Muslim Brother promotes Grover Norquist at CPAC

Hey America, as promised in Episode 8, we tracked down Mr. Sami Al-Arian-owitz and interviewed him at the 2014 CPAC event in the Washington DC area.  Yes, The United West has figured out how to travel back in time but the important point is that this Muslim Brotherhood Imam is Grover Norquist’s number one supporter.

So as we continue on with our hard-hitting investigative series, The Wizard of “K” Street, exposing Grover Norquist as an ideological enemy of the state we add to our in-depth research a little bit of our classic, “edutainment.”

Of course we want you be persuaded by the evidence against Grover, proving that he is NOT the super-conservative he makes himself out to be, but we also want you smile a little bit at the absurdity of how far the Wizard of “K” Street’s spell is cast over so many Congress members.

Folks, it’s time to give Grover his retirement gold watch and let him finally make his long desired Hajj.

As we move through this micro-series you will see how Norquist’s nefarious work impacts YOU on a daily basis in the areas of: IMMIGRATION, ISLAM, ISRAEL, IRAN




Florida Attorney General Files Motions to Intervene in Homosexual so-called “Marriage” Lawsuits!

MIAMI, FL – After months of hard work, the Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF) announced today a stunning turn of events as Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed motions to intervene in two seditious state lawsuits that are trying to overthrow Florida’s voter-approved constitution which respects marriage as the union of one man, one woman.

As other attorneys general, most recently in Oregon and Pennsylvania, are abandoning their states voters by refusing to intervene, such as in Oregon, or appeal decisions against voter-approved state constitutional amendments, such as in Pennsylvania; General Bondi is on the right side of history and the law by faithfully upholding her sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land.

As she recently stated in a piece written for the Gainesville Sun, “Defending the wishes of the voters who enacted Florida’s marriage amendment necessarily requires me to make good faith legal arguments. Anything less than the best defense of our voters’ policy preferences would disenfranchise the electorate, and undermine the judicial process, this court should ‘exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate’ and leave Florida’s important policy determinations to Florida’s citizens.”

In 2008, approximately 5 million Florida voters approved our state’s constitution respecting marriage as the union of one man, one woman, by a whopping 62% – 38% margin. Approval numbers among Hispanic and African-American voters were even higher, 62% and 71% respectively!

Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF) issued the following statement:

“We commend Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi for her courageous decision to uphold her oath of office and protect Florida voters right to amend their own state constitution respecting marriage as the union of one man, one woman. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Windsor, this is a question of public policy, not the constitution, as homosexual extremists who are trying to overthrow the will of the people falsely claim.”

About the Christian Family Coalition (CFC)

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) is a widely acclaimed human rights and social justice advocacy organization serving Florida’s children and families for over 10 years. Through its daily community outreach, political education programs, and voter registration, CFC effectively mobilizes thousands of fair-minded voters across the state and actively works with municipal, county, state, and federal elected officials to advance common sense, family-friendly, non-discriminatory values and public policies. The CFC is highly respected for its sought-after, educational voter guides consulted by thousands of houses of worship and their voters all across Florida.

Boston “Gay Pride Week”: What the media won’t tell you about the homosexual movement

Most people only see the filtered version of “gayness” that the mainstream media presents, which portrays it as wholesome, joyous, and even healthy. But the public spectacle of a “Gay Pride Week” (June 6-14) in a major city like Boston reveals a great deal about the pathologies, addictions, perversions, and general dysfunction surrounding homosexual behavior that is generally kept hidden.

The “New England Leather Alliance [pictured above],” a sado-masochist group, had a prominent presence in Boston Gay Pride. Note the logo on their banner includes a whip. Their flag is a black-and-blue version of the US Flag. [All photos from MassResistance]

Make no mistake: “Gay Pride” is vastly different than the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade, or the Puerto Rican Parade — or anything else you’ll see in the public streets. It’s not really about “fun” or even politics. It’s more like a display of pathological issues.

It was not full of public sex acts like the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco or some events in New York. But the “collateral damage” of LGBT behavior was very much in view.

For example, if you spent much time at the major “Pride Week” events you also saw examples of and references to:

  • Sado-masochism
  • Profanity and vulgarity, much of it in an angry tone
  • Homosexual sex; condoms and anal lubricant given out almost everywhere
  • Horrible “gay” diseases and psychological problems
  • The problem of “gay” domestic violence
  • Hatred of traditional religion, particularly Catholicism
  • Perversions such as cross-dressing and transsexual body mutilation
  • An obsession with children and teenagers

One couldn’t miss the many very troubled and disturbed people marching and participating, and many others who were there to show what good open-minded “progressives” they are. It was an eerie feeling.

At a Gay Pride Week event in Boston. The homosexual movement considers this fairly normal.

Equally disturbing was the huge support for “Gay Pride Week” from major US corporations, (Google, Microsoft, Bank of America, etc.), large hospitals, politicians, schools, and national radical organizations.

MassResistance will be posting a multi-part series documenting this further.(We will also continue our series documenting the GLSEN LGBT teachers’ conference, and the recent state-supported Youth Pride Day in Boston.)

The centerpiece: An enormous parade and “festival”

The “Gay Pride Parade” itself (June 13) was enormous in scope. According to the organizers, it was the biggest ever in Boston. There were over 200 groups and at least 10,000 marchers. There were more corporations and health-related organizations than we’d ever seen before, many with contingents of over 100 people. Even though the Mass. Democrat State Convention was taking place on the same day in Worcester, many politicians still marched in the parade and others had supporters marching. (We did not see any Republicans in the parade this year. GOP gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker was listed as a marcher, but did not show up.)

Liberty Mutual Insurance had over a hundred people marching. Each one was wearing a special “Pride@Liberty” shirt.

At the end of the parade route at City Hall Plaza was a large “festival” with dozens of booths by corporations, radical groups, health organizations, and others. Most of these also had contingents marching in the parade.

MassResistance campaign to pressure companies not to march

Prior the Gay Pride Parade, MassResistance posted an article about the virulent anti-Catholic group “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” which had been named as a Grand Marshall. This was clearly a move to underscore the homosexual movement’s obsessive hatred of the Church. We got a LOT of feedback about that post, much of it thanking us for exposing this outrage.

The “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” were actually men (some with beards) mocking the Catholic Church.

In that same article, we encouraged everyone to contact the corporations and politicians scheduled to march in the parade and demand that they NOT participate in such a hate-filled anti-Catholic event. We included a page with names and contact numbers for people to call. It was fairly last-minute, but we thought it was important to do.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Every one of those politicians and corporations was in the parade.

Frankly, we were disappointed that there wasn’t more spontaneous action on this from the thousands of people who get our emails, and more who read our website. One would have thought that such a disgusting thing would fire up pro-family people, whether Catholic or not.

Judging from feedback we got, most of the calling from our side came from outside of Massachusetts — places like Florida and California. We’ve often observed that a lot of people here Massachusetts get very angry but are too timid (or too busy) to pick up a telephone or send a confrontational email. Instead, they’ll give “moral support.” So nothing happens.

As we have observed before, it seems that the homosexuals, even though they’re few in number, are far more passionate and obsessive about pushing their agenda than our people are about stopping it. That must change.

MassResistance protests at Gay Pride Parade

It seems that every time there’s a big public pro-marriage event, there are homosexual activists there with signs to protest it. So we decided it’s about time we did that, too.

The difference, of course, is that at our events the pro-family people always react very civilly and calmly. However, when the tables are turned, homosexual activists tend react with vitriol, profanity, and threats. But our people didn’t back down at all, which made it even more effective.

One of our activists had signs with five messages made up especially for the Boston Gay Pride Parade.

The marchers and their supporters really don’t like being challenged. A fair number of middle fingers, f-bombs, and other crude behaviors were directed at our people. But they remained calm and even tried to engage them in discussion!

The best way to answer an obscene gesture is to just wave back.
This lesbian tried to block the signs. When that didn’t work, she started passionately kissing her girlfriend right in front of them. (We’ll spare you the photo of that!)

The verdict: The homosexual movement can dish it out but they don’t take it very well. Maybe we need to do this more often.

Where was the Archdiocese of Boston in all this?

Many people have asked us what Cardinal Sean O’Malley and the Archdiocese of Boston were doing about the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” being honored, and obscene anti-Catholic bigotry that this represents.

It was actually even worse than that. Boston’s St. Anthony’s Shrine — administered by Franciscan Friars, members of the same religious family as Cardinal O’Malley — had announced they would have a pro-LGBT booth at the Gay Pride Festival.

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts informed the Archdiocese of everything and organized a campaign to urge the Cardinal to act. Unfortunately, according to the League, the Archdiocese did its best to dodge the issue completely. St. Anthony’s was even allowed to have its “gay” booth.

Friars from Boston’s St. Anthony’s Shrine pose for MassResistance as they put up the banner for their booth at the Boston Gay Pride Festival.

Many religious Catholics were very upset. Here is the write-up (scroll down) on the Catholic Action League website by Executive Director C.J. Doyle.

COMING UP: Much more on Boston “Gay Pride Week” 2014 — that you won’t read anywhere else!

The United Way Now Promotes the Common Core

United Way Worldwide offers the following as its mission statement:

United Way envisions a world where all individuals and families achieve their human potential through education, income stability and healthy lives.

Our mission: To improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of communities around the world to advance the common good.

The goal of the United Way is to “advance the common good.”

As of June 2014, it is an organization that is “advancing” a new “common”:

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Yep. That’s right.

And one guess who forked over $1.2 million to make that happen.

Bill Gates.

Straight from the Gates Grants search engine:

Date: June 2014
Purpose: to build support for the Common Core State Standards by engaging stakeholders and community leaders nationally and locally
Amount: $1,212,571

In a March 2014 interview,  Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post questioned Gates’ motives in financing CCSS. After some tense interaction, here is his response:

I’m saying, and I’ve, I hope I can make this clear, I believe in the Common Core because of its substance and what it will do to improve education, and that’s the only reason I believe in the Common Core. And I have no, you know, this is giving money away. This is philanthropy. This is trying to make sure students have the kind of opportunity had. [Emphasis added.]

Gates had an education that defies the agenda he promotes for public education.

Both he and his children attended a private school in Seattle, Lakeside School.

Read here to see the utter absence of anything resembling CCSS at Lakeside.

And yet, Gates continues to enlist major organizations to “build support” for that which he and his children will never know firsthand.


Common Core Memorandum of Understanding Not Just for “Development”
Transcript of Gates’ March 2014 Washington Post Interview


Like my writing? Read my newly-released ed “reform” whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who in the Implosion of American Public Education.


A License to Offend

I have a license to offend. It’s called citizenship and we should be using it as often as needed to push back against the offensiveness of the left. Enough of the “Politically Correct Crap” (PCC)!  Its time to start offending some liberals.


Liberty: Come Play on the Lawn by Steven Horwitz

We all have to be good stewards of liberty’s intellectual commons.

The directions in which young libertarians are taking the movement seem to have caused a backlash among some of the libertarians of my generation, threatening to turn us into the old guys telling the kids to get off our lawn.

The problem is that it’s not our lawn. It never was.

It wasn’t our predecessors’ lawn when we overran it either. It belongs to hundreds of years of the classical liberal tradition. The libertarian movement has seen significant changes in the last few years, and I believe that those changes have broadened and diversified libertarianism in ways that are the inevitable and desirable products of our growth.

The success of organizations like Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty in bringing more young people into the movement has meant that the issues they are interested in are the ones that are getting increasing attention. Gender, race, and sexuality are part of that, but so are peace and privacy. That this generation of young libertarians wants to talk about all of those things is good, even though I might not personally think that everything they have to say about them is good. For example, I don’t want a libertarianism full of either incessant calls to check my privilege, nor little boy brutalism.

But thinking in terms of what I want, or what any other person wants, is exactly the problem: Those of us in our 40s and 50s (and beyond) simply have to realize that we don’t own the movement and that we can’t centrally plan it. The liberty movement has always been a spontaneous order that has grown and evolved in uncontrollable and unpredictable ways. We all have our views of what that direction should be, and because spontaneous orders emerge from the various intentional actions of those who constitute them, we are perfectly free to keep arguing for our own visions of where we should go. However, we must also simultaneously recognize that we are but one voice in a growing multitude and that our control is limited, despite any leadership roles we might play.

We should also think about the ways in which the growth of the liberty movement affects the production of good and bad work and our perceptions of it. By analogy, consider how the proliferation of new TV networks and falling costs of production have meant there’s just more “stuff” on TV than ever before. Thanks to HBO and Netflix and others, one result is that there’s never been more great TV than there is right now, but Orange is the New Black is competing with tons of terrible reality shows and all the rest. TV’s signal-to-noise ratio might be lower than in the past, but the absolute amount of high-quality programming has never been higher.

I would argue the same is true of libertarianism. As we’ve grown, there’s just a lot more libertarian “stuff” out there, including a lot more nonsense. Our signal-to-noise ratio is lower than when we older folks were young. But there’s also never been more good stuff. Libertarian ideas are being taken seriously in academia, public intellectual circles, and the media because we’ve done good work. And even when our ideas aren’t treated well, it remains true that a lot of smart people seem to think they have to respond to libertarian arguments. That’s a huge sign of growth and of increasing quality.

That increased public presence means that we need to be our own harshest critics. As Bastiat said, there is nothing worse than a good cause ineptly defended. For starters, we should feel no obligation to support, rather than criticize, other libertarian writers because they are libertarians (or because they are women, or gay, or anything else for that matter). We should be seeking out the best work and promoting it from the rooftops. And we should be merciless in our blunt, though civil, criticism of inferior work—including that from our friends.

Young libertarians who write for social media have to realize that they are putting their ideas into the broader public discourse on those topics, and this means they have to do real research and hone their arguments carefully because they will be held accountable for lousy work. They are not helping the cause of liberty by defending it ineptly. You cannot go from an undergraduate degree to serious libertarian pundit without actually knowing something about the history of classical liberal thought and the major contemporary work about which you’re writing. We elders who have a significant public intellectual presence got there because we did the hard work of reading lots of old books as well as plenty of new research. There’s no shortcut from the “collect underpants” of a BA to the “profits” of being taken seriously as a public intellectual.

Young libertarians also need to get used to serious criticism if they wish to compete in the arena of ideas. Whining that you’re being treated unfairly, especially because of gender, age, race, sexuality, or other trait, will simply not cut it. It’s your arguments and evidence that matter. Stop complaining. Revise your work. And try again.

That young libertarians want to talk about issues that previous generations didn’t, or make up lists of the top 20 hottest libertarian women and men, doesn’t mean that the barbarians are at the gate. Focusing on the increasing quantity of weak libertarian writing out there can easily lead us to ignore the unseen: the simultaneous increase in high-quality work. Rather than complaining about silly lists on social media and telling the kids to get off our lawn, we old folks should let the kids do what kids have always done—push the boundaries set by the previous generation. We should, however, also be holding them to the highest standards of argumentation and evidence.

Come play on the lawn, kids. Bring your new ideas and modes of expression. That lawn belongs to all of us, and it’s yours to help the rest of us landscape as you see fit. We old folks will just keep reminding you how precious an asset it is and that it takes hard work, dedication to quality, and deep knowledge of the fundamental  ideas to keep liberty’s lawn fertilized, beautiful, and productive. That’s how our elders treated us, and it’s the least we can do for the generation in whose hands the future of the liberty movement will soon rest.


Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

How large should the population of the U.S. be?


For a larger view click on the image.

The United States is the third most populated country in the world behind India and China and on a path to increase our population from a current estimate by the Census Bureau of 316 million to 458 million by the 2050 and to as much as 1.1 billion by 2100 with all of the growth stemming from immigration. We have 5% of the world’s population but 20% of all immigrants.

Interestingly the greatest number of legal as well as illegal immigrants are from Mexico but the second and third greatest numbers are from China and India. What message should we get when the second and third largest populated countries citizens are leaving their countries to come here?

The rapid growth of the growth primarily fueled by legal and illegal immigrant growth raises major questions about the future of our country. We believe an independent commission be appointed to study immigration. We need questions answered such as:

  1. What is the purpose of mass immigration? Immigration has customarily been used throughout time to settle virgin lands of which we have none. A large part of the immigration population is considered family reunification but that should not be what an immigration policy should be based on and the Jordan Commission in 1996 concluded the same and said it should be eliminated.
  2. What should the maximum ideal population of the country be? Things like traffic congestion, natural resource shortages such as water, overburdened congested cities, loss of open space and a deteriorating quality of life are some of the important considerations that need to be determined.
  3. Refugee, Diversity, and Protected Status Programs all need to be evaluated. We have a cap of 85 thousand refugees to bring into the country every year and there are many organizations vying for the opportunity with the UN basically choosing who does get to come which is a program rife with payoffs and corruption. The refugees are brought and dumped in communities without their knowledge the refugees are arriving. Every refugee we bring in at an initial cost of $20 thousand paid for by the taxpayers amounts to $1.7 Billion a year. The Director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees Roger Winters estimates 500 refugees expenses could be covered for the cost of bringing one refugee here. Simple mathematics of 500 times 85,000 means without a refugee program we could handle the expenses for 42,500,000 refugees overseas for the same amount of money. The Diversity program is an embarrassment. Please find another country in the world with a more diverse population. Likewise the so-called “Temporary” Protected Status Program is anything but temporary. Over 200 thousand El Salvadorans were brought here in 2001 following an earthquake in the country. They are still here and will probably never leave. This is a program that should immediately be terminated.

It is obvious special interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce want ever more immigrants coming to satisfy the corporate wants for cheap labor and ever increasing markets but that is not is what is in the best interests of the citizens.

Will you support an independent commission to study immigration and its long term impacts on our quality of life?

Blacks Need More Racists

A few weeks ago, the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) made a stunning announcement that caused a lot of consternation in the Black community. UNCF had accepted a $25 million contribution from Koch Industries and the Charles Koch Foundation.

Under normal circumstances, David and Charles Koch – the brothers who control the two entities – would be applauded for their generosity.  But some Blacks have labeled the Koch brothers as racist simply because they are White, conservative, and libertarians who believe in smaller government, lower taxes and ballot integrity.

However, when the critics are asked to specify what has the Koch family done that is racist, they draw blanks. They equate philosophical disagreements with being a racist. Even if that were the case, why reject money that will actually benefit Black students? The gift is one of largest in the history of UNCF. The UNCF is the primary fund-raising organization for students at private, historically Black colleges. UNCF President Michael Lomax had no problem accepting the check, saying, “… We believe that our cause is a cause that all Americans can and should support regardless of their views on other matters.”

The money will be allocated as follows:

$18.5 million will be used to create the UNCF/Koch Scholars Program, which will provide funds to “exemplary students with demonstrated financial need and an interest in the study of how entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society;” $6.5 million will provide general support to the UNCF and historically black colleges of which $4 million of those funds will be reserved to help the 37 UNCF member institutions help students who have been hurt by the denial of PLUS loans (a parent loan program).

Michael L. Lomax, president and CEO of the UNCF, is being criticized for accepting these funds from the Koch brothers  essentially because they oppose virtually everything Obama stands for – and are willing to spend billions of their own money to help their cause. It’s their money and they can do what they please with it. Everyone should be happy that they chose to support Black colleges.

Many are quick to criticize the Koch brothers but don’t have the courage to criticize  the brother in the White House. Obama’s policies have had a devastating impact on Black colleges.

Last month, I wrote a column titled, “Why Black Men Need More White Women.” I pointed out that two conservative White women were supporting policies more beneficial to African Americans than the nation’s first Black president.

Now you have two Koch entities trying to correct a different policy from the same Black president that is destroying the Black community.

In October of 2011, Obama’s Department of Education quietly and without public notice changed the underwriting standards for the very popular PLUS loan.  The changes created more stringent requirements on a parent’s ability to secure a loan for their child.  This shifts in PLUS eligibility standards has resulted in many parents of students at Black colleges having their loan applications denied and those denials have been cited as the reason many Black students have dropped out of school.

According to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of, “Based on last year’s trends [2011], nearly half of would-be PLUS borrowers this academic year [2012] might be turned away…The denials have hit particularly hard at historically black colleges and universities, presidents of those colleges, as well as higher education associations, say. They have warned that some students might not return because they can’t get the loans to pay for college.”

When the Education Department switched entirely to direct lending, the high approval rates for direct loans continued. In 2010-11, the first year when all loans were direct loans, 72 percent of PLUS applicants were approved, and just 28 percent were denied, according to department data. At the same time, the loans continued to grow, from $7.6 billion in 2008 to $10.4 billion in 2011, according to Education Department disbursement data.

“The change was made quietly — the department didn’t convene a rule-making panel or issue a letter to colleges explaining it — but the impact was dramatic,” Kantrowitz said. “Some creditors will put accounts in collections if a payment is only 30 days late. Parents who had previously been eligible for the loans found they had now been turned down.”

“Denials for PLUS loans jumped after the new requirement took effect, midway through the 2011-12 academic year. According to preliminary Education Department data, 38 percent of applicants for the loans were denied — 10 percent more than in the previous year.”  If the new criteria had been in effect all year, Kantrowitz estimated, 44 percent of applicants would have been turned down.

At least $4 million of the Koch contribution will go towards trying to remedy this Obama created disaster for these worthy college students.  It is estimated that this money will help 3,000 students stay in school.  So once again, we have a White persons coming to the rescue of the Black community when their supposed “leaders” have come down with laryngitis yet again.

Hillary won’t run in 2016

Clinton inadvertently admits she may have violated law over Benghazi.

I’ve publicly stated I do not believe Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2016. Her recent performance during the book rollout evidenced someone incapable of standing up to scrutiny. She certainly didn’t comport herself in a professional manner.

And so this recent Wall Street Journal article by Victoria Toensing builds that case even more, writing, “In her recent interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton said “I was not making security decisions” about Benghazi, claiming “it would be a mistake” for “a secretary of state” to “go through all 270 posts” and “decide what should be done.” And at a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests “did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them.”

Well, it seems the former Secretary of State may have just admitted she either didn’t follow, or intentionally broke the law — but then again, if you’re a liberal progressive socialist, laws are just recommendations.

As Toensing says, by statute, Clinton was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else. The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998.”

The similarities of history are disturbingly coincidental.

In 1999, Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs. As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board (ARB) was convened for each bombing.

Their reports in January 1999 called attention to “two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government.”

Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.

It’s not certain whether George Santayana said, “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, but we know for certain Hillary said, “what difference at this point does it make?”

In 1998 to ensure accountability in the future, the review boards (ARB) recommended “[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad” and “should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises.” And for new embassy buildings abroad, “all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound.”

So Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations. It mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary “may not delegate” the waiver decision.

What difference does it make? Well, Benghazi didn’t house all U.S. personnel in one building. There was the consulate and an annex, one of the two situations requiring a security waiver by the secretary of state, which could not be delegated.

However, here is the doozy: the “home cooking of the books.” Recognizing that the Benghazi consulate (like the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies) was a previously nongovernmental building, the 2012 Benghazi review board — co-chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering (Ms. Rice’s supervisor in 1998) and Adm. Michael Mullen — reported that this “resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under” Secca.

I don’t smell a rat. I smell a Clinton — but then again they may be synonymous.

Mrs. Clinton either personally waived these security provisions required by law or she violated the law by delegating the waiver to someone else — take your pick, they both suck!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

Florida Jews and Christians Outraged by Presbyterian Church (USA) vote to Divest Israel

On June 23, 2014 the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to divest from three American companies because of their sales to Israel, by the very narrow margin of 310-303.

“This divestment decision is simply outrageous.  We at The Jewish Federation of Sarasota-Manatee are disappointed, hurt and saddened.  But we are not surprised, given the animus that a determined core group of Church officials has demonstrated against both the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” said Howard Tevlowitz, Executive Director of The Jewish Federation of Sarasota-Manatee. “This decision will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on the relations between mainstream Jewish groups and the national Presbyterian Church (USA).  We hold their leadership accountable for failing to isolate and repudiate the radical, prejudiced voices of their own denomination.”

“We will continue to show pride in Israel and be grateful for the many amazing products and technological advances that continue to originate in Israel.  And we will focus more and more of our efforts on supporting Israel, regardless of these misguided actions” added Rabbi Howard Simon and Pastor Joey Mimbs, Co-Chairs of the Federation’s Heller Israel Advocacy Initiative.

“The action by PC USA,” continues Rabbi Simon and Pastor Mimbs, “like the BDS movement as a whole, which claims to support a peaceful resolution of the complex conflict, in reality hurts the prospects for peace. It does not promote the goal of creating two states for two peoples that Israel has embraced. Instead, it places exclusive blame on Israel while ignoring the numerous times the Palestinians have refused to negotiate in good faith, oftentimes turning to violence and terror instead.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following statement on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, “It should trouble all people of conscience and morality because it’s so disgraceful. You know, you look at what’s happening in the Middle East, and I think most Americans understand this: They see this enormous area riveted by religious hatred, by savagery of unimaginable proportions.  Then you come to Israel and you see the one democracy that upholds basic human rights, that guards the rights of all minorities, that protects Christians. Christians are persecuted throughout the Middle East. So most Americans understand that Israel is a beacon of civilization and moderation.  You know, I would suggest to those Presbyterian organizations to fly to the Middle East, come see Israel for the embattled democracy that it is, and then take a bus tour. Go to Libya, go to Syria, go to Iraq, and see the difference. And I would give them two pieces of advice: One is make sure it’s an armor-plated bus. And, second, don’t say that you’re Christians.”

Tevlowitz concludes, “nonetheless, we at JFSM are deeply disappointed that the national leadership of a prominent group has taken such counterproductive measures, but we remain committed to challenging these growing assaults on Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist as a Jewish state.”

Presbyterian Church USA joins BDS movement
Presbyterian Church USA Defeats Motion to Care for Babies Born Alive After Abortion
Israeli Leader Criticizes Presbyterian Divestment Decision (AP)
It’s Time to Leave the Presbyterian Church (USA)
Read a lengthy explanation via Huffington Post
Former KKK Grand Wizard Congratulates Presbyterian Church USA on Israel Divestment Vote

Florida: Why was Chip LaMarca the only Republican to march in the gay Twilight Parade?

fort lauderdale gay parade participants

Stonewall Pride Street Festival participants. For a larger view click on the photo.

I reported on the The Broward County, FL Twilight Parade was held on June 21st at followed by the Stonewall Pride Street Festival. Well guess who came to the parade? None other than Republican County Commissioner Chip LaMarca of Broward County. LaMarca is up for reelection and is facing a primary race.

According to, “… LaMarca’s redrawn district now contains about 10,500 more Democrats than Republicans.” Is that why LaMarca was the lone Republican marching in a parade that glorifies “sodomy and  debauchery” in Wilton Manors on June 21, 2014. LaMarca was the only one of the nine county commissioners to participate. LaMarca was accompanied by his wife.


For a larger view of the Broward visitor log click on the image.

Red Broward of The Daily Broward in August 2013 wrote:

Broward County Commission Chip LaMarca and Democrat House Leader Perry Thurston discussed a board appointment just minutes before a County Commission meeting. The Broward County Commission visitor log [image on the right] shows LaMarca and Thurston discussed the appointment over the telephone. No further information was provided.

Thurston is the Broward Democrat under investigation for telling tall tales about where he sleeps at night. Lori Parrish’s investigators said Thurston “violated the law” by taking a homestead exemption on his Plantation home. Thurston is facing another investigation by the Florida Bar.

This is the same Perry Thurston that is trying to embarrass Governor Rick Scott into holding a special session on the Stand Your Ground law. This is the same Perry Thurston rumored to be considering a bid against Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. This is the same Perry Thurston that was working for firms involved in the airport financing plan.

So why is “Republican” LaMarca taking Perry’s phone calls?

Read more.


Chip and Eileen LaMarca with His Eminence Giovanni Cardinal Lajolo, President of Vatican City.

LaMarca also considered a Republican primary run for Congress in 2012 against Adam Hasner, a strong conservative. Last year Tom Lauder from reported:

Broward County commissioner Charles “Chip” LaMarca is facing foreclosure on his Broward County home, court records show. In May of 2012, Wells Fargo Bank initiated court proceedings in an attempt to collect more than $385,000 from LaMarca and his wife. A Media Trackers Florida review of court records reveals how lobbyists, professional sports franchises, and the proliferation of campaign cash have played a role in this case.

Court records show LaMarca failed to make payments on a line of credit issued by Wells Fargo bank in June of 2006. Bank statements show LaMarca stopped making payments in August of 2010, just before winning the 2010 county commissioner election. As the lone Republican on the Broward County Commission, LaMarca often touts his fiscal responsibility and business experience. LaMarca is running for re-election in 2014.

BTW, LaMarca represents Broward County on the Florida Association of Counties Board of Directors and Finance and Audit Committee.

So is LaMarca a say one thing and do another Charlie Crist Republican? Is he a sheep in strange clothing? Is he someone who will be loyal to the Republican Party platform and support marriage as between one man and one woman? Does he deserve reelection?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Chip LaMarca and his wife Eileen (right) marching in the homosexual Twilight Parade by Anthony Man/Sun Sentinel.

How President Obama is “Cocking-up” U.S. Foreign Policy

According to Merriam-Webster cock-up means “a situation that is complicated, unpleasant, or difficult to deal with because of someone’s mistake.” This best describes how President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry are dealing with U.S. foreign policy.

What is their collective primary foreign policy objective? To promote homosexuality on a global scale.

That’s right, not addressing the persecution of Christians and Jews, the spread of the Islamic ISIS sword, the existential threat of China and Russia, the illegal alien crisis on America’s Southern border. Job one is spreading the homosexual lifestyle where ever and when ever possible.

Weekly Standard journalist Jeryl Bier reports, “With much of the Obama administration’s foreign policy in tatters, John Kerry is clear on at least one goal he hopes to achieve by the end of his time as secretary of state: having lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors representing the United States.  In remarks to a GLIFAA (formerly Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) Pride event in the Ben Franklin Room at the State Department, the secretary ran through a litany of accomplishments by the Obama administration that benefit the “LGBT/gay community.” During his speech, Kerry said that, if confirmed, Ted Osius (nominated by President Obama for the post in Vietnam) would be the sixth openly gay U.S. ambassador currently in service:

So I am very proud of the progress that we are now making even in appointing LGBT ambassadors. I worked with the committee here at the State Department – with the D Committee, and I worked with the White House. And as a result, Ted Osius, sitting here, whom I’ve known a long time, and his family I know, will be the first openly LGBT officer nominated to serve as an ambassador in Asia. And on confirmation, he’s going to join five openly gay ambassadors who are now serving their country. I’m working hard to ensure that by the end of my tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors in our ranks as well.

As he began his talk, Kerry recognized GLIFAA event moderator, Robyn McCutcheon, as the “first transgender Foreign Service officer to come out on the job”.

Before Kerry, Hillary Clinton did the same. CNN’s Frida Ghitis reported, “As Hillary Clinton makes a whirlwind round of appearances in her last days as secretary of state, one groundbreaking aspect of her work deserves a moment in the spotlight: In a bold departure with tradition, Clinton made the promotion of equality for gay people a core value of U.S. foreign policy.” [Emphasis mine]

If this is not “cocking-up” (no pun intended) U.S. foreign policy then I don’t know what is. But it gets worse.

In a Huffington Post article titled “John Kerry To Send Homosexuality ‘Experts’ To Tackle Uganda Anti-Gay Law”, Shadee Ashtari reported:

Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Tuesday [March 18, 2014] U.S. plans to send homosexuality “experts” to Uganda to discuss the country’s new Anti-Homosexuality Act with President Yoweri Museveni, according to Buzzfeed.

“I talked personally to President Museveni just a few weeks ago, and he committed to meet with some of our experts so that we could engage him in a dialogue as to why what he did could not be based on any kind of science or fact, which is what he was alleging,” Kerry said during a University Town Hall meeting at the U.S. Department of State. “He welcomed that and said that he was happy to receive them and we can engage in that kind of conversation… maybe we can reach a point of reconsideration.”

The Ugandan president signed the law, which includes up to lifetime imprisonment for homosexuality, in February after a team of Ugandan scientists informed him that there was no genetic basis for homosexuality.

Homosexuality experts? Now if that is not cocked-up, I don’ know what is. It would seem that sending experts on dealing with the many other human tragedies in Africa, and else where, should be Secretary Kerry’s priority.

Perhaps President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Secretary Kerry should look at what diplomat, statesman and former President Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democrat party, thought about homosexuality. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be castration.

Time to castrate U.S. foreign policy? What do you think?


12 Ways Homosexual Adults Endanger Children Article – Obama expands government benefits for gay couples
Texas Gov. Rick Perry Compares Homosexuality To Alcoholism In San Francisco Appearance « CBS San Francisco

How Covering up Minority Crime Leads to Gun Control

Commenting recently on the Elliot Rodger killings, arch-leftist Michael Moore wrote that while “other countries have more violent pasts…more guns per capita in their homes… and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do….” From a man who used to take the simple-minded gun-control position “fewer guns=less homicide,” it was surprising evidence of growth. After making his point, however, Moore made a mistake in following up with, “and yet we don’t seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: “Why us? What is it about US?” It’s not, however, that we don’t want to ask the question.

It’s that we don’t want to hear the answer.

We can begin seeking it by asking another question: Why is it that Vermont, with approximately the same rate of gun ownership as Louisiana, has less than one-eighth the murder rate? Even more strikingly, why does New Hampshire have both a far higher gun ownership rate and a lower murder rate than England, Piers Morgan’s favorite poster-boy nation for gun control?

Professor Thomas Sowell provided more of these seeming contradictions in 2012, writing:

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.

… [There are also] countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

So what’s the answer we don’t want to hear? The critical difference among these regions and nations is explained right in Sowell’s title: it’s “not guns.”

“It’s people.”

What “people” differences are relevant? Let’s start with race and ethnicity. In the cases of homicide in 2012 in which the races of the perpetrators were known, 55 percent were committed by blacks, 62 percent of whom were under 30 years of age. Black youths are 16 percent of the youth population, but constitute 52 percent of those arrested for juvenile violent crime.

The statistics for Hispanics are more difficult to ferret out because, unbeknownst to many, law enforcement agencies tend to lump them in with whites in crime statistics (the FBI has announced that it will finally categorize Hispanic crime — in its report on 2013). However, there is some information available. Examiner’s Ken LaRive tells us that “Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites,” but that the disparity could be even greater because of their often being classified as white.

The National Youth Gang Survey Analysis reports that gang members are approximately 49 percent Hispanic, 35 percent black and 10 percent white. And while whites are 35 percent of NYC’s population, blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crime in the Big Apple and 98 percent of all gun crime.

Another good indicator is international crime statistics. Hispanic countries dominate the homicide-rate rankings, with Honduras topping the list with a rate eight times as high as that of our worst state,Louisiana. Also note that there are no European/European descent nations in the top 20 and not one Western-tradition nation in the top 30 (Russia and Moldova are 24 and 28, respectively).

And what can we say about these “people” differences? It’s much as with the question of why men are more likely to be drunkards than women. You could explore whether the differences were attributable to nature, nurture or both. But it would be silly to wonder if the answer lay in men having greater access to bars, alcohol or shot glasses.

This brings us to why covering up minority criminality encourages gun control:

Americans won’t understand that the critical factor is people differences if they aren’t told about the people differences.

They will then — especially since most citizens aren’t even aware that there are nations with more firearms but less murder — be much more likely to blame guns. Of course, this is precisely what you want if you’re a left-wing media propagandist.

There is a question that could now be posed by the other side: if the main difference in criminality is demographics, why not outlaw guns? After all, it won’t make a difference one way or the other, right? I’ll offer a couple of answers to this question.

First, for a people to maintain just liberties, a freedom must always be considered innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is not on those who would retain it, but on those who would take it away.

Second, while private gun ownership and just law enforcement can’t turn barbarians into civilized people any more than excellent schools can transform dunces into geniuses, they can act as mitigating factors that minimize criminality as much as possible given the “raw material” with which the particular society has to work. It’s much as how you can maximize your personal safety: you may be safer in a great neighborhood with no martial arts training than in a terrible one with that training. Nonetheless, it allows you to be safer than you would be otherwise whatever neighborhood you choose.

And what do the stats show in our fair to middling USA neighborhood? Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reported that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime. That likely saves many more innocent lives than are lost in massacres every year, but these unseen non-victims don’t make headlines the way Sandy Hook tragedies do. That’s why I like to say, using a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, a bad social analyst observes only what can be seen. A good social analyst observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen.

Lastly, one more truth becomes evident upon recognizing that demographics are the main factor in criminality: even if you do believe in gun control, imposing it federally and applying a one-size fits all standard is ridiculous. In terms of people and crime, there’s a world of difference between towns in New Hampshire or Vermont, with their England-level murder rates, and cities such as East St. Louis, IL, or Detroit, which rival El Salvador in citizen lethality. You can make gun control the same everywhere, but you can’t change the fact that people will be very, very different.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Florida — Don’t be Doped, Smoking Pot is NOT medicine

“Why should we care about pot?” by Veora M. Little, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist.

We sometimes hear kids ask: “Is marijuana really bad for you?  Marijuana is legal in several states, so doesn’t this mean it’s OK to smoke?”  Make no mistake; this push to legalize marijuana is affecting how children view drug use.  As the perceived risk goes down, marijuana use goes up.  Don’t kid yourself, our children are listening and watching!

Anyone who cares about children should know that marijuana use can lower IQ.  Research published by the National Academy of Sciences, shows regular marijuana use that begins in adolescence can have long lasting effects on the brain that may not be reversible.  The more one uses marijuana, the greater the IQ decline. For some, this means a loss of up to 8 points.  Since an IQ of 100 is the average, a decline this large is significant and creates lasting damage that places many individuals at below average or lower intelligence. Furthermore, states having medical marijuana are at the top of the list in terms of drug addiction and usage by 12 to 17-year olds, according to the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services.

If you care about our public safety, you should also know that marijuana is the most detected illicit drug in auto fatalities.  Colorado, in particular, has seen double the number of drivers involved in traffic fatalities who tested positive for marijuana in recent years.

In your work environment, you should know that employees who use drugs impact the bottom line by increasing absenteeism, workplace accidents and higher healthcare costs.

Too many Floridians are unaware that Amendment 2 will legalize smoked marijuana as medicine and also creates other concerns for our state.  For example, the process to obtain medical marijuana is done by “recommendation” rather than a prescription by a physician. Only FDA approved medications demand a prescription.

In addition, none of the symptoms that marijuana claims to cure or help have the support of any major medical associations.  The Florida Medical Association; American Pediatrics Association; American Medical Association; American Cancer Society; American Academy of Ophthalmology; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Glaucoma Foundation are among the growing number of professional organizations opposed to legalizing marijuana.  The Florida Sheriff’s Association and Drug Enforcement Administration also do not support marijuana as medicine.

There are strict standards for what constitutes a medicine in this country.  It must be deliverable in exact doses, and must be made up of measureable amounts of compounds so it can be produced and controlled in its impact.  Marijuana potency and purity varies from plant to plant. It often contains harmful contaminants and when it is smoked or ingested in foods and beverages as is permitted in states with medical marijuana, the dosage can vary greatly.  Marijuana simply does not fit the basic definition of medicine. When it is self-delivered, the dosages frequently are random and inconsistent, as are the effects on the human body.

Current “evidence” supporting smoked/home grown pot, as medicine is self-reported and not scientifically or medically verified.  In an article published by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), “The Role of the Physician in ‘Medical’ Marijuana,” and its companion Public Policy Statement concluded that smoked marijuana is not, and cannot be, a medicine.  ASAM explains that any chemicals in marijuana shown to be effective and recognized as safe for use as treatments for any illness, have already been available for over 20 years. These are standardized and characterized products in the U.S., approved by the FDA, dispensed by professional pharmacies like all other medicines.

All Florida voters should carefully consider the following issues with Amendment 2:

  1. No age limit- No parental consent required.
  2. No background check or training for personal caregivers.
  3. Pot shops – Marijuana will only be sold by storefront dispensaries, not in medically controlled facilities, and will not be monitored by pharmacists.
  4. Medical marijuana laws only require a physician recommendation, not a legitimate prescription (since it is not FDA approved, a physician can not write a prescription.)
  5. There is no consumer protection when it comes to quality, purity or dosage.

Let’s do it right! We are all compassionate and caring about our loved ones’ pain and suffering, but there are far too many unintended consequences with this current proposal.  Let’s move forward with continued research. Let’s keep our kids safe and let’s keep working to keep drugged drivers off our roads.

As a parent, grandparent, I take this issue very seriously, I remember the pill mills! Please know the facts about the dangers of marijuana and what the proponents of this measure ask you to consider. I ask you to consider voting No to Amendment 2.

Veora M. Little, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist,

Additional sources: NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse),, ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House), Kevin Sabet, Ph.D., Director, Drug Policy Institute and Assistant Professor, University of Florida College of Medicine, Division of Addiction Medicine, Department of Psychiatry.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Drug Addiction Treatment California.

Iraq and the Bloody Price of Lies

Western civilization lied and people died.

It lied, that is, to itself.

I am referring to Iraq, but not to the hapless George W. Bush and the claim of WMDs’ existence, which wasn’t a lie at all. What is at issue here is more fundamental. It’s a lie that imbues Bushes, Clintons and Obamas, both the left and the right and most everyone in-between. It is the enlightened position of the modern man, a tenet of our times.

It’s the idea that all peoples are basically the same.

I wrote about this seven years ago in “The Folly of Deifying Democracy in Iraq,” in which I predicted that our “nation-building” would ultimately be fruitless:

While we often view democracy as the terminus of governmental evolution, the stable end of political pursuits, the truth is that civilizations have tended to transition not from tyranny to democracy, but democracy to tyranny (e.g., the ancient Romans). …Benjamin Franklin understood this gravitation toward tyranny well, for when asked what kind of government had been created when he emerged from the constitutional convention, he said, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

This brings us to the crux of the matter: Even if we can successfully install democratic republics in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes us think they can keep them?

…To average westerners, all groups are essentially the same, despite profound religious and cultural differences. If a civilization — be it Moslem or Christian, Occidental or Oriental — suffers under the yoke of tyranny, it is only due to a twist of fate that has bestowed the wrong system of government upon it. Change that system and “voila!” all live happily ever after.  What eludes these Pollyannas is that politics doesn’t emerge in a vacuum but is a reflection of a far deeper realm, the spiritual/moral.  Alluding to this, Ben Franklin observed,

“Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters.”

…[S]piritual [and moral] health must precede the political variety….

A good way to illustrate this point is with Lord of the Flies, William Golding’s story about a large group of young British schoolboys who are shipwrecked on an island and who, after an initial effort at democratic governance, quickly descend into brutal autocracy. Being children, they are raw pieces of humanity perfectly illustrative of the “wild man.” After all, one thing distinguishing children is that they aren’t yet morally and spiritually developed enough to govern themselves. This is why a young child must be watched and controlled, with his life micromanaged by his (usually benign) nanny state, the parents. As he grows and matures, however, the parents can gradually allow an increasing degree of self-governance until, it is hoped, a day comes when he’s capable of complete autonomy.

But as our bursting prisons prove, this process isn’t always successfully effected; more to the point, as greatly varying levels of criminality among groups evidence, not all of our nation’s sub-cultures effect this process with equal success.

If this is true of some sub-cultures in our nation, however, why would it surprise anyone that it would be true of some cultures outside our nation?

In fact, I’ve long described moral and spiritual growth as movement toward “authentic adulthood,” which, at its pinnacle, yields that ethereal combination of innocence (meaning, absence of sin) and wisdom, and the former is actually a prerequisite for the latter. Yet some cultural norms can produce just the opposite: a loss of innocence and lack of wisdom.

However you describe this growth, the fact is that peoples mature very differently. George W. Bush was famous for saying that everybody wanted freedom, but this is an imprecise statement. No nation has complete freedom (to kill, steal, etc.), so what freedoms do the people in question supposedly want? But even if a given people does want freedom in the sense of democratic self-determination, wanting isn’t enough. Virtually everyone wants money, but not everyone has the discipline and wherewithal to acquire it; everybody wants health, but some people still can’t resist smoking, eating or drinking themselves to death. Ours is a world full of people too wanting to get what they want, which is one reason why unfulfilled desire is man’s constant companion.

Ironically, the very modernists who stress how foreign Muslims are “just like us” can easily comprehend culture/system incompatibility when our own culture war is at issue. No small number of liberals have concluded that the last opposition to their agenda won’t evaporate until we traditionalists — who, ironically, liberals sometimes liken to the Taliban — die off. Oprah Winfrey said that the old “racists” were just going to have to die; Judge Judy Sheindlin said that those who oppose faux marriage were just going to have to die. What they’re really saying is that the culture on the other side of the culture war has to die (and, believe me, I consider their “culture’s” demise no less necessary). And they figure that it won’t be perpetuated because they’re forging a new culture via the media, academia and entertainment.

So why is it so hard to understand that the same principle applies to foreign intransigents?

If certain moderns can resign themselves to this with respect to Western Christian culture, why can’t they realize that it’s no different with Islamic culture? They don’t think for a moment that they can talk us traditionalists out of our deeply held principles, so why do they think they can talk Muslims out of theirs? And they have only succeeded in shaping the younger generations because they have seized control of the aforementioned culture shapers. So why would they think that Muslim civilization could be reshaped without the same Gramscian march through the madrassahs and other Islamic institutions? They act as if their own domestic political opponents are more foreign than foreigners. But I will explain the reason why.

Just as absence makes the heart grow fonder, distance makes dreams grow fanciful.

As with an irritating neighbor who, owing to continual petty annoyances, you despise more than a tyrant an ocean away, liberals are close enough to us for our behavior to have affected them viscerally so that they feel on an emotional level what they’re incapable of apprehending intellectually. But Muslims are far enough away — and I don’t just mean physically, but, more importantly, psychologically — so that it’s easy to ascribe to them whatever qualities one’s fantasies may prescribe. It’s as with the starry-eyed, naïve young lady who is smitten with an exotic but flawed man and who is just sure (as women so often are) that she’ll be able to change him: after 15 years she can be a cynical old jade who will bitterly lament, “He’ll never change!” The man, you see, made that transition from theoretical foreign naughty boy to up-close domestic nightmare.

So do you really want to know what it would truly take to transform the ‘stan du jour? Alright, but most of you either won’t like it or won’t believe it:

  1. Go in with massive force and brutality, Roman style.
  2. Execute anyone who offers resistance after dousing him in pig’s blood.
  3. Forcibly convert the population to Christianity, and thoroughly infuse their institutions with the faith.
  4. Garrison troops there for several generations, repeating steps one and two as necessary to complete the transformation.

And, by the way, there is precedent for this: It’s a version of what the Muslims did when they long ago conquered the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa.

Having said this, I’m not currently recommending such a course. I’m just telling you what would be necessary to effect the kind of change in question. You see, everyone talked about Mideast nation-building when we really just engaged in government-building and what was actually needed was something far grander than both: civilization-building. The moderns thought that if they put sheep’s clothing on a wolf it wouldn’t bite, that they could put the leaves of liberty on a tree of tyranny and they wouldn’t wither and die. We thought we were remedying causes when we were just treating symptoms.

So yesterday’s moderns called WWI “the war to end all wars.” Then their grandchildren gave us the political system to end all wars — democracy — with George W. Bush once saying that democracies don’t go to war with one another. And this is true. After all, when democracy’s birthplace, ancient Athens, democratically decided to launch a disastrous imperialistic war that ultimately cost her people their whole empire, the target was autocratic Sparta; there were no other democracies to war against at the time, you see.

So all we can really say is that democracies haven’t yet gone to war with one another. Perhaps even more to the point, democracies don’t always remain democracies; they often, sometimes quickly and violently, descend into tyranny.

Then they may go to war.

So while some commentators are saying that the current crisis in Iraq vindicates the neo-cons, it only proves that they were better than the liberals at herding cats. A wiser policy was the one we pursued during Cold War days. Understanding that the island boys were going to need a firm hand, we both kept them on their island and tried to ensure a firm hand we could handle: a pro-American dictator, such as Augusto Pinochet or Hosni Mubarak. Oh, the viciously vacuous condemned this as the authoring of tyranny, but they forget that, as Thomas Sowell often points out, in life there often aren’t any solutions, only trade-offs. And accepting this can help prevent making the wrongs ones, such as trading off blood and treasure for that fruit of folderol and fantasy — nothing.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

RELATED ARTICLEYour Government Is Sending Your Money to These Less-Than-Friendly Countries