Naming The Enemy – 2 Million Bikers to D.C.

The 2 Million Bikers to DC rally is to honor the victims of 9-11, the survivors and first responders.

We salute our members of the Armed Forces and their families who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country. God bless America and God bless our troops.

Our country is rooted in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rule of law. Our national identity of freedom and liberty is what we’ve been fighting for since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. The names have changed but our enemies who hit us on 9/11, all fly under the black flag of Jihad. It is also under that black flag of Jihad they will be defeated.

Everyone is invited to join together, on the National Mall, in a celebration of American Exceptionalism.

People will be coming from all over the country by motorcycle, plane and car to remember 9/11 in our nations Capitol.
Last year a group called The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) led by Rabbi MD Alam were granted permits for a 9/11/2013 Million Muslim March on the National Mall.

AMPAC picked the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack on United States soil surpassing even Pearl Harbor, to hold their Million Muslim March. The devout followers of Islam coordinating the Million Muslim March knew they would offend most every American in the country who watched our commercial airliners hijacked by Islamic terrorists, fly into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the last plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA.

AMPAC did not realize its insensitivity toward the American people would result in the largest motorcycle rally ever to descend on our nations capitol.

When word began to spread about the 2013 Million Muslim March a grassroots counter demonstration called 2 Million Bikers To DC was started on a single lonely Facebook page. Belinda Bee and the original group of founders joined forces and upwards of 80,000 bikers descended on Washington D.C. capturing the imagination of the nation.

Belinda Bee, Mike Belair along with their army of volunteers say the 2014 2 Million Bikers To DC Rally will be far bigger than last year. Madison Rising will provide the live entertainment along with a host of speakers. Sponsors include Harley Davidson, Budweiser, Breitbart, The United West, Operation 300, Tea Party Community and America The Movie.com.

Speakers include Dinesh D’Souza, Jan Morgan, Tom Trento, Carl Higbie – Former Navy SEAL, Karen Vaughn, Pastor Manning, Pope Dan Johnson, Manny Vega and more than we can name here.

The Tale of Two Catholic Cardinals: Chicago’s Francis George & New York’s Timothy Dolan

Hope all is well on this “Feast Day of Our Lady of Sorrows” as we bring you a very interesting e-mail here for you – a look at the two former Presidents of the USCCB – Cardinal Francis George (pictured above) and Cardinal Timothy Dolan – a stark comparison of two completely different men; two different types of cardinals; and two leaders of large and popular archdioceses in our country.

Cardinal George closely oversees the archdiocese of Chicago with two keen eyes while Cardinal Dolan nonchalantly watches over New York City with a very sleepy eye. Both archdioceses have their fair share of crime; the abortion rates are high and both cities are always under the spotlight. But, while Cardinal George takes pride in preaching boldly from the Gospels and getting out in the streets to fight crime and the other evils of a big city like Chicago – without looking for the limelight – Cardinal Dolan plays it safe – hangs out with the Pro-abortion politicians, ministers Holy Communion to them, has taken the title of the grand Marshall at the controversial St. Patrick’s Day Gay parade – and lives for the limelight…Two completely different men – both cardinals, both archbishops. Both walking in different directions.

Friends: Please take a look at the below article from the bold and courageous Cardinal George as his views on Gay marriage, Obamacare and abortion – to name a few – are quite different than this successor, Cardinal Dolan.

Cardinal George’s comments are right on target and what the Catholic faithful should consider as Catholic doctrine, Catholic teachings. He has no problem telling it like it is, has the courage to back it up and goes as far as referring to those Catholics who do not adhere to these Catholic Church teachings as the “fake church”. A devout supporter of the “Holy Roman Catholic Church”, he could not have said it any better as I refer to this new church-goer as the Progressive American Catholic – a member of this fake church that the cardinal is referring to and the church-goer that Cardinal Dolan has catered to and is actually in the process of creating, as we speak…

This “Progressive American Catholic” is completely different than the “Holy Roman Catholic” and that is the crux of the problem in the United States today.

The Catholic Church has become divided. One comes from the liberal “church of nice” – where everything is relative and everything is accepted. The other comes from the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church – the one that Jesus built upon Peter, the Rock, whose foundation is solid and will last throughout eternity. Those are the Catholic Church teachings that Cardinal George relies on and lives by. Cardinal Dolan, on the other hand, finds himself in that “politically correct” church of nice – where mostly anything goes and being in front of the media is more important than saving souls. Again, two completely different church leaders with two different agendas and two different approaches – but, yet, represent the same Holy Catholic Church and the Vatican in Rome.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with these two different schools of thought as I for one, have had more than enough of Cardinal Dolan and the liberal controversies that he has brought to our beloved Catholic Church. Dolan has disgraced our Church way too many times and millions of Catholics around the country have also had enough and even many of Cardinal Dolan’s colleagues have not been too keen on his latest attention-getting shenanigans.

Meanwhile, keep focused on what Cardinal George is preaching and bringing to the pulpit. This is the type of church leader – courageous cardinal – that the Holy Catholic Church needs today. If more cardinals and bishops spoke and acted like this Holy Man of GOD, the Catholic Church would not be in the trouble it is in today. If they all spoke from the pulpits like Cardinal George and Cardinal Burke have been doing for years, then the Catholic Faithful would know what to follow, what church doctrine really is and what the real Holy Roman Catholic Church is all about. It’s time we all boldly stand together as One Body in Christ and bring our Church back to where it is supposed to be – the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus founded over 2,000 years ago…Like EWTN’s fired up Catholic evangelist, Tom Peterson, said this past Wednesday evening at St. Jude Church in Tequesta:

CATHOLICS COME HOME…MAY MORE CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS LIKE CARDINAL GEORGE STEP UP AND LET THEMSELVES BE HEARD LOUD & CLEAR WHEN THEY SPEAK NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH! MAY CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS LIKE CARDINAL DOLAN STOP THEIR SELFISH & BLATANT ANTICS THAT CONTINUE TO DISGRACE OUR BELOVED HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!!

Cardinal: U.S. ‘Creed’ on Gay Marriage Like Sharia Law

September 10, 2014 – 2:07 PM

By Michael W. Chapman

cardinalgeorge

Cardinal Francis George, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago and a former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. (AP)

(CNSNews.com) – Cardinal Francis George, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago, said the levers of power in government, education, entertainment, and media are enforcing a “public creed,” a “fake church” that requires all citizens to approve of gay marriage and related sexual anomalies or be punished by the State, just “as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.”

Cardinal George, who was president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 2007-10, made his remarks in his Sept. 7 column for the archdiocesean newspaper. In his commentary, the cardinal explains that America , despite social frictions at certain times, had always strived to ensure religious freedom and respect for different religions.

The State, in the past, had “kept its promise to protect all religions and not become a rival to them, a fake church,” said the cardinal.

But that has now changed, he said. “In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered ‘sinful,’” he continued.  “Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes.”

“What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval,” said Cardinal George, whose archdiocese includes about 2.2 million Catholics.  “The ‘ruling class,’ those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone.”

“We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family,” he said.  “Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger.”

The cardinal then noted that Americans who objected on religious grounds to the Obamacare mandate on contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs, were chastised by many in the media, including the liberal Huffington Post, which claimed the opposition, and the six Catholic judges on the Supreme Court, raised “concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen.”

This was not the anti-Catholic voice of nativists, or the Know-Nothing Party, or the Ku Klux Klan, said the cardinal, but, “rather, the self-righteous voice of some members of the American establishment today who regard themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘enlightened.’”

“The inevitable result is a crisis of belief for many Catholics,” said Cardinal George.  “Throughout history, when Catholics and other believers in revealed religion have been forced to choose between being taught by God or instructed by politicians, professors, editors of major newspapers and entertainers, many have opted to go along with the powers that be.

”This reduces a great tension in their lives, although it also brings with it the worship of a false god,” he said.  “It takes no moral courage to conform to government and social pressure. It takes a deep faith to ‘swim against the tide,’ as Pope Francis recently encouraged young people to do at last summer’s World Youth Day.”

The cardinal continued, “Swimming against the tide means limiting one’s access to positions of prestige and power in society. It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic faith will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers.” “Nor will their children, who will also be suspect,” he said.

“Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics,” said Cardinal George.  “It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.”

Cardinal George went on to argue that U.S. civil law has done much to weaken and destroy the family, which in turn has forced the State to impose more and more restrictions on people and their activities that are unloosed from the “internal restraints that healthy family life teaches.”

He also says that many of the “tenets of the official State religion” are largely dictated by elements of a certain social class, noting that “’same-sex marriage,’ as a case in point, is not an issue for the poor or those on the margins of society.” How the situation may end, said the cardinal, is unclear because there are many Americans, “even among the ruling class, who do not want their beloved country to transform itself into a fake church.”

Catholics and traditional Christians know by faith, said Cardinal George, thatChrist will return to judge the living and the dead and the church “will be there to meet Him.”

However, “[t]here is no such divine guarantee for any country, culture or society of this age or any age,” concluded Cardinal George.

The archdiocese of Chicago, established in 1843, serves about 2.2 million Catholics through 356 parishes, and with more than 1,400 priests and 1,600 women religious. The archdiocese operates 44 schools and 5 colleges, the latter educating 49,000 students. The archdiocese also oversees 17 Catholic hospitals, assisting 2.6 million people a year, and helps another 1.2 million people through 150-plus different charities.

Islamic State releases map of 5-year plan to spread from Spain to China

The Islamic State will not succeed in advancing this far, of course. But they will murder many people as they try.

“The Structure of the Islamic State (ISIS),” by Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, September 8, 2014 (thanks to Victor):

Much has been written and said about the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (the Levant) — ISIS. Most of the commentators have looked at ISIS as another terrorist organization, an al-Qaeda off-shoot, waging a guerrilla war with cohorts of unorganized thugs. The Afghani-style gear, the pickup trucks, the all black or army fatigue uniforms which most ISIS fighters wear, the unshaven beards, the turbans, hoods and head “bandanas” with Arabic inscriptions have added to the confusion.

In fact, ISIS is much more than a terrorist organization; it is a terrorist state with almost all governing elements. Over the last three years, since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, the Islamic State developed from an extremist fringe and marginal faction participating in the civil war to become the strongest, most ferocious, best funded and best armed militia in the religious and ethnic war that is waged today in Syria and Iraq.

But first, what is the name of this entity and what are the borders of the Islamic State? From the first days of its appearance in Syria in 2011, the organization was known as ISIS. However, since the declaration in Summer 2014 of the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate headed by Ibrahim ‘Awad Ibrahim Al Badri al Samarra’i, alias Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — now the self-declared “Caliph Ibrahim” — ISIS has been transformed into the “Islamic State” (Al Dawla Al Islamiya ) in order to stress the fact that the Caliphate is not to be limited to Iraq, Syria, Israel (Palestine), Jordan and the Levant, but its ambitions lie well beyond those limited borders.

According to the maps published by the Islamic State, the Islamic State will include Andalus in the West (Spain) and stretch from North Africa — the Maghreb — (and the whole of West Africa including Nigeria) through Libya and Egypt (considered one geographical unit – Ard Al-Kinana), include what is called in Islamic state terminology, Ard el Habasha (from Cameroon in the west, Central Africa, the Victoria lake states, Ethiopia and Somalia), the Hijaz (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States), Yemen until Khurasan in the east – defined as the Central Asian Muslim Republics beginning with Azerbaijan and including Pakistan and the South west part of China, land of the Muslims of Turkish origin, the Uyghurs. The Islamic State includes also Iran and Turkey (named Anadol) in their entirety and parts of Europe (mainly the Balkans, more or less conforming to the borders of the defunct Ottoman Empire with the Austro-Hungarian territories)….

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic jihadists of Boko Haram now control land the size of Ireland

Obama does not acknowledge or recognize the fact that ‘Radical Islam’ exists

AA - Obama Stop ISISAs a lead into Obama’s prime time speech Wednesday he declared ISIL ‘the Islamic State’ is not Islamic. He justifies his comment that no religion condones killing innocents and that the vast majority of victims are Muslims. Obama refuses to either recognize or accept the fact that ISIL kills other Muslims, Christians and Jews because they are all infidels and are not true (Islamic) believers.

Radical Islam is a fact.

It appears Obama’s Muslim background has blinded him to reality.  It is difficult to see how as ‘commander-in- chief’ he can prosecute a war against an intractable Islamic enemy (Radical Islam) without understanding the nature and goals of the enemy.

In addition Obama says ISIL is not a State.  He is wrong.

ISIL controls a vast territory and its wealth, a caliphate. It passes laws, uses the wealth of the territory it conquered to further its malignant Statehood activities. It passes laws, jails or executes its adversaries and uses heavy weapons taken from those it defeated in war.. It is more than a hit and run terrorist organization. It sees itself as an Islamic Caliphate. These are the things that constitute a State? If it isn’t a State what is it?

It may be an evil State but it is a State – a caliphate. Unfortunately Obama doesn’t recognize the Islamic State (ISIL) for what it is.

Watch this compelling video with five experts speaking on the question – “Is the Islamic State Islamic?”

NOTE: The original propaganda video released by the Islamic State (IS, ISIS or ISIL) referred to by these five experts may be seen here (WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES): http://grid.pjmedia.com/?cmd=view-show-profile-article&id=2087

RELATED ARTICLE: 

Obama: Islamic State ‘Is Not Islamic”

Florida: GOP County Chairs unanimously vote to Oppose Pot Amendment

Saying it is filled with loopholes that would allow widespread access to pot, Republican county chairs voted unanimously Friday to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize medical marijuana.

Critics of the November ballot initiative, backed heavily by attorney and Charlie Crist supporter John B. Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan law firm, say the measure is so broadly written that it would allow people who don’t truly need medical marijuana to get it.

Others question the medicinal value of the drug.

“I do not want to see Florida turned into the pot capital of the world,” said Tony Ledbetter, Chairman of the Volusia County party.

The chairs also voted to oppose a proposed conservation amendment that would dedicate a share of real-estate tax revenues to efforts such as buying and preserving land.

Opponents say that measure would endanger property rights and tie the hands of the Legislature when lawmakers craft the state budget.

Here is the latest video ad featuring John (for the reefer) Morgan released by VoteNoOn2:

charlie-crist-john-morgan-in-florida-trend

Charlie Crist with John B. Morgan.

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.”

As American essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner wrote, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” In this case marijuana makes strange bedfellows.

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

Republican within striking distance of picking up Delaware U.S. Senate seat

Kevin Wade

Kevin Wade, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware.

With the primary races over and growing attention at the local, state and national levels will be on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The real battle nationally is in the U.S. Senate. Millions will be poured into races to retain or obtain control of that body.

However, there is one key Republican U.S. Senate race – in Delaware.

Kevin Wade, a self-made business man, believes he can take Joe Biden’s former U.S. Senate seat and put Delaware solidly in the “R” column. A Battleground Tracker poll shows Wade within striking distance of the incumbent Coons.

DE_Senate

Historically the Delaware U.S. Senate seat is won with approximately 150,000 total votes. The race in November will likely hinge on about 8,000 voters changing their voting pattern on the General Election Day. It is projected that the Republican turnout will be 10% higher and 10% lower for the Democrats. That leaves 8,000 voters to be convinced to swing  this U.S. Senate Republican on November 4th.

This is the seat formerly held by now Vice President Joe Biden. That alone must have Delaware Republicans energized.

According to Wade, “It is all in reach. I don’t understand the fascination with ‘big state’ races at the national level. My vote in the U.S. Senate would count as much as California’s U.S. Senator. The yield on a donor dollar and volunteer hour is so much higher in this small voting universe in Delaware.”

Kevin Wade on the Two Americas:

Recently Wade was at the Gaza Frontier with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Wade notes, “No civilian was closer. I am a trusted friend and have trusted friends there. Because of this trust, senior IDF officers closed their eyes to my presence in the forward area. The soldiers I met were returning from house-to-house fighting inside Gaza. Others were going across the fence line to enter combat. It was and remains a tough fight. To be clear I was not in combat; just nearby. One explosion was so close I felt the blast wave and my ears rang.”

“The soldiers asked me to break bread with them at their late night mess. Another night I was invited to join their prayer circle for the traditional Soldiers Prayer before they entered combat. I went to Israel, when under attack by Hamas rockets, to form a personal impression. On my last night in Israel I was invited to be a guest on I24 TV, Israel’s “CNN” for a live worldwide broadcast about the conditions there. Thirty minutes later I was face down in a roadside ditch due to another rocket attack. I saw the two rockets rise up with a fiery tail from a field to my right,” recalls Wade.

Watch this short video of Wade’s visit to Israel:

To learn more about Kevin Wade visit WadeforUSSenate.com.

Syrian Opposition Leader Attends International Counter Terrorism Conference in Israel

President Obama’s eve of 9/11 speech  in which he declared “war” on the Islamic State, formerly ISIS, contained a commitment to arm and support so-called moderate Syrian opposition to assist in “degrading and ultimately destroying” the Salafist Jihadist self-declared Caliphate. He may have been referring to the Free Syrian Army. But which Free Syrian Army (FSA)? One group has been headed by American –Syrian members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have dominated the Syrian National Council like Louay Safi with access to the White House. Moreover, as we have learned tragically, it is this Free Syrian Army, with a Supreme Military Command in Erdogan’s Ankara, that purportedly sold American Journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, who were barbarously murdered by ISIS. Those graphic beheadings deliberately conveyed on videos aroused American public opinion demanding action that prompted Obama’s televized address to the nation. This weekend, ISIS revealed another grisly beheading of British aid worker David Haines. In August 2014, President Obama had dismissed the moderate Syrian opposition as a group of “bankers, doctors and pharmacists.”

Dramatically, one leader of the “moderate” Syrian opposition Dr. Kamal al-Labwani, a veteran Syrian secular opponent of the Assad regime, surfaced in Israel this weekend at the annual International Counter Terrorism  (ICT) Conference in Herzliya. You may watch live feed of the ICT conference, here. According to the Times of Israel , who interviewed him, he is in Israel for 10-days on what Labwani described as “academic” and “exploratory” and stated he was prepared to meet with Israeli policymakers “whenever they want.”

Labwani’s attendance at the ICT conference may reflect the outreach by the other FSA led by the Syrian Opposition Coalition headquartered near embattled Aleppo composed of ex-Assad military including Alawites, Christians and Sunni tribal leaders currently battling ISIS inside Syria. My colleague Ilana Freedman estimates through her sources that there could be as many as 50,000 Syrian opposition fighters in this “other FSA.”

In our September NER, article, Did Assad and Maliki Facilitate the Rise of the Islamic State? An Interview with M. Zuhdi Jasser and Sherkoh Abbas, we noted this exchange with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser:

Gordon:  Syria lies on Israel’s Golan frontier. What has Israel contributed to the alleviation of the plight of Syrians and has there been any relationship between the democratic opposition in Syria and the Israeli government?

Jasser:  I think that’s such an important question and the Syrian National Council, they are still slowly coming around to that view. I would ask people to look at some of the writings and comments of Dr. Kamal al-Labwani who in the past few months has come out and said we should have visited more closely with Israel and guaranteed them security on the Golan as being a mechanism by which we could actually protect some of the more moderates in Syria. He’s realizing that there was no hope for the Syrian National Council (SNC) because it was being protected by Turkey and Qatar. The Islamists, including many American Syrians including Louay Safi and others who went back to run the SNC from an Islamist Brotherhood perspective. Labwani is awakening to the fact that the West is his friend, Israel is at the head of that coalition and the Golan is part of that.

Dr. Labwani has spent ten years in and out of Assad regime jails for his activism in support of a secular and democratic Syria. Labwani lives in exile in Sweden. Adam Pechter in a Fall 2007, Middle East Quarterly profile noted Labwani’s treatment by the regime of Bashar Assad for his dissidence:

Labwani has long been a thorn in the Syrian regime’s side. He angered officials with his advocacy for human rights and fundamental freedoms and has been a consistent advocate for reform. On August 28, 2002, a Syrian court sentenced him to three years in prison for his activities promoting reform during the “Damascus Spring,” the short period in 2000-01 in which the Syrian regime appeared to tolerate more open political criticism. Rather than cow Labwani, his previous imprisonment emboldened him. Following his September 2004 release from prison he founded the Democratic Liberal Gathering which calls for political and free-market reforms and equality for women.

On May 10, 2007, one week after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Syria’s foreign minister Walid al-Moallem for the highest-level bilateral talks between the two governments in more than two year a Syrian court sentenced Kamal al-Labwani to twelve years imprisonment and hard labor. That the harsh sentence coincides with Washington’s decision to reengage Damascus suggests that Assad believes the White House no longer holds it accountable for its persecution of nonviolent dissidents.

The Times of Israel report discussed Labwani views critical of Obama’s new ISIS strategy at the ICT Counter Terrorism conference, “Syrian opposition leader skeptical of US plan to arm rebels”. Labwani commented:

“Currently, the aid could fall into the wrong hands in the absence of good management and oversight,” Labwani said. “Real authority on the ground requires investment in organization before the aid is even sent.”

“We cannot fight terror with terror or crime with crime,” he said. “We must combat all the criminals, be they the regime or the terrorists from the Islamic State and the other gangs. You can’t have the Syrian people choose between a criminal named Bashar Assad or a terrorist named [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi.”

“We must reconstruct a new leadership connected to the people,” he said. “This would also require a no-fly zone. It would be pointless to create a system inside and have the [Assad] regime destroy it.”

“They [the Americans] have relied on failed regimes. They gave a portfolio to Qatar and a portfolio to Saudi Arabia … but it’s the Syrians who must take responsibility and run their own lives. We could, for instance, form a base in liberated areas in the north and the south and establish good relations with people. But to receive orders from a Saudi sheikh or a Qatari sheikh or from foreign intelligence agencies? That won’t work.”

“How can we turn this chaos into order? We need to build an authority on the ground. This requires a budget, an economy, institutions, reconstruction, and protection. Weapons aren’t enough.”

An op-ed in the Weekend Edition of the Wall Street Journal resonated Dr. Labwani’s comments, Obama Needs the Free Syrian Army to Defeat the Islamic State. The authors are Oubai Shahbandar and Michael Pregent. Mr. Shahbandar, a former Pentagon analyst, is an adviser to the Syrian Opposition Coalition of which Dr. Labwani is a member. Mr. Pregent is an adjunct lecturer at National Defense University and a former U.S. Army intelligence officer. They noted:

Until recently, the U.S. intelligence community had a grim assessment of the prospects of working with the Free Syrian Army opposition forces in an anti-ISIS campaign. Issues with command and control and unclear links to a political framework were often cited as reasons for hesitation to invest in the type of military partnership the U.S. has with Kurdish security forces in Iraq in fighting ISIS.

Nonetheless, the success of President Obama’s strategy in Syria clearly depends on the ability of the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the Free Syrian Army to fight ISIS. The good news is the FSA has established a command center outside the village of Marea in the strategically important province of Aleppo to direct and manage the battle against ISIS in northern Syria. And in August the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council, an alliance between FSA and other rebel factions, was formed to increase coordination and unity.

How can these rebel groups help the U.S. assault on ISIS? Even with the world’s most advanced intelligence reconnaissance and surveillance platforms, the U.S. military still needs “eyes on the ground” to round out the intelligence picture of ISIS’s capabilities, locations and vulnerabilities. Establishing an advice and assist relationship with the Free Syrian Army and tribal networks in eastern Syria would pay dividends for military planning. In late July, the Shaitat tribe in eastern Syria rose up against ISIS and drove them from the villages of Abu Hamam, Kashkiyeh and Ghranijup. The Shaitat have in turn faced brutal recriminations, with ISIS fighters capturing and slaughtering some 700 tribal members.

In Iraq, Kurdish Peshmerga forces have proved to be the anvil to the hammer of U.S. airstrikes, denying ISIS strategic terrain and recapturing lost territory. ISIS suffered its first strategic setback in Iraq in August with the loss of the Mosul Dam —an important blow to its image among its fracturing Sunni support base. Iraqi Sunni tribes, whose tribal confederation crosses over into eastern Syria, are also joining the fight against ISIS. In Syria, airstrikes should enable the FSA and allied tribes to retake the country’s eastern oil fields, which are vital to sustaining and funding ISIS operations.

Perhaps, Dr. Labwani’s visit to the ICT conference in Israel may also discuss possible mutual interests regarding  covert support of the FSA military command and indigenous Sunni tribes’ opposition to ISIS and the Assad regime.  If the case, one can only hope that might include linking up with Syrian Kurdish resistance forces, despite earlier differences.

Watch this March 31, 2014, MEMRI video interview with Dr. Labwani that may have prompted his current visit to the IDC conference in Herzliya.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the New English Review. The featured image is of  Syrian Opposition Leader, Dr. Kamal Labani on right at ICT Conference Herzliya Israel 9-11-14. Source Moti Kahana,  Times of Israel.

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’