Government covering up Muslims infected with Tuberculosis are Migrating to America

tb alertFour cases of active TB reported in refugees in Indiana, here.

I was about to quit posting for the day and try to answer some emails when I spotted yet another story about TB on the rise in America and it is pretty clear that the rise is a result of the increase in the immigrant population.

In 2013 there were 100 multi-drug resistant cases of TB in the US. How many today? 80% of those were people who were born elsewhere.

Tuberculosis2-worldmap4

We have reported on the work of reporter Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart on the subject (here and here), and now here is a story at World Net Daily by Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vilet you should read. She says:

Yet there is another serious threat [in addition to terrorism—ed] to Americans not being adequately disclosed to the public by government agencies and most media outlets: the invisible invaders traveling with humans that carry bacterial, viral and fungal diseases rare or eradicated in the United States.

[….]

In 2014 I wrote three separate nationally released articles on the risks of these disease issues to alert Americans of the new threats. That same year, the Centers for Disease Control warned its own workers to expect a rise in tuberculosis and other infectious diseases in the refugees and detention centers for illegals.

But CDC, charged with protecting Americans from spread of serious disease, did not make this information public. Thus, the American public was unaware of the disease danger lurking in their communities and schools.

Continue reading here.

They will always tell you when you are over the target!

This growing story, about health risks involved with refugees permitted entry to the US even when they carry diseases or parasites, scares the you-know-what out of the leaders of the refugee industry.

In just a couple of hours (local time), there will be a protest of a TV station in Fargo, ND by refugees and their advocates claiming the station and one reporter are stoking “fears about refugees by unfairly labeling them a public health risk.”

They want the TV station to apologize.

The story, here, quotes a medical professional assuring readers that all refugees are screened for TB before entering the US!  LOL! they may be screened, but they aren’t rejected if they are positive!

We have written often over the years about the risks and costs of refugees with TB and other diseases (and mental health problems) admitted to the US. Visit our health issues category here for much much more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Another TB shocker from Breitbart: over 200 active TB cases in Arizona began as latent TB

TB controversy continues as refugees and their advocates protest TV station in Fargo, ND

Four cases of active TB reported in refugees in Indiana!

Catholic Charities eyeing Arkansas for new resettlement site

Utica, NY: Give refugees summer jobs or pay for it later

It’s getting testy in Tennessee over states’ rights lawsuit on refugee program

Speaker Ryan complicit in Syrian migrant surge to America

Maybe my choice of the word “complicit” is being too easy on him!

Obama and Ryan 2

Pals! And, what was that beard all about?

Writer George Rasley at Conservative HQ puts the blame on Ryan for not halting the program in that now infamous Omnibus funding bill late last year when he had the chance.  Rasley also explains in ‘Paul Ryan’s Hijra‘ that Ryan knew all along what he was doing to make it look like the Republican House was on our side when he knew full well, the Senate would do the job for him!

Nice to see the word “Hijra” getting more attention these days.

Be sure to see Richard Falknor, here at Blue Ridge Forum admonishing national security leaders, but really every one of us, to learn the ten words (first published at Gates of Vienna) that many in our woefully uneducated national security apparatus don’t even know! Go there and see if you know all ten! (Hijra is third on the list)

Back to Ryan’s Hijra where Rasley reports on the revelation yesterday (headlined at Drudge) that the Syrian refugee surge is now full steam ahead (hat tip: Cathy):

…on Monday the State Department admitted 225 Syrian Muslim “refugees”, setting a single-day record, and on Tuesday a further 80 were admitted.  [This is why you are seeing so much activity by the feds/contractors trying to find new resettlement sites—ed]

cover to my book

As our friend Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times put it, “the spike is stunning, with more people accepted Monday alone than in the entire months of January or February.”

As Dinen noted, Obama has promised to accept 10,000 refugees from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. As of Tuesday evening, the administration had approved 2,540 — an average of about 10 applications a day.

Less than 1 percent of these “refugees” are Christians, whose oppression is well documented, according to Dinen 97 percent are Sunni Muslims, the same Sunni Muslim who form the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

But, it isn’t just Obama we should blame!

In a rational world this dangerous piece of Obama’s plan to fundamentally transform America by importing jihad into our country would be stopped cold by a Republican majority in Congress.

But this is not a rational world, this is a world run by the personal whim of arrogant Washington insiders, chief among them being Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

Ryan has made increasing Muslim immigration to America his special project and has steadfastly fought any attempts by conservatives to slow or stop what a large majority of American believe is an existential threat to constitutional liberty.

Ryan, as many conservatives demanded, could have included a defund in the must-pass Omnibus that would have effectively ended or temporarily halted the program.

You need to go to Conservative HQ and see how Ryan manipulated the vote to make it look like the Republican House cared about you and your security.

See all of our posts on the Syrian surge by clicking here.

And, finally for new readers, check out my book of last year ‘Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.‘  I hadn’t been to Amazon for months and was surprised to see that there are 94 customer reviews.  Some day I’ll pull out some of the meanest comments (I bet they never even read the book!).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spartanburg, SC Christians have run out of “vulnerable” Americans in need of help!

Congolese refugees are going to Ogden, UT, volunteers needed, but whites should not apply

Chipotle Mexican Grill ‘partners’ with refugee contractor IRC

Think about Utica, NY before you jump on the “welcoming refugees” bandwagon

Gitmo Detainees Coming to US? Not So Fast

Defeating ISIS won’t stop terrorism, but defeating Wahhabism can by Dr. Ali Alyami

While Western powers are mired in fighting diversionary and unwinnable ideological and civil wars in many Arab and Muslim countries thousands of miles away, the Saudi government has been intensely planting and financing its lethal doctrine (Wahhabism) in Kosovo, Europe’s backyard.  Ironically, the Saudi success in penetrating Kosovo, as this New York Times’ account amply demonstrates, can partially be attributed to Western powers’ policies and myopic view of the world as it is.

According to a high ranking official in the Serbian Embassy in Washington, D.C. (related to me in a casual conversation a few years ago), the Clinton Administration was under tremendous pressure from the Saudi regime and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to invade Serbia. As per UN demands, NATO conducted “Operation Deliberate Force” against Serbia in August 1995. The massive bombardment of Belgrade resulted in forcing the Serbian regime to halt its ethnic cleansing and forced the Serbian government to accept the independence of Kosovo. Once that was achieved, the West effectively exited the fragile newly independent Kosovo, opening the door for the Saudi regime to embark on an unprecedented operation of radicalizing the Kosovars through an enormous infusion of money and extremist imams. While the Western powers saved the Kosovars from Serbian onslaught, they abandoned them to subjugation by a punishing ideology that poses a dire threat to Western democracy.

Dr. Ali Alyami

Dr. Ali Alyami

This is not the first or only time that the Saudi/Wahhabi collaborators have infiltrated and radicalized other Muslim societies in order to expand their hegemonical influence and intimidate those who pose threats to their repressive religious and political domination. As has been abundantly documented, the Saudi regime has employed the same method they have used successfully in Kosovo, that of building schools, mosques and sending radical imams, to infiltrate and radicalize not only large segments of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen and even Egypt, but is using the same technique to infiltrate Muslim communities in Europe, the US, Canada and South America.

The question that must be asked is when Western governments, societies and businesses will realize that their empowering democratic values and lifestyle are being threatened by the Saudi deadly doctrine which has been described as the “Fountain Head of Muslim terrorism.” The West should have heeded the warnings offered by powerful and prominent Muslims like the former President of the most populated Muslim country, Abdulrahman Wahid of Indonesia who said that “Muslims and non-Muslims must unite to defeat the Wahhabi ideology.

Defeating ISIS won’t eliminate terrorism, but defeating Wahhabism will go a long way toward eradicating the root causes of extremism and terrorism. ISIS is only a symptom of something bigger and more dangerous.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in TheNatSecDailyBrief.

A Conversation About America’s Future with Donald Trump and Ben Carson — June 21, 2016

WOODSIDE, Calif. /PRNewswire/ — United in Purpose and My Faith Votes today jointly announced the collaborative organization of “A Conversation About America’s Future with Donald Trump and Ben Carson,” to be held June 21, 2016 in New York City.

Carson, My Faith Votes honorary chair, will give leadership to a guided discussion between Trump and diverse conservative Christian leaders to better understand him as a person, his position on important issues and his vision for America’s future, while also enabling him to better appreciate matters of importance to the influential and substantial faith community.

“This moment is perhaps the most critical in the history of our nation, and people of faith can make a crucial difference for our children and grandchildren by exercising their civic duty to cast an informed vote based on a biblical worldview,” said Carson. “The goal is that coming out of this meaningful ‘conversation,’ the faith leaders and Mr. Trump will be more informed about each other and would know one another better, and that he would see their unity in seeking God’s direction for the future of America.”

This meeting, closed to media, will be neither a fundraiser nor a political or campaign event, nor will it engage in debate. Carson will open with a brief address on the importance of unity, but apart from participating in dialogue with attendees, Trump is not expected to make formal remarks.

“Christian leaders are deeply concerned about the state of our nation after years of government policies and political correctness that have begun to radically and adversely affect the ability of Christians to live out their faith within America’s political and cultural landscape,” said Bill Dallas, United in Purpose CEO. “Our hope is that as we gather together there can be unity of spirit within the Church in America, even as each individual makes his or her own decisions as to who will be the future leaders in our government.”

Each of the prominent Christian leaders in attendance has their own, diverse opinions, positions and constituencies. Having a direct, private conversation with Trump is a part of the process of hearing and being heard by him about issues of faith that affect all people. The group will not be making any joint or collective endorsements, decisions or statements.

“Our priorities for this meeting are to strengthen relationships and build unity, with an objective to simply have a conversation about the prospects of our nation and the continuing influence of Christian believers and their biblical worldview,” said Sealy Yates, chairman of My Faith Votes. “We wish to talk with specificity to Donald Trump about issues of faith and the role of faith in the civic arena. And, we wish to assure him of our prayers for his family and him. This will be a friendly meeting of people of faith who are genuinely, prayerfully concerned about the future of America.”

Not intended to be political in nature, the June 21 event will be attended by leaders of virtually every one of the nation’s most significant denominations, Christian ministries and policy organizations, as well as many pastors of America’s leading churches.

United in Purpose and My Faith Votes are both inclusive non-partisan organizations committed to bringing about cultural change in America based on Judeo-Christian principles and motivating and mobilizing people of faith in the democratic process through responsible citizenship.

FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT:             

Larry Ross for United in Purpose | ALR@ALarryRoss.com | 972.267.1111
Johnnie Moore for My Faith Votes | Johnnie@theKcompany.co | 434.426.5310

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Gossip Extra collage.

American Churches Are Ignoring The Genocide Of Their Own

Actions speak louder than words, but in this case, no words are just as indicative of a lack of intention. As it is with Obama’s refusal to call the killing and maiming done in the name of Allah, Islamic terrorism, so it is with many Christian pastors who say nothing from the pulpit about the genocide of Christians and who is perpetrating it. Their silence is deafening.

It is a national disgrace to consider the lack of support towards a people who hold to the same faith as the one in which the country was founded. What is more incredulous is the way many pastors have allowed political correctness to seep into the culture of the church to the point of rendering them spineless when it comes to speaking out against the barbaric ideology of Islam.

More importantly, there is minimal aid being sent to the Christians in the Middle East to help them survive the onslaught of a ruthless movement set on establishing the Caliphate. Even after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, there was a massive outpouring of funds and assistance from the church going to the region for relief of suffering, yet when we see countless reports of Christians being beaten, beheaded, and crucified, the church looks the other way and sends no help.

Do the pastors think their congregations to be deaf and dumb? Do they not realize that their members have internet and can see the atrocities that are happening on a grand scale? The clergy in America may remain quiet, but the blood of Christians who have been marked, singled out, and slaughtered by Muslims won’t be silent.

The Reverend Douglas Al-Bazi, a priest of the Chaldean Catholic Church who in 2006 was kidnapped and tortured for nine days by Islamic terrorists knows first-hand about the genocide taking place against Christians in Iraq.

Al-Bazi has witnessed the number of Christians in Iraq go from 1.4 million in 2003 to just under 250,000 after Islamic State invaded in 2014. Amazingly some 120,000 Iraqi Christians were expelled overnight from Mosul taking with them the only personal belongings they could hold.

The Chaldean priest endured days without water and had his teeth, and vertebrae broken with a hammer during his kidnapping. Fortunately, he was released, and has been a witness for many Christians whose lives have been changed forever by Islamic oppression. Reverend Al-Bazi knew a fellow priest who unlike himself, did not survive his captors’ brutal treatment, but was killed and buried in a shallow grave after telling the church not to give a ransom for his life because he knew the money would not be used for good.

In fact, those who are priests in Iraq have been told they probably won’t die a natural death. These strong Christian men know they have been marked for death by various Islamic groups, yet they choose to stay in the land where the very first Christians were said to have lived in the first century.

Al-Bazi is the director of Mar Elia Refugee Camp for Iraqi Christians, and holds the position of Parish Priest in the same town of Irbil, Iraq. He says the Christians remaining in Iraq want to stay in their homes. Many though, have left the area because of an obvious lack of opportunity that is given to a professing Christian.

With all this being known, the US government allows the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to choose 95% of the refugees we admit into our country from the UN camps. These camps have very strict Islamic environments, and not many Christians venture into them for help. So, our refugee program trusts the UN to send us the people it deems worthy.

Americans, especially those who value God-given freedom need to raise their voices and demand the Refugee Resettlement program assist the most vulnerable refugees, those Christians who are marked for death because of their faith. Further, it should be the pastors who are leading the charge on this issue. Our tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on bringing Muslim refugees to our country who adhere to the same ideology that espouses the genocide of Christians.

Maybe we just need more video footage of Christians fleeing for their lives like the Indonesians and Thai people were the day the tsunami swept in with its overbearing destruction. Or could it be the need for Christian pastors to wake up to the reality that Christians are in a battle that is being waged by Islam and decide to speak the truth about the genocide from their pulpits. It is way past time to start strengthening Christians in the Middle East who are fighting to provide a future for their families as well as their very survival.

*If you or your church would like to help Christian Refugees, please go to: http://www.helpiraq.org/.

‘The State Baptizes Rampant Immorality with the Water of Consensus’

History tells us that what marks the decline and fall of civilizations is the state’s embrace of immorality. From ancient Greece to the Roman Empire to Venezuela.

Consensus is the opiate of the state.

The title of this column was taken from the article The Founding Father of Fascism by Jeffrey Tucker. In his column about British philosopher Thomas Carlyle Tucker wrote:

Why the state? Because within the state, all that is otherwise considered immoral, illegal, unseemly, and ghastly, can become, as blessed by the law, part of policy, civic virtue, and the forward motion of history. The state baptizes rampant immorality with the water of consensus. 

[ … ]

The exercise of such power necessarily requires the primacy of the nation state, and hence the protectionist and nativist impulses of the fascist mindset. [Emphasis added]

Russian born American Writer and Novelist, Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Are today’s uncontested absurdities created by public consensus, the state or something else? 

World Net Daily’s Janet Porter writes, “When you issue an invitation to predators to walk into women’s private dressing rooms and restrooms, don’t be surprised when they accept… [T]ransgenderism (men who identify as women and vice versa) is a mental disorder. Before the name calling and threats begin, I’m not the one who said that; the American Psychiatric Association is. The current APA “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM-5) states that “people whose gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with” are diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” – a mental disorder.” Read more.

obamagayMany believe that America is in decline because its leaders are embracing immorality, they fail to distinguish evil from good, wrong from right, rhetoric from reality. 

In The ‘Top Ten Absurdities’ of the Gender Confused/Genderphobic are these failures to distinguish reality from rhetoric:

  1. Questioning one’s birth sex (male/female) is the new normal.
  2. Calling someone a boy or girl is racist, bigoted and makes you a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
  3. Tolerance is a one-way-street (its my gender confused way or the highway).
  4. Buggery is normal and healthy behavior, procreating is evil.
  5. I can change my sex regardless of the laws of biology, science and genetics.
  6. By simply changing my appearance, I am the sex I am portraying.
  7. The needs of the 2% (gays) outweigh the needs of the 98% (straights).
  8. It is okay to become a priest or boy scout leader in order to have sex with an underage boy.
  9. Child pornography and pornography in general are healthy.
  10. Muslims are our friends, Christians and Jews are the enemy.

Genderphobia may be defined as:

An overwhelming and unreasonable fear of forces that cause controversy, fragmentation, scandal, chaos or discord within the LGBTQ community, thereby disturbing homosexual peace and order, which requires immediate and brutal condemnation.

Genderphobia has led to a movement where the absurd (the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable) has become the norm and national public policy. Among those exhibiting Genderphobia, i.e. ridiculous and unreasonable qualities, are politicians, Hollywood stars, university professors, public school teachers, parents and their children.

Does the genderphobic state fail to distinguish evil from good, wrong from right, rhetoric from reality? Since the 1950s we have seen the absurd become America’s official ideology.

Is it now time for mankind to embrace good, right and reality?

The state has been the creator of our most profound absurdities.

Is it time to reign in the state before it becomes so powerful that is holds the reigns of the the people?

That is the question.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Why is Obama Obsessed with our Sexual Identities?

SHAPIRO: Your Daughter Must Pee Next to a Man, and You Will Be Compelled to Agree

What Really Drives the LGBT Agenda

Federal Court: Schools May Not Provide Separate Bathrooms Based on Biology

K-12 School Proposes Removing Urinals and Making Bathrooms Gender Neutral

My Dad Was Transgender. Why I Still Think Gender Can’t Be Changed

Texas Sues Obama Administration Over Transgender Bathroom Directive

EDITORS NOTE: If you have other “gender confused” absurdities please add them in the comments section below. We will be posting other Top Ten Absurdities lists. If you have any areas of interest please note them in the comments section.

Faith Based Super PAC Will Raise $1 Billion to Elect Trump

NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire/ — Post Publishing.BUZZ, an online based faith newspaper, announces Trump Super PAC ‘Get Our Jobs Back Inc.’ will raise $1 Billion Dollars to support the Trump campaign.

Trump Super PAC CEO, Mr. Steven Hoffenberg, at the PAC named, ‘Get Our Jobs Back Inc, who is also CEO of Post Publishing. BUZZ, said, “The USA race is about the voters’ jobs and demanded money that only Trump has the legacy in bringing back, to our broken USA, jobs to the market.”

Voters don’t want any more foolish media TV experts spin, voters need jobs and money right now in the broken USA. The voters need loans to open small companies that are the foundation of the USA industry. Trump is the only expert in Jobs, and the voter’s small businesses demanding loans. Media TV experts don’t understand the demanded jobs right now by the voters. Trump knows what the voters demand in jobs & voters’ loans for the voter’s small business to rebuild the broken USA jobs market.

Trump Super PAC CEO, Hoffenberg, at the PAC, ‘Get Our Jobs Back Inc.‘ said, “The Trump Super PAC team staff will raise over $1 Billion Dollars with expert stock brokers in the USA for the White House race victory by Trump now.”

postpublishing.buzz logoAbout Post Publishing.BUZZ

The Post Publishing.BUZZ, is an online faith based newspaper for the followers of Jesus Christ throughout the entire world.

EDITORS NOTE: New York City Media Agency for Trump Super PAC, ‘Get Our Jobs Back Inc.’ is Winner Media, LLC

The Founding Father of Fascism by Jeffrey Tucker

Thomas Carlyle [pictured above] fits the bill in every respect.

Have you heard of the “great man” theory of history?

The meaning is obvious from the words. The idea is that history moves in epochal shifts under the leadership of visionary, bold, often ruthless men who marshall the energy of masses of people to push events in radical new directions. Nothing is the same after them.

In their absence, nothing happens that is notable enough to qualify as history: no heroes, no god-like figures who qualify as “great.” In this view, we need such men.  If they do not exist, we create them. They give us purpose. They define the meaning of life. They drive history forward.

Great men, in this view, do not actually have to be fabulous people in their private lives. They need not exercise personal virtue. They need not even be moral. They only need to be perceived as such by the masses, and play this role in the trajectory of history.

Such a view of history shaped much of historiography as it was penned in the late 19th century and early 20th century, until the revisionists of the last several decades saw the error and turned instead to celebrate private life and the achievements of common folk instead. Today the “great man” theory history is dead as regards academic history, and rightly so.

Carlyle the Proto-Fascist

The originator of the great man theory of history is British philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), one of the most revered thinkers of his day. He also coined the expression “dismal science” to describe the economics of his time. The economists of the day, against whom he constantly inveighed, were almost universally champions of the free market, free trade, and human rights.

His seminal work on “great men” is On Heroes,  Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1840). This book was written to distill his entire worldview.

Considering Carlyle’s immense place in the history of 19th century intellectual life, this is a surprisingly nutty book. It can clearly be seen as paving the way for the monster dictators of the 20th century. Reading his description of “great men” literally, there is no sense in which Mao, Stalin, and Hitler — or any savage dictator from any country you can name — would not qualify.

Indeed, a good case can be made that Carlyle was the forefather of fascism. He made his appearance in the midst of the age of laissez faire, a time when the UK and the US had already demonstrated the merit of allowing society to take its own course, undirected from the top down. In these times, kings and despots were exercising ever less control and markets ever more. Slavery was on its way out. Women obtained rights equal to men. Class mobility was becoming the norm, as were long lives, universal opportunity, and material progress.

Carlyle would have none of it. He longed for a different age. His literary output was devoted to decrying the rise of equality as a norm and calling for the restoration of a ruling class that would exercise firm and uncontested power for its own sake. In his view, some were meant to rule and others to follow. Society must be organized hierarchically lest his ideal of greatness would never again be realized. He set himself up as the prophet of despotism and the opponent of everything that was then called liberal.

Right Authoritarianism of the 19th Century

Carlyle was not a socialist in an ideological sense. He cared nothing for the common ownership of the means of production. Creating an ideologically driven social ideal did not interest him at all. His writings appeared and circulated alongside those of Karl Marx and his contemporaries, but he was not drawn to them.

Rather than an early “leftist,” he was a consistent proponent of power and a raving opponent of classical liberalism, particularly of the legacies of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. If you have the slightest leanings toward liberty, or affections for the impersonal forces of markets, his writings come across as ludicrous. His interest was in power as the central organizing principle of society.

Here is his description of the “great men” of the past:

“They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world’s history….

One comfort is, that Great Men, taken up in any way, are profitable company. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon a great man, without gaining something by him. He is the living light-fountain, which it is good and pleasant to be near. The light which enlightens, which has enlightened the darkness of the world; and this not as a kindled lamp only, but rather as a natural luminary shining by the gift of Heaven; a flowing light-fountain, as I say, of native original insight, of manhood and heroic nobleness;—in whose radiance all souls feel that it is well with them. … Could we see them well, we should get some glimpses into the very marrow of the world’s history. How happy, could I but, in any measure, in such times as these, make manifest to you the meanings of Heroism; the divine relation (for I may well call it such) which in all times unites a Great Man to other men…

And so on it goes for hundreds of pages that celebrate “great” events such as the Reign of Terror in the aftermath of the French Revolution (one of the worst holocausts then experienced). Wars, revolutions, upheavals, invasions, and mass collective action, in his view, were the essence of life itself. The merchantcraft of the industrial revolution, the devolution of power, the small lives of the bourgeoisie all struck him as noneventful and essentially irrelevant. These marginal improvements in the social sphere were made by the “silent people” who don’t make headlines and therefore don’t matter much; they are essential at some level but inconsequential in the sweep of things.

To Carlyle, nothing was sillier than Adam Smith’s pin factory: all those regular people intricately organized by impersonal forces to make something practical to improve people’s lives. Why should society’s productive capacity be devoted to making pins instead of making war? Where is the romance in that?

Carlyle established himself as the arch-opponent of liberalism — heaping an unrelenting and seething disdain on Smith and his disciples. And what should replace liberalism? What ideology? It didn’t matter, so long as it embodied Carlyle’s definition of “greatness.”

No Greatness Like the State

Of course there is no greatness to compare with that of the head of state.

“The Commander over Men; he to whose will our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so, may be reckoned the most important of Great Men. He is practically the summary for us of all the various figures of Heroism; Priest, Teacher, whatsoever of earthly or of spiritual dignity we can fancy to reside in a man, embodies itself here, to command over us, to furnish us with constant practical teaching, to tell us for the day and hour what we are to do.”

Why the state? Because within the state, all that is otherwise considered immoral, illegal, unseemly, and ghastly, can become, as blessed by the law, part of policy, civic virtue, and the forward motion of history. The state baptizes rampant immorality with the water of consensus. And thus does Napoleon come in for high praise from Carlyle, in addition to the tribal chieftains of Nordic mythology. The point is not what the “great man” does with his power so much as that he exercises it decisively, authoritatively, ruthlessly.

The exercise of such power necessarily requires the primacy of the nation state, and hence the protectionist and nativist impulses of the fascist mindset.

Consider the times in which Carlyle wrote. Power was on the wane, and humankind was in the process of discovering something absolutely remarkable: namely, the less society is controlled from the top, the more the people thrive in their private endeavors. Society needs no management but rather contains within itself the capacity for self organization, not through the exercise of the human will as such, but by having the right institutions in place. Such was the idea of liberalism.

Liberalism was always counterintuitive. The less society is ordered, the more order emerges from the ground up. The freer people are permitted to be, the happier the people become and the more meaning they find in the course of life itself. The less power that is given to the ruling class, the more wealth is created and dispersed among everyone. The less a nation is directed by conscious design, the more it can provide a model of genuine greatness.

Such teachings emerged from the liberal revolution of the previous two centuries. But some people (mostly academics and would-be rulers) weren’t having it. On the one hand, the socialists would not tolerate what they perceived to be the seeming inequality of the emergent commercial society. On the other hand, the advocates of old-fashioned ruling-class control, such as Carlyle and his proto-fascist contemporaries, longed for a restoration of pre-modern despotism, and devoted their writings to extolling a time before the ideal of universal freedom appeared in the world.

The Dismal Science

One of the noblest achievements of the liberal revolution of the late 18th and 19th centuries — in addition to the idea of free trade — was the movement against slavery and its eventual abolition. It should not surprise anyone that Carlyle was a leading opponent of the abolitionist movement and a thoroughgoing racist. He extolled the rule of one race over another, and resented especially the economists for being champions of universal rights and therefore opponents of slavery.

As David Levy has demonstrated, the claim that economics was a “dismal science” was first stated in an essay by Carlyle in 1848, an essay in which non-whites were claimed to be non-human and worthy of killing. Blacks were, to his mind, “two-legged cattle,” worthy of servitude for all times.

Carlyle’s objection to economics as a science was very simple: it opposed slavery. Economics imagined that society could consist of people of equal freedoms, a society without masters and slaves. Supply and demand, not dictators, would rule. To him, this was a dismal prospect, a world without “greatness.”

The economists were the leading champions of human liberation from such “greatness.” They understood, through the study of market forces and the close examination of the on-the-ground reality of factories and production structures, that wealth was made by the small actions of men and women acting in their own self interest. Therefore, concluded the economists, people should be free of despotism. They should be free to accumulate wealth. They should pursue their own interests in their own way. They should be let alone.

Carlyle found the whole capitalist worldview disgusting. His loathing foreshadowed the fascism of the 20th century: particularly its opposition to liberal capitalism, universal rights, and progress.

Fascism’s Prophet

Once you get a sense of what capitalism meant to humanity — universal liberation and the turning of social resources toward the service of the common person — it is not at all surprising to find reactionary intellectuals opposing it tooth and nail. There were generally two schools of thought that stood in opposition to what it meant to the world: the socialists and the champions of raw power that later came to be known as fascists. In today’s parlance, here is the left and the right, both standing in opposition to simple freedom.

Carlyle came along at just the right time to represent that reactionary brand of power for its own sake. His opposition to emancipation and writings on race would emerge only a few decades later into a complete ideology of eugenics that would later come to heavily inform 20th century fascist experiments. There is a direct line, traversing only a few decades, between Carlyle’s vehement anti-capitalism and the ghettos and gas chambers of the German total state.

Do today’s neo-fascists understand and appreciate their 19th century progenitor? Not likely. The continuum from Carlyle to Mussolini to Franco to Donald Trump is lost on people who do not see beyond the latest political crisis. Not one in ten thousand activists among the European and American “alt-right” who are rallying around would-be strong men who seek power today have a clue about their intellectual heritage.

And it should not be necessary that they do. After all, we have a more recent history of the rise of fascism in the 20th century from which to learn (and it is to their everlasting disgrace that they have refused to learn).

But no one should underestimate the persistence of an idea and its capacity to travel time, leading to results that no one intended directly but are still baked into the fabric of the ideological structure. If you celebrate power for its own sake, herald immorality as a civic ideal, and believe that history rightly consists of nothing more than the brutality of great men with power, you end up with unconscionable results that may not have been overtly intended but which were nonetheless given license by the absence of conscience opposition.

As time went on, left and right mutated, merge, diverged, and established a revolving door between the camps, disagreeing on the ends they sought but agreeing on the essentials. They would have opposed 19th-century liberalism and its conviction that society should be left alone. Whether they were called socialist or fascists, the theme was the same. Society must be planned from the top down. A great man — brilliant, powerful, with massive resources at his disposal — must lead. At some point in the middle of the 20th century, it became difficult to tell the difference but for their cultural style and owned constituencies. Even so, left and right maintained distinctive forms. If Marx was the founding father of the socialist left, Carlyle was his foil on the fascist right.

Hitler and Carlyle

In his waning days, defeated and surrounded only by loyalists in his bunker, Hitler sought consolation from the literature he admired the most. According to many biographers, the following scene took place. Hitler turned to Goebbels, his trusted assistant, and asked for a final reading. The words he chose to hear before his death were from Thomas Carlyle’s biography of Frederick the Great. Thus did Carlyle himself provide a fitting epitaph to one of the “great” men he so celebrated during his life: alone, disgraced, and dead.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

Liberals Fumble the Ball When It Comes to the Redskins

I constantly tell my readers to always remember the key tenant of liberalism is “intent, not result.” To a liberal, the ends always justify the means.

Now I want to paint several scenarios for you.

You go to a restaurant and tell your server you want seafood, but yet they insist on trying to get you to have a steak.

You go to vote and you tell the election official that you want a Republican ballot, but they try to convince you to take a Democratic ballot.

You go to buy orchestra tickets for a concert, but they try to get you to buy seats in the upper balcony.

Liberal orthodoxy implies that they know what you want more than you do, therefore, they should be able to force you to take what they are offering you.

Under each of the above scenarios, you the consumer should get what you want. You, after all, are the customer and you are the one spending the money. You know what you want to eat, you know how you want to vote, and you know where you want to sit.

So, I was not surprised in the least at the reaction of liberals last week to a major poll that was released about the Washington Redskins of the National Football League (NFL).

Over the past ten years or so, liberals have been on a national shaming campaign to force sports teams to change the names of any mascot “they” deem offensive, even if the supposed offended group is not offended.

The Redskins have come under enormous pressure from the N.F.L., President Obama, many in Congress, even the mayor of Washington, D.C., Muriel Bowser, to change the team’s name.

The last time I checked, the Redskins are a private corporation and receive no government funds; thus can do what the hell they want to do with their name. If you have an issue with their name, don’t attend their games or watch them on TV.

But, please don’t tell a private entity what they can and cannot do.

Liberals are notorious for making a conclusion and then trying to find facts to support their conclusion, versus looking at the facts and then making a conclusion based on these facts.

Liberals have been claiming that the name Redskins is offensive to Indians; therefore the name should be changed. Since the Redskins’ owner, Daniel Snyder has resisted the pressure to change the team’s name; liberals have branded him a “racist.”

Liberals became apoplectic last week when a poll came out indicating that 90 percent of Indians did not view the name Redskins as offensive to their community. Yep, you heard right.

According to an article in the Washington Times newspaper, “Opponents of the Washington Redskins name struggled to justify their opposition Thursday after an independent poll showed that fully 90 percent of American Indians surveyed said the name doesn’t offend them.

The results of the survey of 504 American Indians by The Washington Post were identical to those of a 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll, meaning that a decade’s worth of advocacy by top progressives and media outlets against the Redskins name has moved the needle not a whit.

Still, those who find the name offensive said Thursday they still find the name offensive even if the people affected by it do not.”

This last sentence sums up the arrogance of liberals. They know better than the Indian community what is offensive and what is not.

The whole basis of their argument was that the name Redskins was offensive to the Indian community; now with empirical evidence to the contrary, they still refuse to change their position.

As I stated earlier, with liberals, intent always supersede results and the ends always justifies the means.

Liberals claim their intent is to fight bigotry, therefore ignoring this polling data is justified, because they have, in their mind, a “noble” goal.

You have several announcers from ESPN, NBC, CBS, etc., who refuse to use the name “Redskins” when broadcasting a game, even though it is the legal name for the team.

If these announcers feel so strongly about the use of the name Redskins, then they should resign from their jobs or be fired.

According to a Washington Time’s article, ESPN’s Michael Smith (who is Black) knows more about Indians than they do. “This is like, ‘Who are you to tell Native Americans what they should be offended by? I can read the dictionary. It’s a slur. Simple, plain, point-blank. It’s a slur.”

But the Indian community says it’s not offensive to them. So, who is Mr. Smith going to listen to? A dictionary put together by a group of White guys, or the very members of the supposed offended group?

Smith, by his own words is doing the very thing he is accusing the rest of society of doing—telling Indians how to feel.

This arrogance by liberals says to the Indian community, “we will tell you what is offensive to you.” Liberals simply can’t fathom the notion that Indians can and should make their own decisions about what offends them.

So, to all my liberal friends, get off the reservation of liberalism and let Tonto be free from the continued reign of “kemosabe.”

 

Democrazy: Venezuela Needs a Military Coup

With Venezuela spinning out of control, it’s said that U.S. officials fear a military coup. We ought to ask “Why?”

Democracy on the brain can be a dangerous condition. George W. Bush pursued his unwise “nation-building” policies under the assumption that, as he put it, “democracies don’t go to war with each other.” (Note: technically we’re speaking of “republics,” not democracies.) So WWI was the “war to end all wars,” and now there’s the political system to end all wars; hey, if a military solution didn’t change man’s nature, maybe a political solution will?

But it was more correct to say that democracies hadn’t yet gone to war with one another. Since Bush’s days, the representative government in Russia chose to invade Georgia and Ukraine, both of which also have representative governments. Remember, too, that we, the standard bearer for “democracy,” have launched our share of military campaigns (this isn’t to imply some weren’t justified, but it’s worth noting).

Then there was Barack Obama’s demo-folly, the so-called “Arab Spring,” which quickly devolved into the Jihadist Winter. Is Libya better off now than under Muammar Gaddafi? Was “democracy” going to give Egypt a better leader than Hosni Mubarak? Has it done so? For that matter, is Iran better off today than under the Shah?

Going back further, Woodrow Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany in 1917, saying the world must “be made safe for democracy.” Germany got an unstable democracy with the Weimar Republic and then descended into tyranny (as is so often the case with nations) with Hitler.

Of course, the lure of democracy is understandable; after all, having balancing powers within a nation can temper the capricious ambitions of a man. Nonetheless, democracy is sometimes just millions of people making the bad decisions slowly and inefficiently that a dictator could make with the stroke of a pen. Sometimes you’re just making the world safe for collective stupidity.

This brings us to Venezuela. It has more proven oil reserves than any other nation, eight times those of the United States. With a wiser populace — which would beget a better government — it could be as rich as Norway, which reaps the benefits of its vast natural resources. Instead, it has descended into chaos. Power has been cut and there is little food, with a hamburger “officially” selling for $170 and a hotel room for $6,900 a night. Not surprisingly, a Caracas mayor is reporting that people “are hunting dogs and cats in the streets, and pigeons in the plazas to eat.” The capital also has the world’s highest crime rate, with a resident victimized every 28 seconds.

The reason for this is no mystery. Venezuelans have stubbornly empowered vile, economy-rending socialist demagogues; the buffoonish Hugo Chavez was elected and then re-elected three times, which is akin to the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again. When Chavez was finally taken by cancer, Venezuelans decided to help their national cancer further metastasize and elected his ally, Nicolás Maduro. It just seems that some people hate the rich more than they love themselves.

Considering this brings to mind the rhetorical question asked by former Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf (I’m paraphrasing): “What good is so-called democracy if Pakistan becomes a failed state?” Venezuelans’ childish electoral decisions have led to their current plight — and they need a military coup. And, hopefully, they’d get a military leader such as Musharraf.

A coup wouldn’t be a panacea. But given the phenomenon of regression to the mean (in other words, it’s hard for Venezuela to go anywhere but up right now), there’s a decent chance they’d end up with a leader who might at least have some semblance of economic literacy. As for human rights, which ostensibly also concerns U.S. officials, it’s not as if Chavez and Maduro have respected them.

And there have been relatively good military governments. After Chilean strongman General Augusto Pinochet steered his nation toward domestic tranquility and prosperity, he agreed to a restoration of representative government and peacefully stepped down in 1990. Of course, Pinochet was not a saint, and the Left despises him because he emerged from a coup that vanquished a devout socialist, Salvador Allende. But he was wise enough to consult with famed economist Milton Friedman when devising policy, and Milton beats Marx every time.

Admittedly, one big difference between Pinochet’s ascendancy (1973) and today is that the U.S. would aid such men decades ago; we understood that a pro-American, anti-communist dictator was preferable to a democratically elected Marxist or jihadist, that a decent zookeeper is better than a democracy of two lions and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Now Western leaders are content to create democratically made sheep as long as they’re fleeced by socialist shears.

Now, advocating autocracy here can seem remarkably un-American, especially to those who see being socialist as thoroughly American. Of course, these same people cheered when our courts repeatedly violated the Constitution and trumped popular will in striking down marriage-preservation laws. The point is that most all of us reject democratic determinations we consider grossly immoral or untenable; it’s just that not all of us know what morality is. But a larger point is that autocracy is not a moral or immoral choice, but the inevitable fate of an immoral people.

Our second president, John Adams, once observed, “The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”

This applies in all times and places. Now, question: how much virtue do you see in the world today? Do the populations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Libya and Syria — all places that many insist must have “democracy” — strike you as particularly virtuous? We so often speak of “liberty” as if it emerges in a vacuum or has no prerequisites, ignoring that morality is the fertilizer of the tree of liberty and the monster of tyranny feeds on man’s vice.

For example, George W. Bush once marketed his nation-building by saying that all people want freedom. Yet polls informing that large numbers of Muslims prefer Sharia law to Western civil law shows that they certainly don’t want our conception of freedom. Just as significantly, however, there is a difference between wanting and acquiring.

Most everyone wants wealth, but not all possess the ability and discipline to achieve it. Everyone wants health, but some still smoke and drink heavily and dig a grave with a knife and fork. And everyone wants good government, as they conceive of it, but some still glom onto demagogues who promise bread and circuses.

So people may want freedom. All right, so does a caged beast. So does a toddler. But neither has the capacity to freely negotiate civilization without hurting himself or others. The issue is that a people may want better than what they are, but they cannot be better than what they are. A person’s early life is always one of captivity and control, with the babe safely placed behind bars in a crib, with his life micromanaged and liberty curtailed by his nanny state, the parents. As he becomes civilized and his moral compass develops, he can incrementally be given more freedom and, ultimately, enjoy the full rights of adulthood. Yet if this civilizing process — which includes insulation from corruptive influences — isn’t effected properly, the person can remain morally stunted, barbaric, in a childlike state of virtue. And then he may end up back in a crib, one with iron bars and no mother’s loving embrace.

And as it is for one individual, so it is for two, ten or enough individuals to make a group — even a nation-size group. It is then, to quote British statesman Edmund Burke, that we become those men of “intemperate minds” who “cannot be free,” those men whose “passions forge their fetters.”

And this is a cautionary tale for us. Even now we have a popular presidential contender who calls himself a “democratic socialist.” And when socialism is instituted democratically, it’s a good indication that your days of making decisions democratically may be numbered.

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

After Cruz I Needed A Break — Time to Rally Behind the GOP Nominee!

I am chairman of the Conservative Campaign Committee. Our mission which we have chosen to accept is to travel the country helping conservatives get elected. Since January, our CCC team, my wife Mary and I have been traveling state to state campaigning for Ted Cruz. We were in Indiana when Cruz suspended his campaign. A day later, Mary and I flew back home to Florida.

Like fellow members of Cruz’s army of passionate loyal supporters, we were emotionally spent.

Reading my email, it seemed our national conservative family of Trump and Cruz supporters were engaged in a huge family feud. Emotions were raw. The Bible tells us that it is unwise to make decisions when you are afraid, angry or tired.

Feeling a bit of all three emotions, Mary and I concluded that we needed a break. While staying engaged in the congressional races taken on by our CCC team, I tuned out all political news. Friends who support Trump were clamoring for me to endorse him immediately. But I was not ready.

I spent a few days taking care of household chores that piled up while we were on the road. Mary purchased a vintage sideboard from the Goodwill, $50 reduced to $40 with the senior discount. I spent several hours in my work shed sanding, varnishing and restoring it. It looks beautiful.

You know how proud parents are. My 87 year old Dad praised me when Cruz was winning states as if Cruz’s success was solely due to my efforts. When Cruz suspended his campaign, Dad phoned accusing me of dropping the ball. I explained to Dad that Trump’s despicable smear campaign against Cruz was too much to overcome. Even Dad believed the false allegation that Cruz lied about Dr Ben Carson. I told Dad that when 38% of voters believed the absurd allegation that Cruz’s dad had something to do with the assassination of JFK, it was time for Cruz to suspend his campaign

After the GOP convention, I will rally behind and do everything in my power to elect the Republican presidential nominee.

Why? Because while our new Republican president may or may not defend conservative principles and values, we know the Democrat party is fully committed to implementing the LGBT and Leftist radical agendas; hellbent on fundamentally transforming America. If a democrat is elected president, the federal government will double-down on the Obama Administration’s attack on Christianity, assisting LGBT activists in bullying Americans into anti-Christian behavior. Obama’s relentless pursuit to force Catholic nuns, Little Sisters of the Poor, to fund abortion services against their faith is a harbinger of things to come under another democrat dictatorial regime.

Democrats already have it in the works to criminalize and prosecute skeptics of climate change. A democrat president will surely appoint a Leftist to the US Supreme Court ushering in decades of intensified Leftist tyranny.

Even as we speak, judges have repealed parents rights to follow God’s command to “train up a child in the way it should go”. Boldly admitting their purpose to make America’s children available for LGBT indoctrination, judges are decreeing no home schooling. 

School boards are preventing parents from opting their children out of gay lessons

Males physically penetrating each other is their business. Activists and the federal government partnering to pressure states to mandate that parents surrender their children to be taught that such behavior is beautiful, wholesome, good and even superior to traditional male/female relationships is a bridge too far. This is what the Democrat party is aggressively engaged in mandating; surely fast-tracked if a democrat wins the White House.

If I allowed a democrat to take the Oval Office it would make me complicit in furthering the Left’s cultural and moral demise of America. A memo exposed the democrat politicized and controlled DOJ plan to legalize 12 new perversions including bestiality, pedophilia and incest

How on earth could I claim some moral high ground as an excuse to not vote, write in a candidate or run a sure to fail third party candidate; resulting in allowing the Left’s hostile total takeover of America?

As a Christian, I rest in the knowledge that the battle is not mine, it is the Lord’s. However, this truth does not allow me to roll over and play dead; allowing evil to go unopposed in my country.

Since our nation’s divinely inspired and blessed unique founding, far too many patriots have suffered, sacrificed and died to give us the extraordinary freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Thus, it would be cowardly, irresponsible and dishonorable to surrender God’s gift of our great land to tyranny and total debauchery. We must not allow the Godly thread woven into the fabric of our heritage that has held it together to be removed.

In other words, I cannot permanently give up bringing Godly salt to the political process. I will not turn my back on politics, spending my time going fishing and restoring vintage furniture.

I am a conservative American who happens to be black. My country is worth enduring every pain, disappointment and frustration in the battle to restore it. With my last breath, I will fight America’s demise and fundamental transformation. Come November 2016, I will vote for the Republican presidential nominee.

Open Letter to UNESCO RE: Israel

unesco israelFirst letter to UNESCO:

External Relations and Public Information Service:

I have your recent statement and find it quite inadequate, in that you are still not dealing with historic facts.

Jerusalem was first settled around 3500 BCE, and made the capital by King David, in 1000 BCE, with the temple built by King Solomon. The city’s Jewish history is constantly proven by artifacts found by archaeologists; Muslims have been digging to destroy the Jewish connection. Also under Muslim rule, synagogues and churches are summarily destroyed and the people subject to pogroms and jizya taxes. The city continues to be holy to Christians because of Jewish history.

The Qur’an says: “Pharoah sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: ‘Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel].” The Quran recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.

For more than 70 years, UNESCO was to promote global programs concerning Israel’s heritage and history, yet intolerance and antisemitism are on the rise. In fact, it is a UN group that insisted on the removal of three of Israel’s 13 panels because the truth challenged the Palestinian narrative. It is the UN that bends to Islamic demands and places the blame of collateral damage on Israel despite the known Palestinian war tactic of using their own wives and children as human shields. It is the UN that faults Jews for disproportionate retaliation, when if balance were implemented, Israel would owe Palestinians thousands of returned rocket fire. It is also the UN that continues to insist that Israel cede land to their enemy and allows Mahmoud Abbas’s lies to prevail (what other country has won a defensive war and returned land?!).

UNESCO’s education is doing nothing to quell the Palestinian hate speech against Jews and Islamic youth radicalization. UNESCO has not influenced Muslim schools to eliminate Jew hatred from their schools and media. It is not promoting tolerance by calling the Temple Mount and Western Wall by Arab names, or providing protection to Jewish sites when it permits Arab claims to Jewish holy sites, such as Rachel’s Tomb. UNESCO recently acknowledged the City of Hebron for World Heritage status, but mentioned a mosque on site, not the synagogue. It has permitted an exhibit but only after Israel’s name was removed from the title. And, when UNESCO attempts to ‘calm tensions,” it tells Israel to stop protecting itself from the violent Palestinian attacks.

I am unimpressed by UNESCO’s self-aggrandizement while doing nothing to deal with truth, which is the only way to peace. All these activities are merely a way of fueling the evil with your unabashed support, as you continue to have blood on your hands.

Tabitha Korol

Second letter to UNESCO (in reply)

External relations and public information service:

Dear Ambassador Worbs and Director-General Bokova,etal.

I received your May 10 reply written on behalf of Director-General Irina Bokova. The decisions made by members of UNESCO are an attempt to distort history and delegitimize Israel. The proposal was submitted by six of 59 avowed Islamic enemies of the only Jewish State in the world – because their Koran dictates that they spread Islam and establish a global caliphate worldwide, and kill Jews and Christians worldwide, and because they view UNESCO as their co-conspirator.

Islam is expansionist in nature, and the proposal endorses UNESCO’s usurpation of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s tomb as part of a Palestinian state, although they were holy to Jews long before Muslims ever existed. If Palestinians truly cared about these tombs, they would not have set fire to Joseph’s Tomb, another Jewish holy site, now under Fatah control It is not an Islamic desire to treasure and tend the sites, but to seize and destroy Israel’s connections to the land, just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so as they take control of other Western countries, such as Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, etc.

Might I remind the Ambassador and Director-General that UNESCO was formed to contribute to peace and coexistence,

  • not to relinquish Jewish land to the most vociferous;
  • not to honor “Palestinian rights” to holy places originally established and revered by Jews and Christians;
  • not to dismantle the Holocaust studies that UNESCO was to use to protect, promote, and teach history to the ignorant;
  • not to allow Palestinians to dismantle and set ablaze the sites UNESCO was to protect;
  • not to allow the destruction of any cultural sites;
  • not to allow the removal of Israel from maps produced and used by Islamic states;
  • not to blame Israel for the horrific crimes committed by Palestinians;
  • and to realize that the only way to ensure peace is to have Israel, a peaceful nation that gives so much to others – medically, technologically, scientifically, agriculturally, and more – secure the areas and not destroy Israel’s just and legal authority over its own land.

It is time to set the record straight on what is required of UNESCO if the West indeed expects to survive this scourge and fulfill its educational mission for future generations. Muslims appear to have children to spare and sacrifice for destruction; do you?

For the ancient Muslim, Greek and Roman pagan authors, Jerusalem was a Jewish city. Their texts indicate the unanimous agreement that Jerusalem was Jewish by virtue of the fact that it was founded by Jews, inhabited by Jews, and the Temple located in Jerusalem was the center of the Jewish religion.

It is time to acknowledge that Israel is not an “occupier.” Israel successfully defended itself against threats of annihilation by five Arab countries in 1967, and regained control over Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria (West Bank), the Sinai Peninsula, and Gaza. Despite Arab aggression, the UN called on Israel to withdraw from the territories it won from the aggressors (never required of other countries). Israel has been the rightful owner of her land since before the Christian era and was granted legal sovereignty by the United Nations in 1948. Under Israeli rule, all people and religious shrines are respected and protected.

The demand of land for Arab “refugees” is no longer valid, just as it is invalid for the 600,000 Jewish refugees of 1948. It is time that these political hostages moved on and returned to their ancestral homes (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq), just as Jews were absorbed by Israel and all others are absorbed after the displacement that comes from war, particularly as these wars were begun and lost by the Arabs.

Land for peace does not work because the land is not returned when the agreement is breached. Each of Israel’s withdrawals has resulted in the transformation of fertile farms, productive businesses and comfortable homes into war zones with rockets fired at Israel. Perhaps it is time for Mahmoud Abbas, not Israel, to make concessions for peace.

When Syria lost the Golan Heights in its 1979 war on Israel, Syria signed a disengagement agreement, and the Golan became home to 46,000 Druze and Jewish residents who are living together in peace and comfort. The United Nations must stop acting as Islam’s negotiators.

It is time to stop demanding proportionate responses to Arab aggression, or Israelis would be obliged to reciprocate in kind, perhaps with more accuracy. During the Al Aqsa Intifada, from September 30, 2000 to March 2013, 8,749 rockets and 5,047 mortar shells were fired on Israelis; at least 2,257 rockets were fired on Israel in 2012 alone, in addition to blowing up cars, and stoning cars (both acts deadly).

UNESCO (UN Department of Political Affairs) is discriminating against Israel’s 13-panel exhibition, Israel Matters, demanding that three panels not expose the truth, but comply with the Palestinian narrative. It is time to enforce the truth and negate the damage caused by the fallacies that feed jihad.

It is time for the United Nations to stand up to bullying tyranny, despotism, and to start allowing the truth to come into the light. Stop pacifying and supporting Palestinian propaganda. Muslims increase their respect for others when they see a strong adversary. The only way to “calm tensions and increase confidence” is to show your mettle. Truth must prevail because the lies will allow for humanity’s destruction.

VIDEO: NRA Endorses Donald Trump for President of the United States

Fairfax, Va.— The chairman of the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Friday:

“The stakes in this year’s presidential election could not be higher for gun owners.  If Hillary Clinton gets the opportunity to replace Antonin Scalia with an anti-gun Supreme Court justice, we will lose the individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.  Mrs. Clinton has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment.  So the choice for gun owners in this election is clear.  And that choice is Donald Trump.  That’s why the National Rifle Association of America is announcing our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States.”

The full speech by Donald Trump at the NRA:

ABOUT THE NATIONAL  RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Islamic State: ‘Only one way for U.S. to gain victory … taking the Qur’an out of the hearts of Muslims’

If we didn’t have learned imams such as John Kerry and David Cameron and Pope Francis assuring us otherwise, we might almost get the impression that the Islamic State had something to do with Islam. It’s a good thing we have such erudite leaders who are so helpful in aiding our understanding of the enemy ideology.

Abu Mohamed al-Adnani

Abu Mohamed al-Adnani formerly Taha Subhi Falaha

“‘There is only one way for the US to gain victory,’ ISIS spokesman warns,” Rudaw, May 21, 2016:

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – A spokesman of the Islamic State (ISIS) said in a defiant audio message that his group would not be defeated, even if it loses its strongholds in Syria and Iraq or its leader is killed in US air strikes.

“Your threats do not frighten us and you will never win over us,” Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, the official spokesman of the terrorist group, said in an audio message posted online Saturday.

The militant, whose real name is Taha Subhi Falaha, said that even if ISIS loses its Syrian stronghold of Raqqa or Mosul in Iraq, that would not amount to defeat, nor would the death of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“The loss of Raqqa, Mosul and the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would not mean that we have lost,” the spokesman said in the 30-minute recording.

He said Western reports about the group growing weaker – as US military officials have recently been saying – are untrue.

“You think defeat is the loss of a city or a land? Were we defeated when several cities of Iraq were taken away from us and we went to the desert? Will we lose if you control Mosul, Raqqa and other cities that were previously controlled by us: Definitely ‘no,’ because defeat is only the loss of the wish and will to fight.”

Naming several top ISIS leaders that have been killed in US airstrikes over the past several months, Adnani said their deaths – or the deaths of other living leaders – would not drive the group to defeat.

“There is only one way for the US to gain victory and that is by taking the Quran out of the hearts of Muslims,” Adnani claimed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russia: Imam gets three years prison, had weapons and explosives in mosque

Media darling Muslim selfie girl loves Hitler, hates Jews

Canadian PM’s “Elbowgate” Scandal Reveals Racism of Leftist Feminists by Christine Williams

Recently, the “Elbowgate” political scandal has been the news buzz in Canada, revolving around Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s so-called temper tantrum in the House of Commons. Leftists (and even some right-wingers) have fingered Trudeau as an abuser against women and as having an out-of-control temper because of an incident in the House of Commons in which he pushed past a group of disruptive New Democratic Party representatives and inadvertently elbowed a woman while doing so. This led to an apology by Trudeau under public pressure, and he demonstrated fine sportsmanship in doing so. The incident cut across party lines. I have been critical of Trudeau in the past, and there is much to criticize, but this is ridiculous. I wrote on my Facebook page:

Enough is enough. I applaud Trudeau. This cuts through partisan lines. If only these so-called feminist activists from the NDP could show 10% of that concern for the genuine abuse women of Islamist households face.

I was met with accolades, but also an opponent who wrote:

No way, he angrily stomped across the floor, manhandled a Conservative MP [a false charge, by the way] and elbowed a woman…this is called workplace abuse. He should have been thrown out of the House of Commons…

In a like-minded article, Trudeau even gets compared by a well-known CBC writer to former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was known for his foul temper. Says the CBC’s Neil Macdonald: “Jean Chrétien once lost his temper and grabbed a protester by the throat, something that almost certainly would have landed a non-prime minister before a judge.” One need only ask the question: why even bring up Chrétien in this context? And what does Justin Trudeau’s black belt in Judo — also mentioned in Macdonald’s article — have to do with “Elbowgate”? One positive aspect of all this is that the leftist media is showing impartiality by attacking someone who is considered to be one of its own; yet the silence by the same media is deafening with regard to the context of the “Elbowgate” incident, which is a legitimate and indeed paramount aspect of this issue.

The West is legitimately a watchdog on matters of human rights, which encompasses religious rights and the rights of women, but in this context the media falls dramatically short in the hoopla it has stirred up against Trudeau over “Elbowgate”. While the leftist mass media has gone ape over Justin Trudeau’s so-called “abuse” of a woman, it has been unable to adequately prove intent. In watching the [below] video, it appears that Trudeau did indeed lose his temper with the NDP shenanigans in blocking Conservative MP’s from passing by. The video reveals Trudeau “trying to pull Conservative whip Gord Brown through a crowd of MPs….who were milling about in hopes of delaying a vote related to the bill on doctor-assisted dying, C-14.” Yet the elbowing is unintentional; an extremely minor incident.

And while they’re enraged over this, why do these far leftist feminists and their allies — who appear to be so concerned about the well-being of women — not concern themselves with the genuine abuse of women in Islamic states? This is not to say that we should not concern ourselves with genuine abuse of women in our own culture. We pride ourselves on human rights, but where is the outcry for those “other women” living abroad?

Leftists are quick to cry racism and abuse of women and to buy into the “Islamophobia” victimology, yet these so-called proponents of human rights and women’s rights care little — as they demonstrate by their own actions — about women in Islamic countries, which suggests a troubling brand of racism, as they show that they have little to no concern for the fact that these foreign women are subject to heinous forms of abuse, such as getting acid thrown in their faces for attempting to get an education; honor killings; female genital mutilation; and other forms of subjugation. Also, how many of these leftist feminists would be personally accepting of a head-to-toe face covering in scorching summer heat because men said they have to be covered? It is common knowledge in our culture that abused women echo the voice of the abuser: they speak when told; they are forced to believe what they are told; they exemplify what is permitted in the eyes of the abuser; they are happy if the abuser tells them they are happy, etc. Leftist feminists are manifesting the same traits by their silence over the abuse of Muslim women.

It is unconscionable that leftist feminists use a different standard for themselves than for those brown women abroad. They’re displaying racism and supremacism in their dichotomy of standards. Low expectations are the ultimate in racism. One has no expectations of dogs and other animals, so what message are they sending to abusers in Islamic states and to male proponents of anti-women ideology? Why are abuse and the subjugation of foreign women accepted among leftist “feminists”? Also unconscionable is their lack of concern for Christians and Yazidis abroad, among others. One 20-year-old woman states:

We were raped up to five times a day….One girl went to the bathroom and slit her wrist. When she did not die she cut her throat. The guards came to me and said you come and identify her – she’s your friend. I could not recognise her. There was so much blood on her face. The guards wrapped her in a blanket and threw her out with the rubbish.

Instead, they attack Trudeau because he inadvertently pushed through a crowd of hooligan NDPers, and the incident is referred to as an attack on women. We do and should have higher standards under our Western democracy in how we treat women; but until far-leftists become thinking citizens who are concerned about the human rights of all people, they display their own lack of genuine concern for those rights, and that threatens our own democracies. This is because Western states currently have immigration policies that allow people from societies that do not espouse our concepts of human rights to flood in. By not applying equal standards of human rights, which is an indication of their racism, leftists undercut the values of our own country and doom us to becoming dhimmis under the hegemony of Islam law, as we demonstrate our Western ignorance and fear to call out gender, religious and racial apartheid in the face of an Islamic agenda. There is an aggressive Islamic Project and a drive — both by stealthy and overtly hostile means — to conquer us for the Dar al Islam (House of Islam). Until that conquest, we are regarded as part of the Dar al Harb (House of War), and our double standards and ignorance condemn us to defeat.

Christine Williams is a Journalist, Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundations and Advisor to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion.

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic State to India: “Either accept Islam, pay jizya or prepare to be slaughtered”