Why Are Those Jews So Assertive?

The selectivity of the outrage against Israel would be nonsensical if it were really about human rights. But it’s not.

The recent war in Gaza spawned anti-Semitic riots across Europe, demonstrations in the United States, and the publication of malicious blood libels all over the world.  There were civilian casualties to be sure, but the numbers reported by Hamas were inflated and included many terrorists falsely identified as noncombatants. Though the loss of civilian life is regrettable, it occurred in Gaza because of Hamas’s strategy of using human shields and launching rockets from schools, hospitals, mosques and residential neighborhoods.

As usually happens when Israel defends herself, she was falsely accused of human rights abuses and war crimes.  Her detractors were mute, however, when Hamas deliberately targeted Israeli civilians and killed its own citizens. They were also silent as hundreds of thousands were being killed in Iraq and Syria, and have been restrained in their response to the wave of bloody jihad being waged across the Mideast by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”).

The selectivity of the outrage against Israel would be nonsensical if it were really about human rights. But it’s not. Israel is maligned instead for having the temerity to defend herself and, in a larger sense, the existential rights of Jews everywhere. Even in the twenty-first century, the world appears to prefer docile Jews who know their place over those who forcefully defend themselves, their values and their homeland.

The international community can accept suffering Jews, subservient Jews, assimilationist Jews, and dead Jews. What it cannot tolerate are confident Jews who protect themselves and their interests without compromise or apology.

It seems that many progressives feel the same way when they denounce Jewish assertiveness as chauvinistic and advocate dialogue with organizations and movements that seek to destroy Israel and her people. Regardless of whether such behavior arises from a ghetto mentality, Stockholm  syndrome, self-loathing or simple ignorance, Jews who reflexively criticize Israel but rationalize Islamist terror and rejectionism are complicit in enabling the anti-Semitism that is sweeping the globe.

Multiple surveys have documented rising anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States, and the data are consistent with law enforcement statistics showing increased violence against Jews and their property. Anti-Semitism is apparent among those who disparage Jewish nationalism, call for boycotts of Israel, and make false accusations of apartheid to delegitimize the Jewish State. It is also common in Arab-Muslim society, where it is taught in schools, heard in sermons, and disseminated in false claims of Israeli atrocities and Jewish conspiracy theories that are reported as fact in newspapers from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and all points in between.

Progressive apologists artificially distinguish between disparagement of Israel and hatred of Jews, but it is a distinction without a difference. The United Nations Human Rights Council spends much of its time accusing Israel of heinous crimes without a scintilla of proof, but ignores actual atrocities that routinely occur everywhere else in the Mideast.

The UNHRC expresses little if any concern regarding the harassment and murder of Copts and other Christians, the repression of women, and the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities in Arab or Muslim countries, and has not addressed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Syria and Iraq nearly as much as it has condemned Israel. Though it entertains bogus claims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it does not chastise Hamas for starting the conflict in the first place, or for using human shields, executing its own people, and calling for jihad and genocide.

Only Israel is singled out for opprobrium, although she is the only free and open democracy in the Mideast – one in which citizens live where they want, speak and worship freely, vote, and serve in government, regardless of religion or ethnicity. The UNHRC’s anti-Israel agenda can only be explained by institutional Jew-hatred, which is enabled by a parent body that tolerates human rights violations by dictatorial and theocratic regimes and provides a bully pulpit for global anti-Semitism. A cynical observer might suspect the U.N. of actively promoting Jew-hatred based on the disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel for imagined offenses as compared to the organization’s silence regarding real crimes committed by countries that engage in ethnic cleansing and seek Israel’s destruction. The hypocrisy reached a crescendo when Israel was unfairly blamed for acting “disproportionately” in a war that was instigated by Hamas.

Hamas violated international law by using human shields, shooting rockets from residential areas and institutions, and targeting civilian populations.  In contrast, Israel went to unprecedented lengths to minimize the risk to civilians. The IDF gave advanced warnings to Gaza residents via mass leaflets, texts, emails, and mechanized phone calls.  Israel’s conduct was a far cry from that of coalition allies in Afghanistan, where carpet bombing killed or injured many noncombatants. Or of Great Britain, whose bombing of Dresden during World War II inflicted heavy civilian casualties.

Despite the humanity shown by Israel in the face of unprovoked aggression, and although Hamas started the war by firing rockets at Israeli civilians, supporters of Hamas and the Palestinians violently protested and attacked Jews wherever they were found.  After the war began, Jewish men and women were beaten in France, England and Sweden; synagogues and Jewish institutions were attacked and vandalized across Europe; and Great Britain saw an astronomical increase in anti-Jewish agitation.

Moreover, protest rhetoric from Europe, the Mideast and the liberal entertainment industry was anti-Semitic in both tone and content. Although some vacuous celebrities who condemned Israel are now scurrying to deny they are anti-Semitic, the implication of nefarious stereotypes and blood lust imagery betrays the hollowness of their denials. Or their ignorance.

Apologists for Hamas continue to promote the fallacy that demonstrations against Jewish targets are understandable responses to supposed Israeli aggression. But how do violent assaults against Jews constitute political statements?  How could attempts by Muslim mobs to force their way into synagogues in France and Switzerland be considered acceptable forms of protest? And how do cries of “death to the Jews” by hostile protestors or the publication of blood libels by Arab and left-wing media outlets constitute legitimate commentary?

Such acts are acceptable only if the target group is deemed deserving of abuse, and this has certainly been the case for Jews during their long years of exile in Europe and the Arab world.  The Nazis may have mastered the art of genocide, but they did not create anti-Semitism. European hostility to the Jews was constant after the rise of Constantine, manifesting in massacres, canonical abuses, ghetto confinement, bloody crusades, pogroms, social isolation and economic exclusion.

Notwithstanding lip service paid to Jewish suffering after the Holocaust, an undercurrent of hatred persisted that continued to portray Jews as aliens even though many had lived on the continent longer than some of the peoples who came to be known as Europeans. There were pogroms in Poland after the Nazis were defeated and merciless persecution by the Soviets until the end of the Cold War.

Despite the myth of tolerance for “People of the Book,” Jews in Islamic lands have been subjugated, abused, confined and segregated, forcibly converted and massacred, and have seen their synagogues desecrated and property confiscated over the centuries. As a conquered people dispossessed of their birthright, moreover, they were treated derisively and denied the right to sovereignty in their homeland.  A review of Maimonides’ Iggeret Teman (“Letter to the Jews of Yemen”), written in the twelfth century, shows how brutally Jews were treated during the Golden Age of Islam.

As hostile as Europeans have been to Jews historically, many of the recent anti-Semitic incidents in France, England and elsewhere have been linked to the Middle Eastern immigrant communities in those countries, often with approval and support from the radical left. Interestingly, the anti-immigration right-wing parties in Europe – particularly in France – have been more tolerant of Jews, who live by the law of the land, than of immigrants who believe in Sharia and seek to impose it on others.

Though anti-Semitism was never eradicated, its proliferation today is enabled by a mainstream media that demonizes Israel and fails to report war crimes and abuses committed by Hamas and other Islamist groups.  The media employs moral equivalency to present terrorism as an understandable consequence of alleged Israeli crimes and western interventionism.  The massacres of civilians in Syria and Iraq are reported, but not with the same urgency used to slander Israel and impugn her legitimacy. And until the beheading of American journalist James Foley, there was scant acknowledgment of the threat posed by ISIS in the Mideast and beyond. The mainstream press accepted President Obama’s dismissive characterization of ISIS as junior varsity last January, and until recently depicted those who warned of the threat and demanded a strategy for confronting it as alarmists.

Whereas the President certainly had incentive to misstate the nature of the ISIS menace because it undercut his assurances that global terrorism was on the wane, the media was obligated as the watchdog of government to parse and refute such statements. But it failed miserably to do so, which was not surprising given the lack of objectivity with which it covers the Obama administration and events in the Mideast in general. The media shows its partisan stripes whenever it misreports Israeli defensive actions as aggressive, or refuses to retract stories of Israeli attacks on civilian targets later shown to have been bombed by Hamas, or turns a blind eye to Hamas war crimes, or accepts inflated Palestinian casualty statistics without verification.

The media legitimizes Hamas by failing to characterize its actions honestly, and strengthens a cultural mindset that considers attacks on Jews to be understandable reactions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  There is a presumption that Israel is always at fault – regardless of who fires the first shot – and a tendency to sensationalize alleged Israeli transgressions without vetting sources or checking facts.

Mainstream outlets often repeat dubious claims as fact, such as whenTime Magazine recently ran a video report claiming, among other things, that the IDF was harvesting the internal organs of dead Arabs. The offending allegation was retracted and deleted last month after Honest Reporting exposed it, complaining that it constituted a blood libel.

The banalization of anti-Semitism is also facilitated by those who promote BDS efforts, support Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political parties, and express hatred for Israel using traditional anti-Jewish buzzwords. The situation is exacerbated by Jews on the left who defend anti-Semitic progressives by artificially distinguishing them as political anti-Zionists.  Such distinctions are disingenuous, however, as both terms reflect the same hatred. To say that the Jews – unlike any other people on earth – have no indigenous right to sovereignty in their homeland is to treat them differently and deny their history. This is surely anti-Semitic.

Unfortunately, the tendency to excuse or ignore anti-Semitism is not limited to the hard left, but can be found among mainstream liberals who validate Palestinian claims that repudiate Jewish history, advocate dialogue with groups that have extremist ties, and continue to vouch for an administration that has been more hostile than any other to the Jewish State. This tendency was already apparent back in 2008, when Jewish Democrats refused to question Mr. Obama’s long-standing associations with anti-Semites and Israel-bashers, and belittled the concern of those Jews who did.

It is also apparent in the reluctance of some to acknowledge the possible influence of anti-Semitism in crimes committed against Jews.  This may have been the case with the murder of Rabbi Joseph Raksin, who was shot and killed while walking to Shabbat services last month in Miami, Florida.  Some were hesitant to suggest the murder was a hate crime, and the police were quick to deny any evidence of bias.  However, the investigation is still open and no arrests have been made. It would thus seem peculiar to discount potential motives before all the facts are in, particularly when the synagogue to which Rabbi Raksin was walking had recently been defaced with anti-Jewish graffiti, other acts of targeted vandalism had been reported around that time, and a pro-Hamas rally had been held in the community a few weeks earlier.

If anti-Semitism in fact plays a role in such incidents, the reluctance to assess and identify it will not eliminate the problem. To the contrary, history suggests that timidity only invites further abuse, compromises the Jews’ standing in society, and paves the way for exclusion, dehumanization and genocide.  Jewish survival has never been assured by avoiding confrontations or placating aggressors.

For the phrase “never again” to be more than an empty platitude, Jews need to confront their detractors, defend their values, and protect themselves without shame or embarrassment. Constructive audacity is as important for protecting the Diaspora community as it is for Israel. Lack of fortitude, however, could be disastrous for both.

The War Neither Obama, Nor Any Other Nation Wants to Fight

Two trends have emerged since President Obama’s September 10thAA - Obama Stop ISIS speech regarding his intention to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.

One is the understanding that he will not commit U.S. troops as “boots on the ground” to fight a force estimated variously between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on intelligence guesswork.

The other trend is the reluctance of any other nation to engage in the warfare that would be necessary to defeat the terrorist army occupying northern Iraq and a swath of Syria.

This was initially signaled at the NATO meeting in Wales and, according to a September 12 page one report in The Wall Street Journal, “A day after President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to combat Islamic State militants, Washington’s international allies didn’t make clear how far they would go to join military operations even as they pledged support.”

Who would support a President who said he had no intention of being “dragged back into a war in Iraq”?

That is not a “strategy.” It’s surrender. It is an admission of a lack of intent to confront what will surely emerge as a major threat to the Middle East and the West.

Word Games

The Obama administration was initially reluctant to even call it a war. It was a “counter-intelligence operation” according to Secretary of State Kerry.  The President and his administration have spent six and a half years labeling terrorist attacks as anything other than acts of war. But 9/11 was an act of war.

The killing of soldiers at Fort Hood was called “workplace violence” when it was clearly a terrorist act. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us that the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three security personnel was just a bunch of militants angered by a video no one ever saw.

In Iraq—a nation now in name only—its military fled from combat with ISIS. The result has been a demonstration of the barbarity of ISIS, killing Muslims and “infidels” alike in large numbers. The videos of the beheadings of two American journalists sent the U.S. a message that dramatically altered the simmering reluctance of Americans to make war on the Islamic State. The beheading of a British citizen will no doubt echo the U.S. population’s desire for revenge and a full-scale war on ISIS.

Middle East expert, Walid Phares, says ISIS’s message is that it has concluded that neither the U.S. nor Great Britain will engage it with troops, preferring only air strikes. No military expert believes that will be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

Turkey, that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran, is fearful for the lives of nearly fifty of its diplomats taken hostage in Mosul when it was captured in June. They have cause, but Turkey has been increasingly Islamic in its outlook for nearly a decade, shedding its secular approach to governance. It has refused to allow the U.S. to use bases there to fight ISIS.

In Europe, Germany said it would not take part in any airstrikes against ISIS. Other EU nations will likely follow its lead. In a similar fashion, Arab nations have not indicated any intention to actively—militarily—participate in what appears to be a “coalition” in name only.

A post by Steve Eichler, CEO of Tea Party, Inc. says it all:

“We are in the gravest of situations. Our military—once the most powerful in the world—is crumbling.

Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate.

He’s deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we citizens open to attack.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

Our Army has not trained for six months. Meanwhile there is tremendous domestic and foreign unrest taking place. “To have the Chief of Staff of the Army confess to the world that our Army has not trained for six months is highly disturbing,” says former Florida Congressman Allen West. ‘[It] should make us all sleep less soundly at night.’”

Obama has been destroying our military in every way he can and, other than air power, he has a greatly reduced infantry and other forces with which to wage a ground war in Iraq. ISIS knows this and so does the rest of the world.

Not since the end of World War II and our ascendance as a superpower has America fallen to such a loss and lack of real power both militarily and economically.

The years since Obama’s election in 2008 have been an unqualified disaster for the nation, the West, and the rest of the world. They have looked to the U.S. to lead and now see a U.S. that has twice elected a man whose entire agenda has been to abandon leadership.

To some, his actions reek of treason.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Shale Boom Drives Net Petroleum Imports to 28-Year Low

Tapping into domestic energy resources with hydraulic fracturing continues to improve America’s energy security by pushing net petroleum imports to their lowest level in 28 years. John Kingston at Platts reports on new Energy Information Administration data:

US petroleum import dependence in June dropped to 4.659 million b/d. That’s only the second time in the post-shale era that number had been less than 5 million b/d. And the last time the US recorded a number that low was back in 1986.

U.S. Net Imports: Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

For a larger view click on the chart.

 Energy security benefits look even better when you consider North America as a whole:

[T]he US certainly would view Canada or Mexico as a supplier less prone to disruption than many other countries. So once you take away US net import dependence with Canada, that number slips to 2.282 million b/d. Take away Mexico and you’re down to 1.962 million b/d. Those numbers are easily the lowest ever recorded by the EIA. So in essence, that 1.962 million b/d of net import dependence is the figure for the rest of the world outside North America. In 2005, that US net import dependence figure after Canada and Mexico were taken out regularly recorded numbers in excess of 9 million b/d.

Texas and North Dakota continue to see success in their shale oil development. Texas produced over 3 million barrels of oil per day again in June. “Oil production in the Lone Star State has more than doubled in less than three years,” notes Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute. Also, North Dakota set another record in June by producing 1.093 million barrels per day.

Unfortunately the good news didn’t extend to offshore production, Kingston writes:

Federal offshore production of 1.43 million b/d remains below the levels in place when the Macondo moratorium was put in place in April 2010. It was 1.531 million b/d in May of that year.

There’s much more to be done to improve energy security. The administration should speed up the permitting process (about 7.5 months) to increase development on federal landsopen up more of the outer continental shelf to oil and natural gas exploration, and approve the Keystone XL pipeline to transport more Canadian oil sands crude and Bakken oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

By developing America’s energy resources, we can continue this success.

Follow Sean Hackbarth on Twitter at @seanhackbarth and the U.S. Chamber at @uschamber.

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is of an oil pump jack just outside of Watford City, North Dakota. Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg.

Bad and Good Lesson Plans, Ice Bucket Challenge for Humanities

If you live in a college town you know that (here in Clinton, New York), school is back in session.  That brings worry about the required reading and class discussions, especially after a summer of rioting in the previously little-known St. Louis suburb of Ferguson after the death of Michael Brown. College students are chalking up campuses with “hands up.” Unfortunately, a number of curriculum companies are sending out biased materials that exploit the tragedy, fanning the flames, and adding little to students’ knowledge about history or civics.  Slate Magazine had an article headlined, “The Birth of the #Ferguson Syllabus,” with links to syllabi and teaching materials.  Students in the school of social work at Michigan had rap sessions about how “police militarization” led to the escalation of protests to looting. Teaching for Change’s lesson, sent out by Rethinking Schools, refers back to Malcolm X with a video.

Malcolm X for lessons on FergusonMalcolm X for lessons on Ferguson Accompanying the video clip is the explanation: “Upon his return from Mecca in 1964, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) stated that he wanted to bring charges against the United States for its treatment of African-Americans. He believed that it was ‘impossible for the United States government to solve the race problem’ and the only way to get the United States to change its racist ways was to bring international pressure.”  This is from the lesson titled, “Teaching About Ferguson.”  There is also a suggested link to a lesson on racism in the Zinn Education Project, as well as to the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, for a discussion about the “militarization of police.”

Michelle Alexander is one of the “celebrated academics” that Jason Riley, in his new book, Please Stop Helping Us, takes to task for her outrageous claims that incarceration is a new form of slavery and Jim Crow.  On the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Riley has also offered his insightful commentary on Fox News. I reviewed his book at the Selous Foundation and suggest it highly as a clear-headed, fact-based response to incendiary ideological lessons.  It’s an invaluable reference for rebutting claims by professors who follow the line of Professor Alexander.

A Good New Curriculum Offering: In addition to books like Jason Riley’s, students, parents, and teachers now have a curriculum called “Communism: Its Ideology, Its History, Its Legacy,” available from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.  It was written by Grove City College professor, Dr. Paul Kengor, at the prompting of Dr. Lee Edwards, distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who spearheaded the foundation and is author of numerous books on Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and Barry Goldwater.  Readers may remember Dr. Kengor’s chapter in the Dissident Prof title Exiled, “Anti-Anti-Communism and the Academy.”  According to Kengor, the curriculum was written with the expertise and help of Claire Griffin, to make it suited for use in public schools.  So parents and teachers, put in the suggestion for a purchase.

After all, curriculum materials, paid for with tax dollars, should be balanced, which is not the case for how tax dollars are spent on membership fees for the National Association of School Boards of Education.  Members are sent to an annual conference, where they will be given the sales pitch for Common Core, as I wrote in anotherarticle for the Selous Foundation this week.

The Latest "Challenge"The Latest “Challenge”Throwing cold water… No doubt, you’ve heard about the “Ice Bucket Challenge,” a silly activity (dumping a bucket of ice water over one’s head) for the worthy cause of finding a cure for the disease ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis).  But leave it to a student president to make a charitable event into a political cause by dumping a bucket of blood over herself to protest Israel. Now where would students get such ideas?

Well, it’s not only American Studies professors who sometimes diverge from academics into politics.  Georgia State University English professor Randy Malamud at Inside Higher Education suggests an ice-bucket-fundraiser for the humanities.  Students need to hear writers like Thomas Pynchon and Zadie Smith, he says.  Malamud makes the case for such a humanities fundraiser, recognizing that most readers would need to be convinced:

Is our cause sufficiently worthy? Of course it is, and it’s pointless to argue whether higher education or ALS is more deserving: apples and oranges. The suffering of an ALS victim is terrible. The plight of people who cannot maximize their talents, too, is terrible. At my university, where over half our students qualify for Pell Grants and a third are first-generation college students, I see firsthand every day how profoundly meaningful a college education is for those who are marginally able to achieve it, and how fundamentally valuable it would be to extend that margin as much as possible.

Notice how the professor uses the same word, “terrible,” to describe the suffering of an ALS victim and those who cannot “maximize their talents.”  Maximizing talents is aligned with exposure to Dr. Malamud’s version of what a humanities education should be.  Dr. Malamud’s own scholarship began with spiteful and lopsided studies of Modernism and T.S. Eliot, but in recent years has shifted to a study of animals.  This is from the University website:

Dr. Malamud’s fourth book, Reading Zoos, analyzes zoos as a cultural phenomenon. Bringing together the perspectives of cultural studies, ecocriticism, and postcolonial studies, Dr. Malamud looks at literary accounts of zoos and argues that these “zoo stories” help illustrate how real zoos resonate with a self-congratulatory imperial bravado that disqualifies them from offering, as they claim, a valid or enlightening experiences of animals and nature.  The decontextualized convenience that spectators enjoy as they move from cage to cage and gawk at the inmates stands as a symptom of a degraded cultural imagination.

View of the Zoological Gardens 1835View of the Zoological Gardens 1835 Lest you think that this is all to his humanities scholarship, his bio continues with a description of his subsequent work building on this work about animals:

Poetic Animals and Animal Souls continues Dr. Malamud’s research interests from Reading Zoos by addressing a wider set of tropes that human culture offers for the consideration of animals. This book posits some aesthetic ideals for transposing animals into art, and also includes a focused practical application of these ideals in a strain of animal poetry.

When one considers this type of scholarship by humanities professors one understands why an outrageous charity event would be needed to support it.  Certainly, English departments are not being supported by students, as dropping enrollments indicate.  Why would those who love literature be interested in a book like Reading Zoos?

The Dissident Prof recommends that you contribute to charities as much as you can after checking out the organizations.  This includes organizations fighting diseases and helping animals, but not in English departments.  And you don’t need to pour anything over your head.

Is Charlie Crist Barack Obama light?

There is a standing joke in Florida which goes something like this: A Republican, Independent and Democrat walk into a bar. The bartender says, “And what can I get you Mr. Crist.”

Charlie Crist is making Florida history as the first politician to run for the same seat as a Republican and Democrat. Crist has changed his campaign strategy to keep from talking about his previous political positions, rather he is trying to talk about his opponent, and sitting Governor, Rick Scott.

A recent Crist fundraising email shows how much he has embraced Barack Obama’s  pro-Pot, pro-Gay, pro-Big Government, and pro-Abortion agenda.

Jessica Clark, Deputy Campaign Manager Charlie Crist for Governor, in a fundraising email states, “What would Rick Scott do with four more years and no electorate to face? With no reason to temper himself, we’d find ourselves with an even more extreme version of Rick Scott.”

The questions Clark asks are ones many Americans are asking about Barack Obama. Americans see what a Democrat can do with “four more years and no electorate to face.” America now finds itself with a “ever more extreme” Barack Obama with “no reason to temper himself.”

Clark states, “He [Rick Scott] cut $1.3 billion from our schools. He signed bills requiring medically-unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. He limited access to the polls, and absolutely savaged our beautiful state. And that’s all when he knew he’d have to face the voters again.”

Clark refers to Governor Scott exclusively but her accusations are highly questionable.

Charlie Crist wants to spend more money on public education. However, the amount of federal tax dollars poured into public education since 1970 has failed to change student performance (see the below chart).

doedataonfunding

Federal spending on education compared to student achievement. For a larger view click on the chart.

free abortion tattooed womanCrist opposes women having an ultra-sound before having an abortion. Crist is worried that if women have an ultrasound it will show a live fetus, a baby, moving in the womb. Why? Because he supports and is supported by those few radical Planned Parenthood members who demand free abortions without limits, on demand and without apology. It does not matter that a study by Dr. Priscilla Coleman and Dr. David Reardon of nearly 500,000 pregnant women reveals abortion is much more dangerous to women than giving birth.

Crist is against any of Florida’s sixty-seven Supervisors of Elections updating voter rolls as required by law, period. Crist wants dead people, felons and illegals aliens on the voter rolls. Why? They vote Democrat.

Crist makes the absurd statement that Governor Scott “absolutely savaged our beautiful state.” Why? As Joseph Goebbels wrote, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Charlie Crist believes in the power of the state, the truth be damned.

Finally, Charlie Crist does not want to talk about his boss John B. Morgan, head of the Morgan & Morgan law firm. Why? Well just watch this video titled, “Crist-Morgan for Florida“:

You see Charlie Crist is depending on the pot head vote.

crist-morganAna Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

Crist is considered by many as the white Barack Obama. When Obama ran for president in 2008 he had positions much different than those he has today. Crist has fully embraced Obama and his political positions. Any questions?

RELATED ARTICLE: Doubling Down on Pot: Buffett Sells Upper Deck, Room to Grow – Bloomberg

Small Numbers of Homosexuals have Formed Politically Obnoxious very Public and Virulently Demanding Groups

We recently posted a column titled “No One is Born Gay” by Michael Brown, the author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality. There were a number of comments about the column on Google+. One of the most interesting was by Jack Rigby, a psychologist living in Australia who, “[I]n my early practice before I went sane many decades ago,  I worked with many, many homosexuals.”

I asked Jack this question: What is the social redeeming value of homosexuality, exactly?

Jack responded with a very thoughtful and insightful reply based upon his clinical experiences. The following is the full text of Jack’s answer to my question:

Utterly none. Individual homosexuals can be constructively integrated to the rest of the population by simply conforming to normal social mores and exercising discretion.

The interesting observation I made over many decades of association with sexually aberrant people, was that these people almost instinctively recognize others of the same state without any obvious physical indications.

However, in recent decades in the fractured Society in the West, there has been a very strange situation develop in which small numbers of Homosexuals have formed politically obnoxious very public and virulently demanding groups .

This is creating a very dangerous situation for the great bulk of homosexuals who live quiet and integrated lives because there will be, without question, a violent mass backlash against them in the not distant future as has always happened in the past throughout the history of all races, Religions and Societies.

I actually have a great deal of concern for the number of the normally integrated ones who will be innocently caught up in the eventual reaction of Society to these strident, insane  anti-social demands of the entirely unstable violent few, whose intolerable antics and demands have already surpassed any reasonable level of public tolerance.

Just as the entire Muslim communities throughout the West are now being demonised by the insane few who are provoking the immensely dangerous West with no grasp of the violence it is capable of at all.

“History teaches the fanatic nothing, but does teach the wise when to leave.” (Kylneth circa 1987 Iraq)

None of us are perfect and it is a sign of maturity personally and nationally to be able to accept imperfection in others. Only to the point at which the others threaten us.

My reply to Jack was:

Agree fully with your analysis. However, you miss one major point. Homosexuals, like the Muslims, are not speaking out against those “Homosexuals [who] have formed politically obnoxious very public and virulently demanding groups.”

Where are those homosexuals???

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Gender Inclusive’ School District says Drop ‘Boys and Girls,’ Call Kids ‘Purple Penguins’

UN Small-Arms Treaty: A Major Second Amendment Threat

The assault on Americans Citizen’s rights to own and bear arms in accordance with provisions of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is being threatened by the Obama administration’s support for the UN Small Arms Treaty  This UN Small-Arms Treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme.

The below listed Op-Ed by Admiral James A Lyons’52 USN (Ret) (former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations)  is a warning all Americans of the threat ;posed by Obama to void provisions of the Second Amendment by signing the UN Small-Arms Treaty, allowing the UN to control small arms in the United States.

Obama has the support of the elected Democrat Senators to approve the UN Small Arms Treaty.  Those Democrat Senators who agree with Obama, standing for re-election in November should be defeated at the polls.   The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress in the attachment, running for election in 2014 (three of whom are running for the US Senate), support the rights of all Americans to acquire and bear arms in accordance with the US Constitution. .

Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat

Ceding Senate constitutional authority to the U.N. would be unwise

By James A. Lyons

In a little-noticed action, the U.N. General Assembly on April 2, 2013, adopted by “majority vote” an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with the objective of regulating the international trade in conventional arms from small arms to major military equipment. The treaty’s lofty objectives were to foster peace and security by limiting uncontrolled destabilizing arms transfer to areas of conflict. In particular, it was also meant to prevent countries that abuse human rights from acquiring arms.

While the record of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty discussions makes no mention of it, the genesis for regulating the unrestrained transfer of conventional arms to conflict areas, Third Worldcountries and human rights violators was a key policy of President Carter’s administration. Shortly after his inauguration in 1977, he initialed a policy of restraint on conventional-arms transfer and linked such control to the human rights record of potential recipients, particularly in Latin America. To implement this policy, the Carter administration proposed to the Soviet Union, the world’s second-leading supplier of arms, that it open negotiations to conclude such an agreement. These meetings were known as the Conventional Arms Transfer Talks.

The first region selected was Latin America, because there was less competition there than anywhere else in the world between the United States and the Soviet Union. As the director of political-military affairs, I was the Joint Chiefs of Staff representative in the U.S. delegation, which was headed by Les Gelb from the State Department. Suffice to say, after four meetings over a 12-month period and the “delusion” that a successful agreement could be achieved, the talks collapsed. The esoteric objectives may sound good in the faculty lounge, but they fail to pass muster in the real world.

The Soviets were always the reluctant suitors in this enterprise. They were not about to restrict the transfer of arms in areas that they viewed to be in their political interests. Certainly, there was not unanimity of purpose in the Carter administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed the objectives as an unnecessary infringement on our strategy and sovereignty.

For the record, the Obama administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy issued on Jan. 16embraces many of the objectives of the Carter administration’s policy, as well as the current U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. However, it makes no mention of either one.

A number of major defects in the U.N. treaty were detailed in a letter sent to President Obama in October 2013 by 50 senators — both Republicans and Democrats. The first problem was that the treaty was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly, not by consensus, a condition called for by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After entry into force, the senators contend, the Arms Trade Treaty can be amended by majority vote of signatory countries, effectively negating the Senate’s constitutional treaty power and handing it to foreign governments. Even the State Department concedes, the senators wrote, that the treaty “includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”

Of most concern is the infringement on our constitutional rights, the senators charged. The Arms Trade Treaty “includes only a weak nonbinding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights.” When coupled with the treaty’s ceding of interpretive authority to other countries, this poses a direct threat to the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that neither of Virginia’s senators, Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, signed the Senate letter against a U.N. treaty that threatens Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, and undermines American sovereignty.

Failing to sign the letter is not the first time Mr. Warner went AWOL on the Arms Trade Treaty. In January 2013, before Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the treaty, the Senate passed a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of “upholding Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine were among the 46 voting “nay” on the amendment.

Supporters of the treaty say there’s nothing to worry about, because the Second Amendment is a constitutional protection, and nothing in a treaty can undermine it. Gun rights champions strongly disagree. “The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, following Mr. Kerry’s signing of the treaty. “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT.”

With 50 senators opposed to the Arms Trade Treaty, we can hope its prospects for Senate advice and consent are small — with or without the support of liberals such as Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also need to indicate clearly their concern, as it affect our strategy and sovereignty.

ABOUT JAMES A. LYONS

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. 

Bill Maher: To claim that Islam “is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong”

I’m no fan of Bill Maher, but he does get it mostly right here. What is ironic is that he would never dare have on his show any of the people who have for years been saying what he says here, and has joined in the vilification and ridicule of them that is universal on the Left.

“Bill Maher ABSOLUTELY CRUSHES Charlie Rose For Comparing Islam To Christianity,” FoxNews.com, September 12, 2014 (thanks to all who sent this in):

BILL MAHER: I saw Howard Dean on TV the other day and he said something along the order, he said the people in ISIS — he said I’m about as Islamic as they are, you know, distancing the vast numbers of Islamic people around the world from them. That’s just not true.

CHARLIE ROSE: It is true.

MAHER: It is not true, Charlie. There is a connecting tissue between —

ROSE: Behind every Muslim is a future member of some radical?

MAHER: Let me finish.

ROSE: I was doing that.

MAHER: There are illiberal beliefs that are held by vast numbers of Muslim people that —

ROSE: A vast number of Christians too.

MAHER: No, that’s not true. Not true. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians –

It’s not just about numbers, either. No sect of Christianity teaches death for apostasy, or denies the equal dignity of men and women. The death penalty for apostasy in Islam comes from Muhammad (“If anyone changes his religion, kill him”) and is taught by all the schools of Islamic law. The idea that men are superior to women is founded on Qur’an 4:34 and numerous hadiths.

ROSE: I agree with that —

MAHER: — do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it. So yes, does ISIS do Khmer Rouge-like activities where they just kill people indiscriminately who aren’t just like them? Yes. And would most Muslim people in the world do that or condone that? No.

ROSE: No.

MAHER: But most Muslim people in the world do condone violence just for what you think.

ROSE: How do you know that?

MAHER: They do. First of all they say it. They shout it.

ROSE: Vast majorities of Muslims say that?

MAHER: Absolutely. There was a Pew poll in Egypt done a few years ago — 82% said, I think, stoning is the appropriate punishment for adultery. Over 80% thought death was the appropriate punishment for leaving the Muslim religion. I’m sure you know these things.

This is because, as I said above, these punishments are founded upon Islamic texts and teachings.

ROSE: Well I do. But I don’t believe —

MAHER: So to claim that this religion is like other religions is just naive and plain wrong. It is not like other religious. The New York Times pointed out in an op-ed a couple weeks ago that in Saudi Arabia just since August 4th, they think it was, they have beheaded 19 people. Most for non-violent crimes including homosexuality.

The death penalty for homosexual activity, although widely ignored in parts of the Islamic world, is also found in Islamic law.

ROSE: I know that they cut the hands off the thief.

That’s in Qur’an 5:38.

MAHER: Right, okay, so we’re upset that ISIS is beheading people which we should be upset about but Saudi Arabia does it and they’re our good friends because they have oil. Okay. But they do it too. This is the center of the religion. I’m not saying –

ROSE: But they’re now fighting against ISIS too. They’re joining us in the fight. As is the Emirates. As is Jordan. They are all Muslim countries.

MAHER: Well, they are both fighting ISIS and they are for ISIS.

ROSE: Well, it’s not the government. I mean, some of them —

MAHER: Certainly the governments.

ROSE: It’s a bit like today about Qatar. The big story today in The New York Times about Qatar. And some guy there is supporting, who is a Muslim —

MAHER: But I mean in Mecca where infidels, non-Muslims, are not even allowed in the holy parts of the city. I mean, right there, we don’t have that example in other religions. They do behead people. Now if they were beheading people in Vatican City, which is the equivalent of Mecca, don’t you think there would be a bigger outcry about it? So this is the soft bigotry of low expectations with Muslim people.When they do crazy things and believe crazy things, somehow it’s not talked about nearly as much.

ROSE: Would you come to the table and debate this with a moderate Muslim?

MAHER: Find one, yes. Find one.

ROSE: I promise you I’ll find one.

MAHER: Find a Muslim —

ROSE: I do believe that what we see with ISIS is not representative of —

MAHER: As I said, connecting tissue.

ROSE: — not representative of the Islamic religion. I don’t think the Koran teaches them to do these kinds of things.

MAHER: Well you’re wrong about that. The Koran absolutely has on every page stuff that’s horrible about how the infidels should be treated. But for example again ISIS says that they should perform genital mutilation on all women 11-46. Would most Muslims agree with that? No. Or carry it out? No.

But genital mutilation is justified by a hadith, and Islamic law prescribes “circumcision” for both men and women.

But as Ayaan Hirsi Ali points out, she says —

ROSE: I wouldn’t expect for her to —

MAHER: And she would know better than —

ROSE: Exactly.

MAHER: But can we really say —

ROSE: She’s been a victim.

MAHER: — women are treated equally in the Muslim world? I mean, their testimony in court is very often counted as half. They need permission to leave the house in some places.

The devaluation of a woman’s testimony is in Qur’an 2:282. The prohibition on leaving the house without permission from a male guardian is also in Islamic law.

ROSE: But a lot of moderate Muslims would say in fact one of the things that we need to modernize is the idea of the way we treat women.

MAHER: But in this country, if you just use the wrong word about women, they go nuts. And all these other countries —

ROSE: As they should.

MAHER: — they’re doing things like making them wear burqas and I hear liberals say things like, ‘they want to.’ They want to. They’ve been brainwashed. It’s like saying a street walker wants to do that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Doctor who escaped Islamic State: “The most important thing for them was Sharia”

Denmark: No imams want to join anti-Islamic State demonstration

Islamic State jihadi from Denmark takes selfie with severed head

UK Muslima in Islamic State says she will only return to raise black flag of Islam in UK

Raymond Ibrahim: Beheading Infidels Is How Allah ‘Heals the Hearts of Believers’

VIDEO: Abbott & Costello Explain Common Core Math

Common Core State Standards include new ways of calculating math problems. These new ways are not necessarily better ways as Abbott & Costello demonstrate in this classic comedy sketch:

commoncoremathproblem

Common Core math problem showing the “old fashion way” and the “new” way. For a larger view click on the image.

John Clark in his column “4 Reasons Why Homeschooling is the Exact Opposite of Common Core” asks: What about Common Core, does it encourage parental involvement?

Many say ‘no,’ and with good reason.

As Clark recently observed, “Since most parents don’t understand the Common Core techniques, students are becoming more dependent on their schools and teachers for their education, and less on help from their parents. This is like a dream come true for progressives who hope to continue to minimize the role of parents in the lives of their children.”

Common Core, while no laughing matter, is not a traditional education, which actually teaches children to think for themselves. Like Abbott says in the video – he entered school stupid and left school the same way. That is what concerns a growing number of students, parents, teachers and academics.

ABOUT JOHN CLARK

John Clark writes frequently on homeschooling and is the father of nine children. Reprinted with permission from Seton magazine.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In One State, More Children Homeschool Than Attend Private Schools. Why That Shouldn’t Shock You.
What is High Stakes Testing – and Why Hasn’t it Worked?
One more way to impose Common Core: The National Association of State Boards of Education

Obama and Putin

As you tuck your children and grandchildren into bed tonight, take a long hard look at them and consider what they may have to face tomorrow, next week, and in the years ahead. And think for a minute or two about who it is that holds their lives, and yours, in their unsteady hands.

Then picture, if you will, a scene in the White House Situation Room, far beneath the Oval Office, where those who hold our lives in their hands… Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, and Michelle Obama, the entire brain trust of the Obama administration… are seated around a long table. They are discussing the ramifications of sending U.S. military might against the butchers of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), balanced against the impact such actions would have on Obama’s legacy, and the impact they might have on Democratic prospects in the November General Election.

One of the items on the table in front of them is the transcript of a September 11, 2013 New York Times op-ed by none other than Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia, who has no qualms about thumbing his nose at Barack Obama as he invades and occupies the Crimean Peninsula and large portions of eastern Ukraine. His decision to communicate directly with the American people through the editorial pages of the Times is a clear indication of how little respect he has for the former “community organizer” from Chicago.

As an indication of the extent to which Obama has fallen out of favor with the leftist editors and publishers who helped elect him, the Times editorial board chose not to waste a single column-inch of newsprint defending Obama against Putin’s well-crafted attack (one popular female comic has quipped that Obama’s approval ratings are now so low that the Secret Service has assigned him a new code name. His new Secret Service code name is Ebola.

Referring to Obama’s plan to wage an “unbelievably small” attack on Syrian forces… as in poking at a hornets’ nest with a very long stick… Putin set a very clever trap for Obama. He wrote, “The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders… will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism (emphasis added)…” Frightened off by those cautions, Obama decided not to attack and yet everything Putin predicted came to pass.

Now that we’ve come to know the bloodthirsty nature of the Islamic State a bit better, Putin appears to be the voice of reason, while Obama dithers, plays golf, and attends fundraisers. And while tens of thousands of men, women, and children are slaughtered by ISIS, a major force in the Syrian conflict, no one in the Obama administration seems to know what to do about it. Given more recent events in Syria and Iraq with the emergence of ISIS, now known as the Islamic State, one would think that Obama might lie awake at night regretting that, instead of drawing pointless red lines in the sand, he’d made some sort of accommodation, either with the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, or with the moderates who opposed him.

What Obama and his “brain trust” apparently failed to comprehend in failing to arm Islamic moderates in Syria, was that the “new wave of terrorism” of which Putin spoke is not likely to be limited to the suburbs of Damascus, the northern provinces of Syria, the north and west of Iraq, or the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The “new wave of terrorism” that Putin predicted will likely find its way to the streets of New York, Chicago, Washington, and other U.S. cities.

Providing us with a classic example of “do as I say, not as I do,” further proof of why Obama is no intellectual match for the Russian leader, Putin wrote, “We (Russians) are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

All of this as Russia sends tanks across the border into Ukraine and provides moral and material support for the pro-Russian rebels of eastern Ukraine. Clearly, his remarks were intended for consumption by the low-information voters who make up much of Obama’s base… at least those who are literate enough to read the editorial pages of the New York Times.

Then Putin played to the uncertainty expressed by Obama, Kerry, and other senior officials, who were always careful to hedge their public statements on the source of nerve gas attacks against Syrian civilians. In each instance, they suggested that they were “pretty sure,” or “almost certain,” that it was the Assad regime that was responsible for launching chemical weapons attacks against innocent women and children.

Putin wrote, “No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons (the Obama administration), who would be siding with the fundamentalists…”

Of course, as Obama told us in his September 10, 2014 address to the nation, “ISIS (the Islamic State in Syria) is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.” Does he think we’re a nation of fools? Would he have us believe that the butchers who sliced off the heads of two American journalists are just a bunch of disgruntled postal workers?

But not all Russians and not all Russian news media treat Obama with the same diplomatic equanimity expressed by Putin. Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister and former NATO ambassador,Dmitry Rogozin, has been quoted as referring to the United States under Barack Obama as “a monkey with a hand grenade.” Rogozin’s characterization is indicative of the total lack of respect for Obama that is regularly found in the pages of Pravda.

When I worked in Russia during the early to mid ‘90s, some of my Russian friends joked that, during the Soviet era, “There was no Pravda in Isvestia, and no Isvestia in Pravda (where Pravda means “truth,” in English, and Isvestia means “news.” But Pravda has gained new credibility in the West since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In a September 2013 Pravda article by Xavier Lerma, the writer suggests that “Obama’s buffoonery selling the war against Syria has hit a wall, thanks to President Putin’s firm stance and leadership… Russia, who has slain its Red Dragon long ago, is now facing Puff the Magic Dragon… blowing smoke in his people’s eyes and spreading democracy with bombs… “Puff must face reality and will try to save face. He will blame the Republicans who stand in his way and his worshipers will pity and love him. Playing the race card once again,(he) will bring more power to his throne. The Saudi King, whom Obama bowed to and Bush kissed, will try again and again, demanding Obama attack Syria, trying to bribe Putin, or threatening Russia with terrorists.”

The Pravda article mocked Obama, saying, “Conservative Americans and those in the world are seeing Barry falling apart at the seams when he goes against Putin… President Putin can stand alone and speak without a teleprompter or notes and argue reasonably. He can give interviews anytime without worry because he does not have to try to remember a lie or wonder what to say. He only has to give facts, which are easy to remember.

In summarizing Pravda’s critique of Obama, Vietnam veteran Leon Puissegur suggests that Americans should “take Pravda’s condemnation of Obama as a lesson learned,’ and that we should never vote another person into the office of President who only has experience as a ‘community organizer…Sadly, this great nation, once the envy of the world, is now forced to suffer the humiliation of having our national leader insulted by friend and foe alike.

Yes, Pravda speaks the truth. We have sent a community organizer to represent us in an epic struggle against a tough KGB Colonel. It’s as if we’d sent PeeWee Herman to fight for us, while the Russians sent Mike Tyson.

We should not forget the scene at the South Korean summit n which Obama leaned over toward outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, reassuring him and asking that the Russians give him a bit more time to liberalize the American position on missile defense systems. He said, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Yes, Obama now has the “flexibility” he coveted and he has used it to set the United States on a downward spiral from which we may never recover. As Jodie Miller of the Media Research Center quipped in a September 2 comedy sketch, “In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Obama is threatening to hit back. He threatened to impose the same economic sanctions on Russia that he imposed on America back in 2009.” Like the late Rodney Dangerfield, Obama gets no respect. But then, Dangerfield had a few redeeming qualities.

Crist-Morgan 2014 ad hits the airwaves

Multiple media outlets have written about legalizing marijuana in Florida, a.k.a. Amendment 2, was designed to get out the vote for Charlie Crist. Well the Republican Governors Association (RGA) has taken note of this political strategy and produced a campaign ad linking John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan, and Charlie Crist, one of John Morgan’s employees.

Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said, “I wish that it didn’t take medical marijuana on the ballot to motivate our young voters. But listen, we’ll take it any way we can get it.”

Ben Pollara, a Democratic fundraiser and campaign manager for the United for Care group, stated, “We want to be able to have our stereotypical, lazy pothead voters to be able to vote from their couch.”

Here is the RGA campaign ad titled, “Crist-Morgan for Florida“:

John Kennedy from the Palm Beach Post reported:

“With little to say about Crist’s record, Morgan resorted to drunken obscenities to try to generate excitement about voting for the notorious political opportunist,” said RGA Communications Director Gail Gitcho.

“If these are the political allies Crist keeps and would be willing to elevate to positions of authority, his judgment needs a serious course correction,” she added.

Morgan has made no apology for his comments at the Lakeland event, which followed his appearance in a debate with Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a leader in the campaign against the marijuana measure on November’s ballot.

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows – Crist, Morgan and the Democrat Party of Florida.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Welfare Recipients Can Use Debit Cards for Marijuana
Black market boom lays bare a social divide in Colorado’s marijuana market | The Guardian
Parents Warn Against Synthetic Marijuana After 19-Year-Old Son Dies | KTLA
New marijuana drug ‘Wax’ looks and feels like lip balm – DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
Man Allegedly Shoots Teen Over Stealing Marijuana – Huffington Post
Two Teens Arrested for Marijuana Burglary
Porterville, CA teens busted for drugs at school with intent to sell, cops say – ABC News
Girl eats father’s marijuana-laced bar – AP

If You Want to Get into a Really Big War, Elect a Liberal

If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of on liberals’ watch, it might not be entirely fair. True, there was WWI under Wilson, WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought, four conflicts aren’t exactly a scientific sample, and some could contend that these men were, to some extent, victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernity’s characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions, yesterday’s liberals aren’t like today’s. As to this, some may mention that it’s a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century, with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father, Bush was always a traditional statist, an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover, our Middle East adventures weren’t quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.

But, fair enough, the historical record itself isn’t sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter, though, because I don’t claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and naïveté mongers.

Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy, and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such, it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus, just as in the schoolyard or the street, your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people — some of whom are potential threats — well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know what’s your business and what isn’t? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings, sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.

Given this, it’s clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps man’s nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?

During the 1990s budget battles, liberals said that with the alleged Republican “budget cuts,” the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this, radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother “so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it.” The next day, liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and said, flabbergasted, “[T]his is what it’s come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said he’s going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!”

Yeah, wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.

Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area, I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session, prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable, they ultimately begged out of the conversation> by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped, “As long as you don’t send a hit squad to my house.”

You guessed it. Schroederesquely, they took me seriously and said sternly, “We don’t do things like that.” Bizarre. Just bizarre.

Then I think of Charles Jenkins, an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US, he said about his arch-leftist captors, “[W]hen you lie they think you are telling the truth, and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes, and yes when you mean no.” I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists — only more so.

My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack, President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagan’s deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write, Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?

Yes, they were.

They were leftists.

Of course, it’s no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington, Reagan and, it appears, all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times, mistaking a joke for a serious comment, taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale, others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.

And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader?

He misread ISIS, calling it the “JV team.” He misread the tribalistic, Muslim humans in Iraq, saying they had a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” “representative government.” He misread the Middle East in general, stating “the tide of war is receding.” As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president, “Time and again, he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts.”

Moreover, just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the “armed forces of the United States of America.” Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out, such a statement about Russia’s sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obama’s “Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness.” Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putin’s backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that he’s either the world’s worst bluffer or its most insane leader?

But, again, liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals, disciplining children, interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses, encouraging productivity, avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament), dealing with bullies in schools, thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding man’s nature. Like old Patsy, who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness, they don’t just get others wrong — they get things completely backwards.

Because liberals live lives of rationalization, something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only won’t cede it, he’ll disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course, that’s what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself, bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually, year after year—refusing to see one pixel here, another there, and a thousand others in different places — you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design, the person doesn’t know he’s thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people, events, life, the Universe and everything.

What explains liberals propensity for rationalization? Note here that by liberals I mean people who are relativists, who don’t believe in Absolute Truth, because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize, there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth, he’ll likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. He’ll be wont to say, “Okay, I don’t like reality here, but, heck, the Truth’s the Truth; I’ll just have to man up and accept it.” He also may understand, or at least sense intuitively, that denial of Truth is a moral defect.

But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made, that everything is relative, approaches things differently. You can’t be denying Truth if Truth doesn’t exist; you’re just denying a different perspective. Moreover, even in matters of outright deception such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush, what of it? A lie can’t be any worse than the “truth” in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well, pondering this, I’m reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son, let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build, until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. That’s the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war, it would be someone who misreads situations and other people, fails to take necessary preventive action, and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.

Of course, the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama — twice. But, hey, perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all, with the onset of a nuclear winter, there would be no reason to worry about global warming.

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

No One Is Born Gay

If there were reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God’s image and yet we are a fallen race, and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.

But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. As stated by gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio:

“‘Born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the ‘born gay’ phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.”

In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It’s an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

Born "Gay"? Columbia Professor and homosexual historian John D'Emilio

As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, “There [was] a survey in The New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.”

And so, the argument goes, “If I’m born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I’m born this way, how can you expect me to change?”

Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.

And even if no one is born gay, that doesn’t mean that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.

But why base a so-called civil-rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?

One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”

Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently backtracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors.” And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added, “It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”

That’s why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, “Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the ‘gay gene’” (in theJournal of American Physicians and Surgeons).

Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.

But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay

According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, “The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We’ve crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are ‘born that way.’ But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we’ve supposed?”

Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, “Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”

Paglia also asked, “Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible.”

Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia’s opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: “I’ve made a mistake and learnt from it. I’m deeply sorry for any offence I’ve caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat.”

Despite this apology, he was still fired—and the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today’s climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?

Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply roo999ted in some people’s lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn’t mean you chose to have the attractions.)

It simply means that one of the major gay-activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.

It’s time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.

dr_michael_brown_thumbnail-233x300

Dr. Michael Brown

ABOUT DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Dr. Michael Brown is reprinted from his “Line of Fire” column at Charisma News.

I Remember

Today, September 11th, is the “day that will live in infamy” for this current generation.

As long as I live, I will never forget going to the II Marine Expeditionary Force current operations center just in time to see the plane strike the second tower. I remember when the call came that the Pentagon had been hit. Most of us on Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune had just completed morning PT and had showered when it all happened. The full spectrum of emotions ran through us all that day – unbelief, bewilderment, confusion, sadness, conviction, and anger. I remember calling my wife Angela and asking if she and the girls were ok, since they still lived just 90 minutes away back up at Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, NC. She was frantic and crying. I can still remember that night staring up at the sky from my little place in Swansboro, NC and seeing or hearing nothing – no planes, it was eerie.

And here we are 13 years later and still living under the threat of an Islamic terrorist attack. We go through security protocols all because of Islamic terrorist attacks. We just witnessed two Americans beheaded by members of an Islamic terrorist army.

Thirteen years later and it is as though we learned no lessons from 9/11. Our own recalcitrance to define this enemy was demonstrated last night by our president, Barack Hussein Obama, who firmly declared that ISIS is not “Islamic” – then what the hell are they, Amish? Political correctness has placed us in a position where almost half of our country fears another major terrorist attack.

My fellow Americans, we don’t have to live under this specter of Islamo-fascism and jihadism. We cannot go another year – certainly not another 13 – living in fear all the while refusing to admit that they exist. I am tired of being told that we cannot offend folks. I am tired of hearing that it’s not all Muslims. If that’s so, those moderates need to “man up” and kick some extremist arse. Because for 13 years, we’ve fiddled around and played games of winning hearts and minds and nation building and all we got in exchange were two beheaded Americans.

The original “day that will live in infamy” led us to one goal: the destruction of the enemy who attacked us. It was Japanese Admiral Yamamoto who stated that he feared they had awakened a sleeping giant. But the giant that is America is still asleep.

When President Ronald Reagan was asked how he defined victory in the Cold War he replied simply, “we win they lose.” And it was Alexander the Great who said, “I would not fear an army of lions if led by sheep, but I would fear an army of sheep if led by a lion.” America is looking for a lion who will crush the wolves and embolden, unleash and direct the indomitable American spirit that will not cower.

Remember those Americans who lost their lives thirteen years ago today but we must finally commit to never allowing this enemy to cause us to live in fear or alter our lives – we win, they lose – and never again!

Steadfast and Loyal

EDITORS NOTE: If you wish to leave a comment telling us where you were on September 11, 2001, it will help us all to never forget what happened on that fateful day.

Calling out Bishops & Cardinals for Disgracing the Catholic Faith [+Videos]

And, if you are NOT one of these and are offended by Church Militant and Christian on a Mission “Telling the Truth, Nothing but the Truth” – please let me know and we will kindly remove you from our “Pro-Life Devout Catholic E-Mail List” and place you on our “Prayer List”. That simple, folks…

Well, as we round the corner for our “Final Four Months” of our much-acclaimed “Year of Boldness” – it is just heating up a tad. The back burners are hot. The front burners, even hotter…but, it is much hotter down there… so, we must talk about a topic that we have not heard about in 40 years in our Catholic churches…

Unfaithful Bishops and Catholic Media

GOING TO HELL

Friends: I honestly think I was about 15 years old the last time I heard about the possibility of going to hell from the pulpit. And, it scared the hell out of me…So much so that I have not heard another word about it in the past 40 plus years…until this week – when I have heard it time and again. And, not from a Bishop or Cardinal, or priest. But about Bishops and Cardinals and priests…

And, it has come from non other than Michael Voris and Church Militant. Rightfully so…and rightfully on target. When a former all star baseball player gets caught gambling on his own team – he gets called out on it and thrown out of MLB. When NBA owners mess up and do the racial thing publicly – they get called out on it & thrown out of the League. When a football player beats up his wife in an elevator and gets called out on it – he gets thrown out of the NFL.

What happens when a prominent Catholic Church leader – former President of the Almighty USCCB – the darling of all Cardinals – defies the Holy Catholic Church – not once, twice, thrice – but, numerous times??? And, continues to flaunt it…

Friends: I can go on and on and like the majority of you on my extensive e-mail list feel frustrated and ask the same question: “Who is going to reprimand the All Powerful, All Knowing, Larger than GOD, Cardinal Timothy B. Dolan?

The answer to that question should be very simple to answer. It’s the Body of Christ – We the People who worship our Lord & Savior – who should be able to reprimand a cardinal of the Church when he blatantly shames our Catholic Church. If enough of us would voice our feelings and opinions – as One Body in Christ – like the entire NBA did when LA Clippers’ owner went on a racial rampage, then, it is easily done. It’s a TEAM effort and we are all in this “Two-gether”…

Is it because Cardinal Dolan is an archbishop? Because he is a holy cardinal of the Church? Because he is put up on a pedestal by so many who do not know enough to see through the facade of this “media darling”? When Pete Rose broke the rules – he was thrown out at home! When Donald Sterling made his arrogant racial slurs – he was banned from the NBA for life! And, as we speak, we shall see what happens to the Raven’s Ray Rice after clobbering his wife in an elevator…Probably banned for life??? And, throw in NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell – he looks to be under some serious fire, as well, and should be reprimanded. And, mind you, these are professional sports – not the Holy Catholic Church. And, I personally could not care what happens in the world of professional sports any more because it is all about one thing – the root of all evil –  MONEY!!!.

But, so is the Catholic Church…It showed its ugly face when it came to worshiping the Almighty Dollar over the Almighty Father in adopting the devils’ version of the Curse of Common Core and 100 Catholic dioceses sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver. So, we will leave it at that. I will just hand the baton to Michael Voris and allow him do what he does best and let him bust some of these Catholic Church Culprits who make it so tough on the good, devout Catholics who adore our beloved faith with all that we have. It is these church leaders who attack our Holy Catholic Church more than Satan, himself…or is it a combination of the two?

If MLB players, NBA owners and NFL players can be called out for blatantly breaking the rules and thrown out of their sport and banned for life – why is it that a church leader who blatantly defies the Holy Catholic Church time and again – gets his photo on the front page of every newspaper in the country when he violates our beloved Catholic Church teachings and continues to be a media superstar? Who is it that is ultimately responsible for the unethical actions of Cardinal Dolan where even Stevie Wonder can see the damage that he has done to our Holy Catholic Church for so many years? I will go as far as saying that it was Cardinal Dolan, himself, who gave Obama that much needed push from the Catholic faithful in the 2012 Presidential elections to become President for another term. Had Cardinal Dolan taken to the pulpits like he should have and instructed the Catholic Faithful that “we cannot vote for a candidate who endorses and promotes abortion, same sex marriage, defies the Constitution of the United States, (even when he is playing golf), and all the liberal platforms that this impostor stands for – then 51% of Catholics would not have voted for Obama; 74% of Catholic Hispanics would not have voted for Obama – and today, we would not have 19 states allowing queers to marry in our churches, Common Core in our schools and Obamacare wreaking havoc on our citizens…Thank you, your Eminency.

Friends, I know for a fact that it was the weak leadership of Cardinal Dolan as the President of the USCCB that allowed Sebelius; the H.H.S. Mandate to steamroll right over the Holy Catholic Church and allow Obamacare to be the law of the land…and, whose watchful eyes were in charge of the USCCB when the dreadful Curse of Common Core came into being – where the then, President of the USCCB embraced and recommended that all 176 Catholic dioceses in our country adopt these unconstitutional set of standards – without even having a clue what this was going to do to our beloved Catholic schools? Folks, it was the Almighty Cardinal Timothy B. Dolan who has truly wreaked havoc on our beloved Catholic Faith and has put us devout “Holy Roman Catholics” pitted against this new “Progressive American Catholic” that the likes of Cardinal Dolan have been so instrumental in cultivating. It appears that this has been his quest for many years and us devout Catholics and the generations to come, are going to pay a heavy price.

Yes, some of you who are reading this piece may think that I am over-exaggerating and might have lost it a bit. I only wish I were. I only wish Michael Voris was. For those of you who think we are over-exaggerating a bit, you really need to do your homework and due diligence and get out of this denial phase that so many Catholics have been so accustomed to being in since the clergy sex abuse scandals hit our Catholic Church. Let’s get real and Tell the Truth, folks. We need to clean house, turn over some of those tax collector tables, and get back to what Saint John Paul II coined many years ago:

“The new evangelization… be not afriad.” – Saint John Paul II

The Holy Catholic Church is in need of a true cleansing – a modern day revival. May those who can influence Cardinal Dolan do so in a prayerful manner and kindly remove him from a position which is damaging to the Catholic Church.

Please watch these videos from Michael Voris and The Church Militant telling it like it is.

Wicked Bishops:

BREAKING: NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade Goes Gay – Dolan Cheers!

It’s time to end New York’s St. Pat’s Parade and the Al Smith Dinner

By Monsignor Charles Pope

The time for happy-clappy, lighthearted engagement of our culture may be nearing an end. Sometimes it takes a while to understand that what used to work no longer works. Let me get more specific.

Decades ago the “Al Smith Dinner” was a time for Republicans and Democrats to bury the hatchet (even if only temporarily) and come together to raise money for the poor and to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us. But in the old days the death of 50 million infants was not what divided us. We were divided about lesser things such as how much of the budget should go to defense and how much to social spending. Reasonable men might differ over that.

But now we are being asked to raise toasts and to enjoy a night of frivolity with those who think it is acceptable to abort children by the millions each year, with those who think anal sex is to be celebrated as an expression of love and that LGBTQIA… (I=intersexual, A= Asexual)  is actually a form of sanity to which we should tip our hat, and with those who stand four-square against us over religious liberty.

Now the St. Patrick’s Parade is becoming of parade of disorder, chaos, and fake unity. Let’s be honest: St. Patrick’s Day nationally has become a disgraceful display of drunkenness and foolishness in the middle of Lent that more often embarrasses the memory of Patrick than honors it.

In New York City in particular, the “parade” is devolving into a farcical and hateful ridicule of the faith that St. Patrick preached. 

It’s time to cancel the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and the Al Smith Dinner and all the other “Catholic” traditions that have been hijacked by the world. Better for Catholics to enter their churches and get down on their knees on St. Patrick’s Day to pray in reparation for the foolishness, and to pray for this confused world to return to its senses. Let’s do adoration and pray the rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet unceasingly for this poor old world.

But don’t go to the parade; stay away from the Al Smith Dinner and all that “old school” stuff that hangs on in a darkened world. And as for St Patrick’s Day, it’s time to stop wearin’ the green and instead take up the purple of Lent and mean it. Enough of the celebration of stupidity, frivolity, and drunkenness that St Paddy’s day has become. We need penance now, not foolishness. We don’t need parades and dinner with people who scoff at our teachings, insist we compromise, use us for publicity, and make money off of us. We’re being played for (and are?) fools.

End the St Patrick’s parade. End the Al Smith Dinner and all other such compromised events. Enough now, back to Church! Wear the purple of Lent and if there is going to be a procession, let it be Eucharistic and penitential for the sins of this age.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!

How say you?

EDITORS NOTE: Reprinted with permission from the Archdiocese of Washington’s blog.