iraqi soldiers with roadside bombs containing chlorine gas in fighting around Tikrit, after footage emerged showing plumes of orange smoke emerging for the bombs.

It follows similar allegations that the extremists had released toxic gases in the eastern district of Kobani, during the siege of the town on the Syrian border, although it could not be confirmed.

Ms Bishop added: “Apart from some crude and small scale endeavours, the conventional wisdom has been that the terrorist intention to acquire and weaponise chemical agents has been largely aspirational.

“The use of chlorine by Da’esh [Isis], and its recruitment of highly trained professionals, including from the West, have revealed far more serious efforts in chemical weapons development.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan Muslim scholars: Jihad groups have “nothing to do with Islam”

Saudi Supreme Court upholds guilty verdict against blogger for insulting Islam

Islamic State burns 80-year-old Christian woman alive

Baltimore Lawmakers, Not its Citizens, Are the Problem

Sadly, what’s happening in Baltimore shouldn’t surprise anyone.

You cannot have an environment where the political leaders leverage chaos for personal political gain and expect those on the side of law and order to sweep in and win the day. The real tragedy here is the growing fear now residing in the hearts of the good citizens of Baltimore, those being subjected to daily threats of deadly violence because of the disturbing and irresponsible actions of its political elite.

Baltimore Shooting Stats
Baltimore Arrests Stats

By now, most of us know the name Freddie Gray. But how many of us know the name Eladio Bennett or Kester Browne? And, how many of us have heard the name Shaquil Hinton? These are but a few of the more than 50 lives taken before their time since the death of Freddie Gray, yet their lives and untimely passing have drawn but a sliver of the attention paid to Freddie Gray.

We can’t help the good citizens of Baltimore, and America’s many struggling inner cities, if we are afraid to shine a spotlight on the real problem. The problem is an organized far-left cabal, which has hijacked the party of JFK, and an opposing political party with few leaders willing to confront them. The organized far-left has accurately calculated that they can leverage chaos and use it to place blame, and divide us into their (not our) pre-selected racial, cultural, religious, gender, and sexual preference silos. They also use this blame strategy to highlight the fictitious failings of our system of government, bed-rocked in freedom and individual liberty. Then, once the division and blame propaganda has set in, with few in the mainstream media willing to fight back against this narrative, they propose a better way “forward” where, conveniently, they are empowered, not you.

The new “way forward” relies on more of your money going to them through higher taxes and expensive government programs. It takes away your ability to make basic health care decisions for your family, and it orders your child to attend the school they choose, not the one you choose. If you were designing a system to fail then you couldn’t design it any better than this “way forward.”

It’s not just the political penalty we pay, where we lose control over our money through their relentless push for government empowerment subsequent to a crisis, we can also lose our lives. The complete lack of leadership in Baltimore and the constant apologies for lawbreakers who were given “room to destroy,” while ensuring an expedited rush to judgment for the police officers involved in the Freddie Gray incident, has broken what has made this country the global, historical exception; fidelity to process. Process, and the rule of law and order, has enabled us to prosper economically and become a global example for freedom and liberty. When this process breaks down and we become a country of rule by discretion, rather than rule by law, the entire system breaks down and it filters down to the police officers on the street.

Having been a law enforcement officer with the N.Y.P.D. and the U.S. Secret Service I have seen first-hand the dangers law enforcement officers knowingly face every day for little money, and even less accolades. All these men and women ask is that the cities and towns they have pledged to protect and serve grant them the same process and legal rights as the citizens they protect. I don’t know what happened behind those doors of the van Freddie Gray was placed in and, if it turns out that the officers involved committed a crime, then they should be prosecuted. But, when far-left legal scholars and conservative thought leaders agree that the charges leveled against the police officers by Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby were political, and not firmly based on evidence, then we have a serious problem.

Police officers are an intelligent lot and they see this street justice prosecution as a direct attack on their ability to fight crime. Police officers are given tremendous discretion to combat crime and do their jobs and they are not legally mandated to arrest every person for every violation of the law they witness. I can imagine a scenario where many of these formerly discretionary police actions for non-violent, nuisance-crime-type activities, are not happening because the officers feel that the city of Baltimore will not be on their side if a police action for public urination turns into a use-of-force scenario. Sadly, it is this man or woman, who is engaged in this nuisance crime, and who is not confronted by law enforcement, that is typically the one who walks out of the alley and robs, rapes or kills someone.

In short, politicians and government are the problem in Baltimore, not the citizens. Nothing will change in Baltimore until the political leaders, who worship at the altar of big government are replaced by those who believe that the future of Baltimore is in the hands of the liberty of its citizens, fidelity to the rule of law, order and process, and not the permission of its government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of the Mayor of Baltimore is by Patrick Semansky | AP Photo.

Advanced Placement U.S. History a threat to America?

boardmembers14I received a copy of an email from Doug Lewis a concerned parent who lives in Collier County, Florida. After reading a column titled “College Board’s Reckless Spin on U.S. History” Doug decided to write the Collier County School Board about his concerns regarding Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. History courses given in the district.

Doug wrote:

Dear Board,

In view of state law, District policy and campaign pledges pertaining to support for the elimination of one-sided and biased curriculum, I respectfully request that you reach out to the fifty-five (55) distinguished scholars who published an open letter on June 2, 2015 protesting the one-sided and politicized curriculum framework introduced last year by the College Board to prepare high school students for the Advanced Placement Exam in U.S. history.

The scholars assert that the College Board’s framework exposes the teaching of American history to “a grave new risk.” It does this and worse…

If you confirm the findings of the fifty-five (55) distinguished scholars as referenced in the attached link, I respectfully request that the District take immediate action and discontinue all AP US History course offerings for the 2015-2016 school year and until such time as the curriculum framework complies with State US history standards, District policy and campaign pledges pertaining to the elimination of one-sided and biased curriculum.

Best,

Doug Lewis, parent

What concerns teachers, students, academics and parents alike is the replacing of U.S. history with “identity politics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines identity politics as:

The laden phrase “identity politics” has come to signify a wide range of political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups. Rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestos, or party affiliation, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.

Peter Berkowitz, from Real Clear Politics wrote:

Earlier this year Gordon Wood, a preeminent scholar of the American founding, took to the pages of The Weekly Standard—a noteworthy choice since so many of Wood’s non-academic essays have appeared [in] The New Republic and The New York Review of Books—to explain the decline of his discipline. His recent essay lamented that the rise of identity politics has all but blotted out traditional scholarship. “The inequalities of race and gender,” he wrote, “now permeate much of academic history-writing, so much so that the general reading public that wants to learn about the whole of our nation’s past has had to turn to history books written by non-academics who have no PhDs and are not involved in the incestuous conversations of the academic scholars.” [Emphasis added]

Identity politics is indoctrination and bias against the norm, elevating the abnormal, a certain race, political movement or creating tribes rather than promoting assimilation into the American ideals of freedom and liberty.

AP U.S. History can create an elite class that will become the future leaders unlike those who founded America such as: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin. Rather AP U.S. History is creating a new class of future leaders in the mold of those who look at America not as a shining example but rather as a nation that must be fundamentally changed to meet the ideologies and causes of identity politics – the few versus the many.

If local school boards do not see what is happening, or see what is happening but do nothing to stop it, then traditional scholarship with disappear.

The future of America lies in the hands of our children, but will our children create a different America based on what they are taught rather than what actually happened?

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

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

AP U.S. History is teaching collectivism, not individualism. It’s about promoting certain social groups at the expense of others. AP U.S. History is not educating our youth about the the unique belief system upon which America was created a Constitutional Republic which codifies the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

If our elite youth are taught the wrong things then they will remember the wrong things not what is historically true. That is what has Doug and other parents so concerned.

RELATED ARTICLE: The drive to take ‘America’ out of U.S. history

Hollywood Elite to Erect Memorial to all Dead Home Invaders

HOLLYWOOD, CA – The silver screen’s most elite names and faces gathered at a discrete location, to discuss their disastrous participation in Michael Bloomberg’s first annual Gun Violence Awareness Day on June 2nd.

Wear orange

The stars had every reason to be concerned after their collective wearing of orange shirts to commemorate all those who have lost their lives to gun violence went largely unnoticed by the general public. Attended by Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda, to name just a few, the discussion over cocktails and entrées extended into the late evening, until all celebrities came to a consensus that the best way to raise awareness for the victims of gun violence was to erect a statue of an unarmed man with a flashlight and a bag over his shoulder, climbing through a window.

Wear orangePenn, the leader of the Coalition of Film Actors Against Gun Violence, explained his support for the memorial.

“We live in a nation of small-minded, gun-toting ignoramuses who fail to realize that the reason for economically challenged individuals to enter strangers’ homes is not that they are criminals out to do them harm, but in actuality it manifests the desire of the disadvantaged classes to obtain items of materialistic culture that our capitalist society conditions them to think they need,” he stated.

“Deprived by the system of the means to afford expensive things, they try to acquire them the only way they can, by entering someone’s home and taking it. The so-called ‘burglars’ and ‘home invaders’ are, in fact, nothing more than casualties of America’s perpetual war on the poor and racial minorities,” said the star of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Adorned with a golden plaque saying, “To all those lost to the mindless pull of a trigger,” the memorial is expected to appear in the center of the famous Hollywood Forever Cemetery, which will make it officially the first monument erected at a U.S. cemetery for political motives. Despite objections by locals and right-wing groups, Penn and his celebrity alliance claim that the monument will bear as much dignified significance as any war memorial in American history.

Jane Fonda supported Penn’s statement by saying, “It takes a lot of courage to enter a home of a complete stranger. We should honor their bravery, while at the same time recognize their sacrifice as a shameful legacy of conservative policies. Hopefully, this sacred memorial will raise awareness and help end the bloodshed,” said the actress famous for her portrayal of a gun-toting interstellar beauty in Barbarella.

The movement has been able to raise over $250,000 in donations since its inception yesterday, with most of the money coming from California’s wealthiest gated communities, protected by private security companies and teams of armed bodyguards.

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

The War of a Million Cuts

war by a million cutsIn early June 2015 the new government of Israeli PM Netanyahu took on the international Boycott, Divestment Sanctions (BDS) action by French cell phone giant Orange. Orange was seeking to withdraw its name from an Israeli company, Partner Communications, Ltd. The Los Angeles Times reported  this latest BDS kerfuffle involving Israel:

Orange said Thursday that it “ultimately” planned to pull its brand name from Israel, giving a boost to an international boycott movement while enraging the Israeli government and the local franchisee.

In a news release from Paris, the company said it wished to “ultimately end this brand license agreement.” It insisted it was making a business decision, saying it did not want to maintain the brand’s presence in countries where the French company does not actually operate, as is the case in Israel.

The statement capped a tense 24 hours after Orange Chief Executive Stephane Richard at a Cairo news conference Wednesday said that the company would love to terminate “tomorrow” the contract granting the Israeli cellular company Partner Communications Ltd. use of the Orange brand. He added, however, that the legalities would have to be sorted out or the French company would incur staggering expenses.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius responded swiftly saying:

Although it is for the president of the Orange group to determine the commercial strategy of the company, France is firmly opposed to a boycott of Israel.

Also, France and the European Union have a consistent policy on settlement-building that is known to all.

This occurred in less than 48 hours after Orange CEO Stephane Richard’s meeting in Egypt with BDS campaign representatives. He said he “would to ultimately cut ties with Israeli Partner Communications, Ltd. (Partner) because of cell phone use in the disputed territories where Palestinians allege human rights abuses occur. Richard admitted he couldn’t do that as the French government owns 25% of the cell phone company which has a 10 year contract with Partner, allowing it to use the name “Orange.” Richard was pummeled for his statement in comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu and from Israeli American Hollywood mogul, Haim Saban, who holds a significant stake in Partner. Netanyahu called on France to repudiate BDS and what he deemed the “miserable actions” of Orange. Saban said on Israel’s Channel 2 that Richard “succumbs” to antisemitic pressure groups and ought to be fired.

L’affaire Orange ended just as abruptly as it began with a phone conversation between Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom and cell phone CEO Richard. The Jerusalem Post reported this exchange posted by Shalom on his Facebook page:

I spoke with the CEO of Orange, Stephane Richard, and I told him that the people of Israel are angered and hurt by his statements. I told him how it saddened me that he had turned into a tool in the struggle against Israel and that he had lent a hand to the assault by Israel-haters who are trying to harm Israel not just militarily but economically. Richard apologized for his remarks that he made during a conference in Egypt and told me that he is a friend of Israel. He claimed that his comments were not properly understood and that he spoke only about the economic aspect [of his decision]. He apologized on behalf of himself and the company for the remarks, and he said that they condemn all forms of boycotts.

As the L.A. Times reported the original statement by Orange CEO Richard caught Israeli officials flat footed. That prompted Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely to hold an emergency meeting which resulted in a letter sent to Richard saying: “I appeal to you to refrain from being a party to the industry of lies which unfairly targets Israel.”

Still concerning the Israeli Foreign Ministry was the recent adoption of a BDS resolution voted by the UK Student Union and the recognition of a Hamas–related ‘Palestinian Return’ NGO in a vote by Turkey and Iran at the UN. There was also the spike reported by the ADL in BDS resolution votes at US universities seeking divestment of endowment holdings of securities of Israeli companies and securities of US companies doing business with Israel. The UK Student Union vote prompted Israeli PM Netanyahu during welcoming remarks for visiting Canadian Foreign Minister Robert Nicholson to say:

They boycott Israel but they refuse to boycott ISIS. [ISIS] burns people alive in cages and the national student groups in Britain refuse to boycott ISIS and have boycotted Israel. That tells you everything you want to know about the BDS movement. They condemn Israel and do not condemn ISIS; they condemn themselves.

The Anti-Israel BDS campaign formally began in 2005 with formation of the Palestinian BDS National Committee. The international Palestinian BDS project is modeled on the South African Anti-Apartheid sanctions campaign of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. It was an outgrowth of the UN Human Rights Commission Durban I Conference against racism in 2000 prompted by Palestinian and so-called ant-racist anti-Israel NGOs. The International Palestinian BDS initiative endeavored to depict Israel as allegedly violating Palestinian human rights as an occupying power in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel’s kerfuffle with French cell phone giant Orange is an example of a long overdue strategy articulated in a new book by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, The War of a Million Cuts: The Struggle  against the Deligitimization of Israel and the Jews, and the Growth of New Anti-SemitismDr. Gerstenfeld is the former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a recognized expert on European and Global Antisemitism. His latest work on the rise of the “new Antisemitism” is a masterful compendium of the origins and contemporary sources of Jew hatred, delegitimizing and demonizing Israel and world Jewry, as well as a strategy for Israel to combat this political war against the Jewish State. In our 2013 interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld, “Anti-Israelism is Anti-Semitism,” in response to a question on what Israel and world Jewry could do to combat this, he replied:

In post-modern times, there is no single remedy against widespread hate-mongering. The government of Israel has to set up a much more comprehensive infrastructure to fight this war and it must properly fund it. One must develop a detailed concept of how this is going to be done.

In The War of a Million Cuts, Gerstenfeld proposes, the equivalent of the US WWII Office of War Information, funded at upwards of $250 million by Israel. He notes the compelling rationale:

There is no Israeli organizational structure that is capable of overseeing the battlefield, let alone one that combats incitement abroad as well as anti-Semitism in a systematic way. This is despite the fact that the war of a million cuts has been raging for so long.

Such an overview of the battlefield would involve understanding who Israel’s most dangerous hate-mongering enemies are, what their various modes of activity are, how their operations interrelate, what impact they have, and so on. Such an agency would also assess and develop the best ways of combating the aggressors and guiding Israel’s allies on how they can help fight the enemy. No other country is confronted with a propaganda onslaught of such magnitude.

With Israel’s premier expertise in cybersecurity, that might entail development of a’ big data’ approach to target and fine tune messaging to combat Anti-Israel propaganda. Illustrative of that was the development by both the IDF and ad hoc social media groups at Israeli universities to rebut pro-Hamas and Palestinian disinformation through adroit use of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube videos in the midst of Operation Defensive Edge. In the US colleagues involved with the National Security Task Force of the Lisa Benson show held a combined Facebook Twitter Rally in the midst of last summer’s Hamas rocket and tunnel war that at its peak was sending more than 600 messages per hour. That effort caught the attention of several US Congressional Representatives and even a reporter from Al Jazeera America using the hashtag “#defundsHamas.”

Carolyn Glick in a Jerusalem Post op-ed on the Orange and more recent BDS attacks against Israel noted the daunting task ahead in the expanding war against BDS:

Israel’s ability to defend itself and its citizens is constrained first and foremost by its shrinking capacity to defend itself diplomatically. Its enemies in the diplomatic arena have met with great success in their use of diplomatic condemnation and intimidation to force Israel to limit its military operations to the point where it is incapable of defeating its enemies outright.

The flagship of the diplomatic war against Israel is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Participants in the movement propagate and disseminate the libelous claim that Israel’s use of force in self-defense is inherently immoral and illegal. Over the years BDS activists’ assaults on Israel’s right to exist have become ever more shrill and radical. So, too, whereas just a few years ago their operations tended to be concentrated around military confrontations, today they are everyday occurrences. And their demands become greater and more openly anti-Semitic from week to week and day to day.

These latest BDS attacks against Israel aroused casino mogul and GOP campaign financier Sheldon Adelson. Following this episode, he called for an emergency meeting of likeminded anti-BDS colleagues at his flagship Casino in Las Vegas

On June 4, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina signed into law a model anti-BDS law for adoption by other states and possibly at the federal level through amendment of the existing 1977 Anti-Boycott legislation that bars participation of U.S. persons in boycotts, not sanctioned by the government. The blog Legal Insurrection reported:

[The new law prohibits[s] the state from doing business with firms or individuals who engage in a “boycott of a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade.”

The South Carolina bill was signed into law a few weeks after Illinois passed legislation prohibiting the state from investing its pension funds in businesses that boycott Israel. Shortly afterwards Prof. Jacobson [of Cornell Law School] reported that New York had started working on a bill similar to the Illinois bill.

According to a spokesman for the Israel Allies Foundation, “a bloc of sponsors across 18 states has already committed to introducing similar legislation in their next legislative cycle.” The Israel Allies Foundation is working on fighting BDS at the state level.

If adopted in other jurisdictions in the U.S. the South Carolina model might bring a halt to state university student associations passing anti-Israel divestment resolutions. It also might bring up short groups like J Street, the New Israel Fund and some Federations that have supported BDS proponents.

It may augur well that a colleague of Dr. Gerstenfield’s at the JCPA, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dr. Dore Gold, was appointed Director General at the Israeli Foreign Ministry along with Deputy Foreign Minister Ms. Hotovely. What could emerge from these events and Netanyahu government appointments just might be the political warfare agency suggested by Gerstenfeld to ultimately rein in the rampant Jew hatred in the world directed in an unceasing BDS campaign demonizing Israel.

In The War of a Million Cuts, Gerstenfeld examines in definitive detail the classical forms of Antisemitism from early Church, nativist European blood libel accusations to the sanguinary racist forms that originated in the Spanish inquisition. These later emerged in 19th Century France and Austria with Antisemitic motifs of dual loyalty accusations and motifs of global media and financial controls depicted in editorial cartoons by the figurative Jewish octopus often conveyed in Arab and Iranian propaganda in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Those motifs include those drawn from Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pictorial dehumanization of Jews which ultimately led to Hitler’s final solution – murdering six million European Jewish men, women and children. As a child, Gerstenfeld was hidden with a Dutch Christian family during the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands during WWII.

His latest book covers the re-emergence of Antisemitism in post-war Europe against the background of the creation of the third Jewish commonwealth, Israel and the Palestinian conflicts that triggered a new international Anti-Israel campaign. A campaign fostered in part by the growth of non-selective mass Muslim immigration into Europe and the West which brought with it Islamic Jew hatred drawn from foundational Qur’anic documents. Gerstenfeld portrays these common motifs and themes drawn from these ancient and contemporary sources and the means by which they are disseminated in print and electronic social media. Against this background, he highlights evidence from contemporary surveys exposing the depths of virulent Antisemitism in France, Holland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and the UK which threaten both domestic Jewish populations and Israelis. In addition to Palestinian and Islamic organizations and media, the new Antisemitism derives from anti-Israel positions of international mainstream Christian NGOs and churches, European extremist left and neo-fascist political parties, nominally friendly state leaders, biased Western media, academia and even self-hating Jews. Then there is Lawfare by the Palestinian Authority in international and even US courts directed at criminalizing Israel’s self defense and civil actions against accusations from corrupt Palestinian leaders. Despite the absence of an official Israeli political warfare agency Gerstenfeld commends NGOs, social media and academic groups in the US, EU and Israel that combat Anti-Israelism. Groups like Palestine Media Watch, NGO Monitor, CAMERA, StandWithUs and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East that monitor, disclose abuses and drawn attention to these developments arousing activism.

In his 2013 bookDemonizing Israel and the Jews Gerstenfeld developed the stunning estimate of 150 million Europeans who dislike Israel and Jews. This figure is based on survey responses to questions about Israel’s alleged “genocidal” behavior towards Palestinian Arabs conducted in major EU member countries.

How bad the level of global Antisemitism is reflected in a statistic that Dr. Gerstenfeld drew from the 2014 ADL Global 100 survey results. For every Jewish person in the world there are 700 Antisemites. That would make Antisemites the equivalent of the third largest country in the world with an estimated 1 billion people.

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