Silver Star holder Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.), Speaks to the Nation

harry riley

Colonel Harry Riley, US Army (Ret.)

The following are comments from Colonel Harry Riley, the man behind Operation American Spring:

The lawless in control of our American government are tightening their grip, reining in our freedom, and pushing us toward servitude. It’s just a matter of time, and that won’t be long, until we are tied to the back of the wagon and dragged along by thugs whether we like it or not. Kick and scream all you want, but it won’t help any of us, that is unless we do something about it now?

Patriot members have been pleading with America since December 2013 to join Operation American Spring, a peaceful, non-violent, unarmed gathering, as we descend on Washington, D.C. beginning May 16, 2014 to begin Constitutional restoration.  Our “movement to action” is a grassroots movement by non-partisan Americans committed to Constitutional principles, responding to an unresponsive and dismissive cabal of duly elected, but oath-breaking officials, who ignore the Constitution, in fact are purposefully destroying the US Constitution.

Our demands and grievances are quite common. Everything that’s wrong in America is basically tied to government leadership violations of the United States Constitution.  The majority of America understands those currently in leadership positions are lawless, violating their oath, ignoring legal process, presenting an appearance of tyrants, self-serving personal agendas, and leading the United States toward a socialist, Marxist, totalitarian form of slavery. It must stop.

Every member of Congress (525) will be presented by mid April 2014 with a personal copy of Operation American Spring Declaration of Revision (Demands/Grievances) as well as a researched, prepared, and provable Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama. Congress will have approximately one month to review the documents prior to millions arriving in D.C. for answers.

These documents won’t mean anything unless they are backed by millions of American patriots, in the streets of Washington, D.C.  Millions of citizens will validate, confirm the message that cannot be ignored. Those, of every political party, that ignore our demands will pay a heavy consequence.

Operation American Spring mission calls for the replacement of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder. This group has disgraced the United States of America, subjected our nation to ridicule, kneeled and bowed to nations that have proven to harm us, and worst of all, treated the American people with disdain, scorn, deception, betrayal, and disrespect.  We demand these lawless individuals to voluntarily resign.  Will they?

The answer to the above question is “not likely”, unless, “we the people” display an attitude of “enough is enough”.  The time to use the excuse “let someone else do it” is past. For the sake of our nation, we must  put boots on the ground by the millions in Washington, D.C. and plan to stay until we get an acceptable resolution. The Arab Spring, Ukrainian Spring, and other “mass” gatherings brought corrupt, lawless, arrogant power seekers to their knees, and American’s can do it also. 

Every American is invited to lock arms, stand shoulder-to-shoulder in unity, even at the expense of sacrifice, at this most grave time that threatens the longevity of our nation.  God is the wind behind Operation American Spring, may each of us feel it in our hearts and respond.

We believe this may be our last opportunity to turn our nation back to a Constitutional Republic, as  ordained by our Creator. We pray that every freedom, liberty loving organization in the United States will lay agendas aside for a brief period, announce support, unite as one nation under God, and storm Washington, D.C. in massive/gigantic numbers for one principle every patriot can live with – Restoration of the US Constitution as the law of the land. From there we begin again.

Harry Riley, COL, USA, Ret.
Operation American Spring

For more information; visit our website at www.OperationAmericanSpring.org or www.oas2014.com.

Florida: Sarasota Tiger Bay Club panel on Immigration a Sham

According to its website the mission of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club is: 

To promote community understanding of current political and social issues, through public discourse and the free exchange of ideas.

The Sarasota Tiger Bay Club is a non-partisan political organization that was formed to foster understanding of public issues. We decided it was better to attack the issues in face-to-face confrontations with key policy makers than merely lament the drift of politics. We’re political, but non-partisan.

You would believe, given their mission statement, that any discussion on any topic would be fair and balanced. You would be wrong.

On Thursday, April 3rd, the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club held a panel on immigration. The three panel members were Luz Corcuera, program director of Healthy Start Coalition of Manatee, Kelly Kirschner, former Mayor of the City of Sarasota and Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman for the Republican Party of Sarasota County. Corcuera and Kirschner are pro-amnesty, Ziegler spoke for the other side. The panel was moderated by Mike Bennett, former FL state senator and Supervisor of Elections for Manatee County, FL.

ziegler

Christian Ziegler

When Ziegler learned of the makeup of the panel (2 for and 1 against) he requested another panel member to provide balance and insure fairness. In an email to Tiger Bay board member Susan Nolan, Ziegler stated, “I was asked by Kim [Noyes, Executive Director of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club] to find another panelist last week, which is why I did mention to Rich [Swier] (without knowing he had refused) when I ran into him at our prep-breakfast. I was also informed by Kim after asking about having Rich added, that the panel was set because the invitation had been sent, prep had been completed, etc.” Note: I was approached by Nolan to sit on the panel but when I learned I would be the only one speaking for one side of the issue I refused. Others, such as Sarasota resident George Fuller, declined for the same reason.

Nolan would have none of it. In an email reply to Ziegler and me Nolan stated, “I appreciate your concern, but it is not warranted. Christian will do just fine. In addition, I ask (sic) Senator Bennett to be the moderator instead of me because of his background on immigration. We are pretty happy with the panel.” Attempts to balance the panel with two for amnesty and two against failed.

The net result was the panel became a sham.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune political writer Jerry Wallace wrote, “A local forum illustrated the immigration reform debate’s complexity Thursday, with participants unable to agree even on basic terminology. The use of the words ‘amnesty’ and ‘illegal immigrant’ or who could rightly claim to be ‘for immigration reform’ were as much a point of contention at the Sarasota Tiger Bay meeting as the specifics of any bill or law. The war over words started with the opening question, when moderator and former state Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, asked if the U.S. should allow amnesty for illegal immigrants in the nation now.”

Wallace saw the panel as a war of words, not on substance. Ziegler noted that members of Tiger Bay came up to him after the panel and said that he was not given equal time to respond to questions and in some cases was cut off before he could respond to comments  made by Corcuera and Kirshner.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration to be at least $113 billion a year. Nearly $29 billion of that comes from federal taxes and the rest is supplemented by state and local taxes. States continue to carry the brunt of the burden for the cost to educated, medicate and incarcerate illegals. California has the highest expenses at $21.75 billion, followed by New York at $9.47 billion, Texas $8.87 billion, Florida $5.46 billion and New Jersey $3.47 billion annually. To view a map of the costs to each state click here.

According to FAIR Florida’s cost breakdown by category are: Education $3.34 billion, Social Assistance $976.9 million, Justice $578.9 million and other expenses $567.3 million.

George Fuller writes:

Legal Immigration

Since 1970 with mass immigration the largest number are from Mexico. Of those allowed in legally, only 36% have become Naturalized but over 50% are on welfare. Of all immigrants allowed in since 1970 only 56% have become Naturalized. Think recent immigrants are coming to contribute or take?

Illegal Immigration

The first amnesty was in 1986 supposedly for under one million illegal aliens but ended up being over 3 million who were said to be yearning for citizenship. Granted amnesty over twenty eight years ago, only 40% ever became Naturalized. Not content, Congress passed an additional six amnesties or amnesty adjustments through 2000 that no one ever mentions. What is one definition of insanity?

How about the promises Congress made in 1986 and not one to this day has been kept:

  • There would be only one amnesty…ever…
  • Congress would secure the border…
  • Congress would mandate E-Verify so all workers would be legal.

Yet, we have those in Congress only too happy to say the immigration system is broken not remembering the promises made in ’86 or following the advice of the Jordan Commission in ’97 to eliminate chain migration.

We cannot control poverty until we control immigration levels.

FAIR states, “Illegal immigration poses a real threat to America today. Danger at the border and violence from drugs and gangs are only the beginning. Illegal aliens’ growing access and dependence on social services threatens our social and economic stability.”

To understand how much of a threat illegals are to Florida’s social and economic stability let’s look at the proposed state budget for 2014-1015:

allocation of funds in 2014 fl house budget

For a larger view click on the pie chart. Graphic courtesy of FL state Representative Ray Pilon.

You can see from the pie chart that the annual cost to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegals in Florida exceeds Florida’s Justice budget, would pay for Florida’s entire Government Operations and Agriculture and Natural Resources programs combined, and is a full 20% of the state’s Education budget.

It is sad that a real discussion of the actual costs of illegals to the state were not brought up in any detail. As Dr. Larry Reed, Executive Director of FEE, notes, “Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.”

Perhaps this information would have seen the light of day if the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club panel was balanced?

To read all of our stories on immigration please click here.

RELATED VIDEO: ABC News Channel 7 report on the Tiger Bay panel:

RELATED STORY: Muslim immigration and Socialism is Sliding Sweden to Third World status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of the Sarasota Tiger Bay Club. Those in the photo are the 2011 Board of Directors posing with James Carville, former advisor to President Bill Clinton.

DC Republicans Converge on Florida To Conspire Against Conservatives

The Republican leadership in Congress will be holding a fundraising retreat the weekend of April 11 to benefit the George Soros supported Republican Mainstreet Partnership PAC.

There you have it. The Republican establishment in Washington, D.C., is in bed with George Soros and his many Socialist interests.

As the left-wing Talking Points Memo reported a month ago, LaTourette and his Main Street Partnership have created an affiliated Super PAC called “Defending Main Street PAC.” Along with the Chamber of Commerce and Republican Leaders, the Main Street Partnership wants to take out troublesome conservatives – Erick Erickson, Redstate

bozell-239x300

Brent Bozell

Syndicated columnist and author, Brent Bozell, has exposed the upcoming meeting on Amelia Island, Florida, in a press release from his newly-formed “For America” 501(c)4 organization.

“Having the GOP leadership headline an event for a left wing organization funded by George Soros and Big Labor Unions, with a stated mission to destroy the conservative movement is stunning. The Republican Mainstreet Partnership PAC makes no bones about it.

Their stated goal is to ‘bolster our incumbents who are under attack from the far right, and ensure that we hold on to seats represented by pragmatic Republicans that we would otherwise loose [sic] if there was an ultra-conservative in the general runoff.’ And at their upcoming meeting on the ultra-exclusive Amelia Island in Florida, their announced headliners are GOP Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Whip Kevin McCarthy.

“These men, who claim to be ‘leaders’ of the Republican Party, know what they’re doing. They’ve joined forces with left-wing billionaires like George Soros against their own base. What they don’t seem to understand, however, is that they’re committing political suicide. It’s just a shame they are dragging down the entire Republican Party with them. Frankly, this is what the GOP deserves with leaders like these. – Brent Bozell, For America

During a recent phone interview with the Shark Tank, Bozell reminds the Republican Party poobahs that if it wasn’t for the Tea Party in the 2010 House elections, they would still be under the leadership of liberal Democrat Representative Nancy Pelosi.

These people would not be in the majority but for the Tea Party…The only thing, that is of a positive nature since about 2004, is the 2010 House elections where they won the majority, because of the Tea Party. – Brent Bozell

Bozell added that the “establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., are openly declaring war on what they call the Tea Party,” adding that ” there is no difference between Tea party and conservatives.”

“They are declaring war on conservatives.”-Brent Bozell

But this move to purge conservatives from the Republican Party is nothing new.

Remember back when the same arguments were being made by the moderate wing of the GOP against that “radical” Ronald Reagan?

And like Bozell says, ”The moment that Ronald Reagan won, they all became great conservatives.”

The same could be said with the 2010 and 2012 Senate wins by Rubio, Cruz, Lee, and Paul, who were quickly labeled “Whacko Birds” for not conforming to the establishment’s way of legislating.

The “Whacko Bird” Senate squadron of Marco Rubio, Cruz, Lee and Rand Paul has taken off.

Just to rub some more political salt into wounds of those dastardly establishment Republicans, Bozell points out “how well the moderates” have done in the recent losing elections of 2006 and 2012

In the 2012 campaign for instance, Bozell says that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “knee-capped the defund effort” by “stabbing Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in the back,” when he punted on Obamacare, and went out of his way with other like-minded Republican Senators marginalize them.

McConnell, McCain, Cornyn, and others in the Senate, supported the Charlie Crist-type moderate candidates against the “Whackos” in 2010 and 2012m and even “went out of their way to destroy” them, just so that they would be able to control the left-leaning GOP message coming out of the U.S. Senate.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank.

Magic Words and False Gods Communicating Beyond Society, Market, and Hypostatization by GIAN PIERO DE BELLIS

Any productive action requires clear thinking on the part of the acting person. This is particularly true of communication. In The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science (1962), Ludwig von Mises remarked that the “worst enemy of clear thinking is the propensity to hypostatize, i.e. to ascribe substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts.”

In other words, there’s no such thing as “society.”

Mises continues:

Hypostatization is not merely an epistemological fallacy and not only misleads the search for knowledge. In the so-called social sciences, it more often than not serves definite political aspirations in claiming for the collective as such a higher dignity than for the individual or even ascribing real existence only to the collective and denying the existence of the individual, calling it a mere abstraction.

The fallacy of hypostatization, however, is not confined to people holding collectivist views. It is also practiced by people who stress the importance of individual liberty.

If the so-called collectivist falls into the hypostatization fallacy in using the magic word “society” (“it’s society’s fault”; “society will intervene”) the so-called individualist employs the same fallacy when he uses the magic word “market.”

Duotheism

When people use the terms “society” and “market,” it would seem there is an overarching almighty entity that has a life of its own. This entity is supposed to do everything, to redress any tort, to administer justice, to increase well-being on earth, and to lead us to the promised land.

In doing so, whether collectivists or individualists, they are not only betraying the basic tenets of science based on empirical realities (and not on fictional entities), but they are also ignoring the advice of those to whom they pretend to refer as the source of their ideas. As we have already seen, Mises condemns hypostatization. Libertarians should take notice.

As for the collectivist camp, it is worth mentioning what Karl Marx had to say about the term “society”: “It is above all necessary to avoid postulating ‘society’ once more as an abstraction confronting the individual” (Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844).

Hypostatization should therefore be carefully avoided, because the fallacy is unreal, ambiguous, and divisive. It’s unreal because it is devoid of a proper empirical foundation that could clarify, with a certain exactitude, the features and sphere of reference of the hypostatization. It’s ambiguous because it signifies different things to different people; conflicting meanings could be attributed to the same hypostatization. So clearly it is also divisive. It can be taken up by politicians and demagogues in order to invent fake agents and fake enemies that become the convenient scapegoats of those in power.

The continuous use of hypostatizations makes those who would like to exit State power look too much like those who worship government. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to convince someone that replacing the almighty entity “society” with the almighty entity market” (or vice versa) will make any difference. Perceptive critical minds already see the almighty State behind society and almighty corporations behind the market. And the most perceptive among this group see that the corporate State is a particularly dangerous beast. They therefore remain aloof to such magic fallacies.

So what is one to do without magic words? Consider some solutions.

Concretize: The Orwell Proposal

In his Politics and the English Language (1946), George Orwell, after having dealt at length with the interconnection between sloppy language and sloppy thinking, remarks that “The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness.” Orwell suggests it would be “better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterwards one can choose … the phrases that will best cover the meaning…. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally.”

Before using any other fancy communications techniques, we should follow Orwell by starting with clarity, concision, and concreteness.

Operationalize: The Bridgman Proposal

In The Logic of Modern Physics, P. W. Bridgman suggests operationalizing scientific concepts—that is, describing the operations that transform them into empirical measures and actions. This eliminates ambiguities and possible misunderstandings, according to Bridgman, who wrote that “the true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says about it.” The length of a person, for example, can be defined as the number of times a certain stick can be laid end to end alongside him or her.

So what does this mean for all of our markets talk?

One should: Replace sloppy uses of “the market” with the concrete expression “people engaged in free exchanges,” and then operationalize the expression by measuring the effective level of freedom (accessibility, universality, etc.) or the impediments to those concrete exchanges (tariffs, quotas, etc.), noting any corresponding growth or diminishment in wealth.

In the last decades, technology has been changing social relations in a much deeper way than what has been accomplished by well-intentioned social scientists and social activists of any era. I suspect the reason is that people involved in tech projects need to have clear ideas and clear communication tools for implementing those projects. It is high time for the individuals engaged in changing our social technologies to do the same.

ABOUT GIAN PIERO DE BELLIS

Gian Piero de Bellis is the webmaster of panarchy.org. He manages a Documentation Centre (World Wide Wisdom) in Saint Imier (Swiss Jura).

Americans are Drowning in Lies

In the April 1st edition of The Wall Street Journal, an editorial took note of President Obama’s announcement the previous day that sign-ups for Obamacare had passed seven million.

“Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.”

I usually don’t quote from other newspapers for the simple reason that most just repeat Obama’s lies. To an old journalist, that’s very depressing.

It’s depressing, too, to contemplate the list of Obama administration scandals, not the least of which is the September 11, 2012 attack on our Benghazi consulate that took the life of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel. The claim that it was a spontaneous response to a video has been completely discredited.

“The Benghazi Report” of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been published by Skyhorse Publishing. It documents a complete lack of truth and morality regarding the event and it has cascaded through the entire administration from the day Obama first took office in 2009. It was summed up by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s now classic response, “What difference does it make?”

What historians will likely find astonishing is the way Hillary Clinton is the only person mentioned as the Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2016 elections. I find it distressing that former Governor Jeb Bush is being touted as the Republican choice. With the exception of Obama who defeated Hillary in the 2008 primaries, the U.S. has had a Bush or Clinton as President since 1989.

We fought a Revolution to rid ourselves of such monarchies or in this case political dynasties.

There’s something fundamentally wrong with such lines of succession, but worse is the notion that the Democratic Party would even consider someone—Hillary Clinton—whose character, let alone her policies, have been so seriously flawed and documented for so long.

The most current and obvious demonstration of the lies with which we have been living since Obama was first elected is Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act that was passed solely by Democratic Party votes and by legislators that never even read it. This has been compounded by the now famous lies of the President concerning it.

Obamacare is so toxic that Democrat candidates up for election or reelection in the November 2014 midterms have fleeing their votes or support, now claiming that it merely needs revision, not repeal. Even the Republican Party has taken this position and both are wrong to do so. It puts the government in control of one sixth of the economy and the lives of all Americans. Some will die as a result.

Most revealing is Sen. Dick Durbin’s April 1st statement that “The free enterprise system is a strong system” but that it “created unfairness and injustice when it came to health care, which we are addressing with this Affordable Care Act.” Free enterprise is what made America the most powerful economy in the world. There is no system anywhere that does not suffer from some degree of unfairness because all are the product of human invention. Life is not fair.

The only “injustice” Durbin could be addressing is whether one could afford the health care insurance plans formerly available from many sources. Now the injustice is embodied in a government that requires its citizens to buy something they may not want and threatens to fine them if they don’t. This is so monumentally unconstitutional that the Supreme Court had to define Obamacare as a tax to enable it. That too is a lie.

We used to be able to depend on the U.S. Constitution to guarantee our freedoms and maintain the nation’s moral values but it has been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn since the 1970s. There are lawsuits before it to protect the freedom of religion because of Obamacare. The assaults on our freedoms and moral values never end.

And now the nation is drifting toward the legalization of marijuana, a gateway drug to harder ones. We have a President who was a former “pot” smoker. If driving while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to kill thousands annually, this new intoxicant will increase those numbers.

Epitomizing the lies with which we are living these days—other than Obama’s—is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has reached the point of lying about his lies even though there are ample videotaped examples of them. Adding to this is his claim that those relating horror stories about their loss of health care insurance are all lying. Reid is one of the most powerful figures in our government these days and utterly devoid of the truth.

One has to have some confidence in one’s government, but that feeling is in decline and that is well worth worrying about.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jordi Payà. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Allen West Endorses Mia Love

The Guardian Fund was proud to name Mia Love as one of our first endorsements of 2014 and I’m honored to have her as a part of our team.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/a_y0uOLGDu8[/youtube]

 

ABOUT MIA LOVE

MiaLove_15aMia was born in Brooklyn, New York and eventually moved to Connecticut. Mia recalls both parents working hard to earn a living, her father at times taking on second jobs cleaning toilets to pay for school for their three children. On the day of Mia’s college orientation, her father said something to her that would become the ethos for her life:

“Mia, your mother and I never took a handout. You will not be a burden to society. You will give back.”

Mia graduated from the University of Hartford with a degree in fine arts. She found faith. Then she found Jason. And then she found herself in Utah ready to give back. Mia served two terms on the city council of Saratoga Springs, one of Utah’s fastest growing cities. As City Councilwoman and eventually Mayor, Mia led the city through a period of 1700% population growth in a decade. Under her leadership, the city was able to successfully navigate the drastic transition from agricultural fields to a booming residential community. When the citizen growth necessitated fire and police services, Mia fought to make sure the city’s first ever residential tax implementation would only pay for those essential services, and she structured it in such a way that the tax decreased as a percentage of property value.

Mayor Love is best known for her conservative positions on limited government, increased citizen liberties and limited restraints on business. She believes the best thing she can do as mayor is stay out of the way of business and out of the lives of citizens. She advocates a return to the personal responsibility and reduced government dependency engendered by her father.

Muslim tells Muslims: “If you feel you are uncomfortable here — then leave the country”

HPR-300x199

Qadir visits a study group hosted by Institute of Politics fellow Farah Pandith. Photo courtesy of Harvard Political Review.

Rachael Hanna, Associate World Editor for the Harvard Political Review interviewed Hanif Qadir, Founder of the Active Change Foundation (ACF). According to the ACF website, “Hanif is recognised as one of the UK’s leading specialists in positively transforming violent extremists. He is actively involved in advising and assisting senior policy makers in reforming key aspects of the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) agenda. He works closely with a wide range of Governmental institutions, most of the UK’s Police authorities including the Metropolitan Police and research academics across the globe, with a view to applying a more sensitive and sensible approach in counter terrorism strategies.”

Given Qadir’s background, and that he is a practicing Muslim, this question and answer from the interview stands out:

HPR: In more conservative Muslims communities, how do you deal with the conflict that they might feel exists between some of their beliefs and the modernity of Britain?

HQ: I find that quite easy to handle. There is nowhere in Britain where you are not allowed to practice your faith. In every part of Britain, there are mosques and people are allowed to practice their faith as long as it doesn’t harm others. So my argument to [conservative Muslims] always will be, “If you feel uncomfortable about being a Muslim in Britain, you are not being compelled to live in Britain. You can choose to leave.” And sometimes, if they feel strongly about their views, then I will quote [Koranic] verse to them about emigrating for the sake of Allah to a land where you can feel comfortable practicing your religion. So if you feel you are uncomfortable here, then please your Lord and leave the country. [Emphasis added]

To read the full Harvard Political Review interview click here.

Qadir believes “the War on Terror absolutely can be won.”

“I believe wholeheartedly that it can be won. Communities have a role to play in this. We cannot tackle this problem without the backing of the community, and the only thing that will allow that to happen is if the government and its institutions support organizations like the ACF to go into communities and build that collateral. There has to be more participation from young people and from communities in politics, government, and education,” notes Qadir.

In the video below former extremist and Founder of The Active Change Foundation Hanif Qadir tells us his story of getting sucked into radical thinking, how young people get radicalized, what we can do to prevent it and if its possible to win over the extremists:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/8CZP1vabiV8[/youtube]

 

There are many who question current US policy in the war on terror under Presidents G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. Former federal agent and author of Muslim Mafia David Gaubatz stated in an interview:

A “radical Muslim” is a “practicing” Muslim. A “Moderate” Muslim is a “non-practicing” Muslim or otherwise known as an “Apostate of Islam.” I ask readers to read my prior article, “The Fallacy of the Moderate Muslim.” There are essentially four types of people associated with Islam.

    1. You have the “Pure Muslim” who does everything he or she can to be an example of what Islam was mandated to be by Prophet Mohammed (the founder of Islam). These folks are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a dozen other Islamic terrorist groups. They are otherwise known as the band of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    2. The second group are Muslims who found and lead such organizations as CAIR, ISNA, MSA [Muslim Students’ Association], MANA [Muslim Alliance in North America], etc. They spend millions on public relations to make themselves appear as peaceful Muslims only wanting to help other Muslims in need. In actuality, these groups are simply fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood to help fund their illegal operations.
    3. The third group consists of what the world describes as “Moderate” Muslims. They have little to do with Islam and Sharia law. The majority of them are simply Apostates of Islam. The dangerous part is that some of these so-called moderates will side with Islamic terror groups when “the time is right.”
    4. The fourth type of group is made up of liberals worldwide who are non-Muslim but who support the Islamic ideology before they would support their own governments in America, Egypt, UK, etc. They are a grave danger, because they provide cover for terror groups.

Qadir and his colleagues at ACF appear to fit into the type 3 category of Muslims. Practicing their religion without the violence associated with it.

To read more articles by Rachael Hanna go to: http://harvardpolitics.com/author/rachael-hanna/

RELATED STORIES:

CIA Chief: I Removed ‘Islamic’ from ‘Islamic Extremists’ in Benghazi Talking Points to Appease Muslims

Female AP Journalists Shot in Afghanistan, One Dead…

March 2014 UPDATE: School Choice in the States

Alabama
The Alabama House passed HB 558 that would amend the Alabama Accountability Act. The bill heads to the Senate for consideration. The bill would make the following changes:

  • Define individual donors as shareholders or partners of S corporations or Subchapter K entities, and eliminate the $7,500 cap on all individual contributions.
  • Scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) would be able to distribute scholarships first to students in “failing” schools and then to lower-income public school students who are not in a failing school by May 15. Current law requires that the SGOs wait until September 15 to distribute scholarships to low-income public students not transferring from a failing school.
  • Change the definition of a failing school. The change would likely eliminate a few public schools from the failing school list, thus making students in those schools ineligible for future participation in the refundable-credit program.

Alaska
The current fate of SJR-9, which would place an amendment to the Blaine provision in the state’s constitution on the November ballot, is still up in the air. The resolution has been sent back to the Rules Committee where it waits until it is reintroduced on the Senate floor.

Arizona
The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review a Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the state’s education savings accounts (ESA) program. The high court’s decision essentially deemed the ESAs constitutional. Several legislative proposals are moving in the state to expand the ESA program further.

Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court announced it will review the constitutionality of the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 the program does not violate the state’s constitution, which led the ACLU, which is openly anti-school choice, to file an appeal to the state supreme court. There is no word on when a decision could be expected.

Florida
The House chamber passed an expansion to the Florida tax-credit scholarship that would expand the cap on contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) and allowed businesses to donate against their sales tax liability. The bill would also allow lower- to middle-income families to receive partial scholarships. Proponents of the bill projected the changes would have allowed thousands more students to participate in the program. Even though close to 60,000 students are receiving scholarships through Step Up For Students, Florida’s sole SGO, there is still a waiting list for families in need of options.

The bill’s chances were cut short when the Senate sponsor pulled the bill because Senate and House leadership vehemently disagreed over adding state testing requirements. The House wanted to keep the original accountability language in the bill—requiring students take a nationally norm-referenced test—but Senate leadership demanded that private schools participating in the program should be required to take state tests.

The legislation would have been dead this session but for Rep. Erik Fresen, who added the Florida tax-credit scholarship expansion language to an education savings account bill for students with special needs. The combined legislation passed the Florida House Education Appropriations Subcommittee and will likely be up for a House floor vote in early April.

Indiana
A new voucher program was created this legislative session allowing parents of up to 1,500 children to choose a publicly or privately run pre-kindergarten school. Also, lawmakers clarified language in a portion of the state’s existing voucher program to better serve K-12 students with special needs whose parents want to choose a private school.

Iowa
ESA legislation in Iowa did not make it through the “funnel” process there. This requires that all legislation be moving toward crossover to the other chamber by a certain date. The ESA bill made it out of the Appropriations Subcommittee but was not taken up by the full committee.

Kansas
Both the ESA and the tax-credit scholarship bills are stalled in the legislative process. There is a bill in the legislature to raise the Base State Aid[KB2] in conjunction with a recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling. That legislation does not contain any school choice-related language.<

Louisiana
Legislation that would give low-income students access to more school choice funding passed the state’s House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would allow students participating in the Louisiana Scholarship Program to be automatically eligible for the state’s tax-credit scholarship program, which could potentially give their parents greater purchasing power.

Mississippi
On March 12, the Senate passed HB 765, the Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act. The conference report on the ESA bill was filed in late March and contains a three-year repealer clause, making this a pilot program. The House voted down the ESA bill April 2 by a vote of 57-63. To see the evolution of the bill to date, visit State Programs and Government Relations Director Stephanie Linn’s markup here.

New York
In 2012, the New York Senate passed tax-credit scholarship legislation, the Education Investment Tax Credit, by a vote of 55 to 4. The Assembly’s companion bill had more than 100 co-sponsors. Although the measure had prominent support, including from some unlikely sources, this year New York’s budget did not include funding for the program, eliminating the possibility that the tax-credit scholarship program will become law.

Rhode Island
A “sliding-scale” voucher bill available to families earning up to 300 percent of the income needed to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch is still pending in committee. The bill faces a deadline of June 23, when the state’s legislative session ends.

Tennessee
The House Finance Subcommittee passed a failing-school voucher bill for students attending schools with academic performance in the bottom 10 percent of the state. The bill does not include income restrictions for students, although most eligible students in this bill would be from lower-income households. The bill sponsor has been taken off notice in the House Finance Committee with the stated intention to take up the bill later this month.

The Tennessee Senate Education Committee followed suit by passing a companion bill. The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Mark Norris (R), offered an amendment that would allow the program to give first preference to students attending schools in the bottom 5 percent academically and then open up eligibility for low-income students not in failing schools but who are in public schools within counties that contain failing schools. That amendment passed. Notably, the bill passed the committee 8-1 with bipartisan support. The Senate Finance committee will consider the bill in early April.

Vermont
An effort is underway in Vermont to dramatically cut the number of school districts statewide. The move essentially would render the state’s town tuitioning voucher program meaningless (for it to take effect a district must not house any public schools). Also, lawmakers are attempting to put a moratorium on “flipping” schools—in recent years, two public schools used the state’s voucher program to convert to private status amid concerns over state and federal over regulation.

More Posts

Into the Benghazi Storm with “Special Operations Speaks”

“The political director of Special Operations Speaks, which represents over 1,000 Special Operations veterans, claimed House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is not creating a committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi because he is protecting those who know what really happened and the details of what may have been a cover-up. Special Operations Speaks recently launched a social media campaign to memorialize the four Americans killed in last year’s Benghazi terrorist attacks and pressure Congress to create a Select Committee to investigate and uncover the truth of the administration’s handling of the attacks,” reported Breitbart’s Tony Lee in August 2013.

The officers of SOS will join with me on WBTM TV to battle corruption and incompetence in DC!

[youtube]http://youtu.be/q73QhxHBYro[/youtube]

Florida Bar Association Attacks Rabbi for supporting Dutch MP Geert Wilders

The Florida version of American Law for American Courts (ALAC) SB 386 passed the second hurdle  today, on a partisan vote of 6 Republicans  versus 3 Democrats.  The Democrat opponents included  Sen. Jeremy Ring, the Chairman of the State Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability (GO&A)Committee.

It was left to GO&A Deputy Chairman Sen. Alan Hays to advance the legislation to passage at today’s hearing.

We join with other Floridians in commending Sen. Hays for his valued support of SB 386: “acceptance  of foreign laws in certain cases”.  His tenacity, perseverance and collegiality in working with the proponents and his adroit understanding of the politicking involved has made a demonstrable difference endeavoring to pass the Florida version of ALAC s in its fourth try.

Having watched the video of today’s Florida Senate GO&A  hearing and partisan vote we have provided you with  the URL link to the Hearing video below. Please watch beginning at time mark 60 mins through  81 mins.

http://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2014041060

The bulk of the hearing discussion  was comprised of  the introduction by  Republican  Committee  member  Sen. David  Simmons of an amendment that seeks to codify, in his parlance, judge made law. He considers that  superior to SB 386 in that  the amendment seeks to perfect a compromise with critics of the bill.  After presentation  of  Simmons’ amendment, it was withdraw enabling a vote on SB 386 as proposed.

Sen. Hays endeavored to show our video interview with Rabbi Hausman to the Committee.  At the request of Committee Chair Ring,  Sen. Hays  presented  Rabbi Jonathan Hausman’s professional bona fides to comment on Israeli family law recognition of rabbinic decrees. Hays focused on the Rabbi’s  multifaceted qualifications as an ordained  pulpit rabbi,  Member of the Bars of  Pennsylvania and Connecticut and extensive  knowledge of both Jewish Halacha and Islamic Sharia.

Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman small

Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman

In the presentation by the Florida Bar International Law section we noted the ad hominem attack against Rabbi Hausman for being an ally of a Dutch Member of  Hague Parliament, Geert Wilders and leader of the Freedom Party. Further, this  line of attack  was taken up  by GO&A Chair Senator Jeremy Ring (D-FL District 29) about the lack of Family Law testimony from that section of the Florida bar association. It was also reflected in the comments of the Emerge USA Muslim group representative  complaining  about the bill not being heard by Senate Child and Family dominated by Senators concerned about alleged denial of Israeli divorces. That clearly is the misinformed argument promoted by the ADL in a mass email campaign to the Florida Jewish community just prior to today’s hearing.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce  Representative argued that SB 386  was complicated impacting on international transactions and small business owners. We suspect that the ADL, Florida Family and International Law sections of the state bar association, Emerge USA Muslim advocacy group and Sen. Simmons will put in their final strokes at the next stop, the Senate Rules Committee.

So far on the family law matters we have yet to see  introduced the video evidence by either or both Professor Margaret McClain and especially Floridian Yasmeen A. Davis. Ms. Davis  was rescued by her family  from an abduction and removal to Saudi Arabia by her father in violation  of state, federal and international law against parental abductions. This is graphic testimony of the war on women under Sharia.

Perhaps given today’s  successful vote on SB 386, there might be movement in the Florida House on the companion measure, HB903 that passed on the Subcommittee on Civil Justice on  March 18th. The subcommittee is  Chaired by District 32 Rep. Larry Metz who is one of ALAC’s  most knowledgeable proponents. He sponsored the legislation in the 2013 legislative session in Tallahassee.  One indication of that came in a meeting that occurred at a recent dinner of the Allen West Foundation in Palm Beach, Florida.

District 2  Florida House Representative, Warren Bryan “Mike” Hill and Rabbi Hausman were featured speakers at the event. Rep. Hill when he learned of Rabbi Hausman’s involvement in the pending Florida ALAC legislation  said he voted for the measure at the House Subcommittee hearing and would vote for it when it reached the Florida House floor. It appears likely that the House version may be heard shortly in the full Judiciary Committee where Rep. Metz may play a key role in arguing for passage.

As baseball great and master of malapropisms, Yogi Berra might opine, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings”.  Nevertheless, today’s  Senate GO&A passage may indicate that the momentum could be building up a head of steam for ultimate passage in the 2014 Legislature Session in Tallahassee.

EDITORS NOTE:

The Florida Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee approved American Laws for American Courts legislation which would prohibit Sharia and other foreign laws during the committee’s April 3, 2014 meeting. The committee voted 6 to 3 in favor of SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during their Wednesday, April 3, 2014 9:00 am – 10:30 am meeting:

Chair:
Senator Jeremy Ring (D)                    No
Vice Chair:
Senator Alan Hays (R)                         Yes

Senator Aaron Bean (R)                      Yes
Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R)    Yes
Senator Rob Bradley (R)                    Yes
Senator Dorothy L. Hukill (R)         Yes
Senator Bill Montford (D)                  No
Senator David Simmons (R)              Yes
Senator Christopher L. Smith (D)    No

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Eighty-one Years Ago: It began with a boycott of Jews in Berlin

April 1933: Nazi storm troopers outside a Berlin store posting signs reading, “Do not buy from Jews!”

220px-Al-Husayni1929head

Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In office from 1921–1948. Photo taken in 1929.

It always starts with a boycott. That is how tyrants begin the process of cleansing those deemed unfit or enemies of the state. Eighty one years ago we saw the same thing that is happening today, not in Nazi, Germany, but rather on the campuses of America’s elite universities and on the streets of New York City.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero in The Jewish Press reports, “It is incomprehensible. This year, the sponsors of New York’s annual Israel Day Parade are allowing organizations to march who actively promote a boycott of Israeli businesses and companies owned by Jews in Judea-Samaria.”

“The UJA-Federation, responsible for the annual parade, has given the Green Light to groups organizing boycotts against products of Jewish owners in Judea and Samaria. These groups work every day to isolate Israel and make her a global pariah, announcing to the world the names of specific Jewish-owned companies operating in Judea-Samaria they want punished. Yet, these ‘Jewish’ groups are being invited to infiltrate the Parade, either because of agreement with their tactics or as a way of affirming what the UJA-Federation calls an ‘open tent’,” notes Rabbil Spero.

The current Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement touts itself as promoting “freedom, justice, equality.” The global BDS campaign against Israel is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), established in 2007.

But the 1933 boycott of Jews in Berlin is inextricably linked to the current BDS movement against Israel. That link is Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

On 20 November, al-Husseini met the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop[149] and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on 28 November.[150] He asked Adolf Hitler for a public declaration that ‘recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for independence and liberation, and that would support the elimination of a national Jewish homeland’.[151] Hitler refused to make such a public announcement, saying that it would strengthen the Gaullists against the Vichy France, but asked al-Husseini to ‘to lock …deep in his heart’ the following points, which Christopher Browning summarizes as follows, that:

‘Germany has resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well’. When Germany had defeated Russia and broken through the Caucasus into the Middle East, it would have no further imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation… But Hitler did have one goal. “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power”. (Das deutsche Ziel würde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht lebenden Judentums sein). In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it.’

Al-Husseini meeting with Muslim volunteers, including the Legion of Azerbaijan, at the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin on 18 December 1942, during the Muslim festival Eid al-Adha.

While in Germany, al-Husseini was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly admonished the guards operating the gas chambers to work more diligently. In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit under al-Husseini’s command parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.

Al-Husseini also helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies.

A separate record of the meeting was made by Fritz Grobba, who until recently had been the German ambassador to Iraq. His version of the crucial words reads “when the hour of Arab liberation comes, Germany has no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews”.

In the lead-up to the 1948 Palestine war, Husseini opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah’s designs to annex the Arab part of British Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, and, failing to gain command of the ‘Arab rescue army’ (jaysh al-inqadh al-‘arabi) formed under the aegis of the Arab League, formed his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas. In September 1948, he participated in establishment of All-Palestine Government. Seated in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, this government won a limited recognition of Arab states, but was eventually dissolved by Gamal Nasser in 1959.

After the war and subsequent Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership, wholly discredited, left him eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization, and he lost most of his residual political influence. But his spirit lives on in the current BDS movement.

Hating Politics, Loving Government by SANDY IKEDA

Politics is inseparable from government. Indeed, it is government.

Iconoclast filmmaker and political activist Oliver Stone spoke at the international conference of Students for Liberty last February in Washington, D.C. The common ground between Stone and most libertarians is his outspoken criticism of American militarism abroad, not just by conservative Republicans but also by left-wing Democrats such as President Obama.

But where libertarians differ with Stone, and differ profoundly, is I think more interesting and instructive. Stone sounds like a man disenchanted with politics but still enamored of government. So he decries interventionism abroad but approves of the violent interventions of the Chavez (now Maduro) regime in its own country. He seems to believe politics, particularly dirty politics, can be separated from government.

But intervening is what big government does, domestically or abroad.

Admiration, Disenchantment, and Betrayal

Stone was, as I mentioned, harshly critical of President Obama and what Stone said he felt was the President’s backpedaling on his campaign promises. At the same time, Stone expressed strong support for the current regime in Venezuela and the United Socialist Party’s violent clampdown on antigovernment protesters, referring to the latter as “poor sports” for trying to overturn what he deems a democratically elected government. (But see this open letter to Oliver Stone that was delivered to him during the conference.)

To condemn violent intervention by the United States government in foreign affairs while supporting violent intervention by Venezuela’s government in its domestic affairs is an inconsistency obvious to most libertarians. The relative size of the U.S. government and its self-appointed role as world policeman compared to Venezuela’s much more modest size and limited role in Latin America might be part of the reason why Stone opposes one and approves of the other.

But underlying Stone’s disgust for President Obama, whom he supported over two elections, was a sense of betrayal, that Obama as President must live in a very different world from Obama as candidate.

Deceive for the Sake of the Task

Stone is not alone in his disenchantment with President Obama. The President’s approval rating has reached an all-time low and Democrats are worried about the potential drag on midterm elections. The once-shining candidate and bold politician has lost his luster, especially for those who believed his progressive rhetoric—not only on foreign policy but also on immigration, health care, and surveillance. To be fair, almost every incumbent President loses popularity in the second term. People eventually see that reality doesn’t match rhetoric. But that’s the point: It’s mere rhetoric. Or, to be precise, political rhetoric.

What is political rhetoric? It’s persuasive talk in the service of achieving dominance in the use of violent aggression. It was Carl von Clausewitz who said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” War and politics are then just different ways of attaining physical dominance. While politics doesn’t ordinarily involve open violence (at least not in wealthier countries in recent decades), rhetoric in the service of politics does include lying. If initiating physical violence is an acceptable means—actually it’s the means—of engaging in war, lying and distortion are its relatively peaceful partners. That’s why the State is often defined as the agency that has a legitimate monopoly over aggression and fraud. Like physical violence, some argue that lying and deception can serve the common good: for example, telling people, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” in order to get Obamacare passed. Plato claimed that a “Noble Lie,” about the origins of a nation, for example, may be necessary to maintain social harmony. But such lies, he says, are best left to the elite rather than commoners.

Keeping the truth from potential enemies is just as important as keeping weapons from them. Politics, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, involves “activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government.” Lying and deception are essential to politics and politics is inseparable from government. Or, as Jane Jacobs wrote in her brilliant book Systems of Survival, one of the basic rules of government is to “deceive for the sake of the task.”

House of Cads

When government is limited to a few tasks, the need for and scope of deception are also limited. The more the government does, however, the bigger the role deception plays in its daily activities. As the NSA scandal illustrates, government spies on citizens and then lies about it.

Although the American government has not yet reached the scope of collectivist central planning that F. A. Hayek targeted in The Road to Serfdom, much of what he writes there is applicable to it, mutatis mutandis. I specifically have in mind his famous chapter 10, “Why the Worst Get on Top,” the central point of which is that the more detailed the plan the State seeks to impose on its citizens, the more ruthless and expedient its executioners must be if it is to succeed. This is why the most ruthless and unprincipled have the advantage in the struggle for political power. What separates President Obama, or any other recent American president, from someone like President Vladimir Putin of Russia is a matter of degree, not of kind. To paraphrase Lord Acton, not only does power tend to corrupt, but absolute power tends to attract the absolutely corrupt. Frank Underwood, the protagonist of the television drama House of Cardsis an excellent, though of course fictional, illustration of exactly that tendency.

Politics is inseparable from government, indeed it is government, and the bigger the government, the bigger the role of politics. As they say, politics is a feature, not a bug.

ABOUT SANDY IKEDA

Sandy Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. He will be speaking at the FEE summer seminars “People Aren’t Pawns” and “Are Markets Just?

The Joy of Thinking: Shmuel Trigano

Denmark has banned “ritual slaughter.” Why? Both Muslim and Jewish authorities had already accepted non-penetrating stunning prior to halal or kosher slaughter. There are no kosher slaughterhouses left in Denmark. But that’s not the issue. Agriculture Minister Dan Jørgensen justifies the ban, enacted on February 13th and effective on the 17th, on the grounds that “animal rights come before religious rights.” Similar bans have been imposed in Poland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the Netherlands. What next?

What can explain this seemingly endless wave of hostility against Jews, Judaism, and Zionism either singled out or, as in this case, lumped together with Islam? Confused do-gooders, adding animals to their exquisite concern for the welfare of living creatures, are tearing at the body of Western civilization. The gullible multitude swallows the hype. What is the future of Jews in such a world?

Intense debate has been underway since the dawn of the 21st century, nowhere more fertile than in France, at the European epicenter of the international storm. Our survival depends on our capacity to think! To think clearly, precisely, profoundly, and coherently. High on the list of the Jewish thinkers who have risen to the challenge, Shmuel Trigano gives us keys to understanding our predicament and, hopefully, averting catastrophe. Sociologist, philosopher, academic, prolific writer, he sheds light on the perverse process that leads to the lumping together of Jews and Muslims (as foreign bodies), the damning of “ritual slaughter” (the term is a horror in itself), and the smug conclusion: “animal rights come before religious rights.”

The subject was at the heart of an international Colloquium “L’Union européenne et les nouvelles forms de la question juive” [New forms of the Jewish Question in the European Union], held in Paris on January 26th under the auspices of l’Université populaire du judaïsme and founding director Shmuel Trigano, who introduced the Colloquium with a few words about the newly created Université Populaire, “an alliance of heart and mind.” The aim of this open program of Jewish studies is to examine the Jewish message—eternal Israel—in conjunction with the contemporary situation of Jews, individually and collectively, and the dangers facing the Jewish state in a post-national Western world. In the 20th century, Jews that had been living as individual citizens of European nations were collectively rounded up and exterminated. Subsequently, Jews were chased out of the Arab-Muslim world. Jewish population today is concentrated in Israel, the United States, Western Europe, and Russia.

The first speaker at the Colloquium, Bruno Fiszon—chief rabbi of Metz and a member of the French Veterinary Academy—who defends shechita with scientific precision, gave an inside view of the ferment that led the European Commission to assimilate male circumcision with female genital mutilation, and “ritual slaughter” with savagery. Eurodeputy Marlène Rupprecht, reporter of the commission on circumcision, deplored practices that reveal “the dark side of your religion.” Her colleague Sylvie Goy-Chavent, who also sponsored the resolution discriminating against products from Israel’s “occupied territories,” claims the proceeds of kosher slaughter finance Israel’s army. Something other than animal welfare is at play.

Nine speakers, including Robert Wistrich—author of the recently cancelled UNESCO exhibit on the 3500 year connection between the Jewish people, the Book, and the land of Israel—addressed the “Jewish question” from every angle. Jean-Pierre Bensimon stepped out of the European framework to voice stinging criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry’s misguided peace initiative. Bat Ye’or traced current developments in the Eurabian project she has thoroughly documented: Palestinianism and its anti-Zionist corollary, the peace process as a jihadist plan for the destruction of Israel, replacement of French identity and population, the rejection of rational European civilization in favor of Koranic doctrine, the 2006 Berlin Conference decision to politicize European culture…

Shmuel Trigano outlined the new anti-Semitism that has developed within a new world order: To restore the belief in its own bounty after the Shoah, Europe invented a religion of compassion in a borderless EU consecrated to the defense of The Victim. The victims of the Shoah, bleached of their Jewish specificity and interchangeable with new models, are an object of worship. The nation-state is blamed for the evils of the 20th century and Israel is execrated for its retrograde nationalism, leaving the Jews exposed once more to the danger of extermination if robbed of the protection of the sovereign Jewish state. (A video of the Colloquium is available online. )1

At the end of this day-long studious exercise, participants discovered what had been going on in the streets of Paris: The Day of Rage, billed as a spontaneous coalition of gripes against the Hollande government, the EU, global finance, and a long list of etceteras, had brought forth a vociferous chorus of Jew hatred from one end to the other of the political spectrum. “Jews, Jews, France isn’t for you!”2

The juxtaposition of the insightful Colloquium and the real life manifestation of Jew hatred in distressed French society is a fitting example of the brainspan of Shmuel Trigano, stretching from an inspired interpretation of the founding texts of Judaism to a sharp intuition of the clear and present danger that threatens flesh and blood Jewish people.

Like many others, I discovered Trigano in 2001, with the publication of a quarterly bulletin, l’Observatoire du Monde Juif, that broke through a government and media blackout on attacks against Jews and Jewish property. Each issue of the Observatoire listed anti-Semitic acts (8 full pages in the first quarter of 2001) along with essays by Trigano and astute collaborators, focused on specific themes—media bias, Islamism and the Jews, the New Left and Israel, Israel the pariah state…  Trigano traced the sociological twists by which a long-standing well-integrated Jewish community respectful of the laws and the spirit of the French République was accused of “communautarisme” (clannishness) for coming together to defend itself from the violent anti-Semitism of a recent Muslim immigrant population, hostile to the host country and its values. Later, when the reality could no longer be denied, unprovoked attacks on Jews were travestied as inter-ethnic clashes.

Trigano gave a comprehensive analysis of repercussions of the “Al Aqsa Intifada” in France in La demission de la République/Juifs et musulmans en France [resignation of la République/Jews and Muslims in France], published in 2003.3 There is nothing ideological, emotional, essentialist, or ethnically competitive about his reflection on national identity under the pressure of an unprecedented influx of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan African nations that have been historically in conflict with the West. A population that rejected modernity—experienced “in reverse” as colonization—and practices an unreformed religion that remains inimical to European values will inevitably acquire political clout in a democratic nation that makes no demands on them and shirks its own identity.

Integration, says Trigano, is impossible in the absence of national identity. The current situation, which makes life impossible for French Jews, will create chaos in society at large. The short-lived “victory” of Muslim immigrants, allowed to assert their theoretical domination and claim their rightful place without accepting national values, will inevitably create a prejudicial backlash. He concludes with hopes for a positive outcome based on a pact similar to the agreement made between Napoleon and Jewish authorities that led to the granting of citizenship rights to French Jews. An Islam of France (as opposed to an Islam in France) would formally renounce precepts such as jihad, death to apostates, dominion over infidels, polygamy, oppression of women… No simple task! And Trigano does not toss out the idea like a politician on the campaign trail. Events since “La demission” was published have confirmed the diagnosis and potential solution. The alternative—multiculturalism—is producing exactly the backlash he predicted.

Impressed by Trigano’s lucidity, coherence, integrity, and foresight, I went out of my way to attend any colloquium he organized—including a notable one on the al Dura hoax—read his essays on current events, contributed to the review Controverses he edited from 2006 to 2011, thick handsome volumes that expand the depth and scope of the Observatoire. One issue, for example,4 explored the phenomenon of “alterjuifs,” a term coined to replace the misnomer “self-hating Jews.” In 2010 Trigano short- circuited an attempt to create a European version of J Street: the Raison Garder [be reasonable] petition garnered twice as many signatures as the heftily backed JCall.

This year I am following Trigano’s course at the Université populaire. Ah! If only we were taught Judaism that way when we were young. One evening, as the class ended, he tossed out this pithy idea, like someone offering you a second helping of cake:  “The soul, I think, carries the flesh.” Yes! And his soul carries a generous unpretentious presence with a warm smile on the face of a hidalgo who stepped out of a Spanish painting. “When I’m in the States, strangers address me directly in Spanish.” We sat down together recently for a friendly conversation about his life and work. From details about his youth in Blida (Algeria), where he was born in 1948, to an explanation of his quest for an authentic “Hebrew philosophy,” Shmuel always makes sense! If you had to sum up his thought and his being in one word, you would say: coherent. He has no nostalgia for the Maghreb where he lived as a French citizen in a modern French-speaking family. His parents were afraid to send him to Talmud Torah in those times of revolutionary violence that led to their inevitable flight in 1962. He remembers tenderly their tragi-comic departure: “My father didn’t want to leave. We went to Vichy for a 20-day ‘cure’ at the baths, and when the time was up, we wandered here, there…”  They ended up finally in Paris, like tens of thousands of Jews forced to leave Muslim lands in a context of betrayal, persecution, loss of status and material possessions. The reception was chilly to say the least. But the Sephardic population that would invigorate French Jewish life seized every opportunity to make a fresh start.

Shmuel Trigano is first and foremost a writer. Not a philosopher trained in the discipline, but a thinker who reaches the philosophical level through the dynamics of writing creatively, with utmost honesty and intuitive confidence. After a brief excursion, at the age of 15, in “a Camus style fiction, the beach, the cruel Mediterranean sun…” he embarked on his life’s work, a highly original inquiry that began with the brutal expulsion from the land of his birth. From the youthful question—why did this happen to me—he has traveled, by writing, from the personal to the general to the essential. What happened to Jews, what is happening to us, who are we, what do we bring to humanity, how do we survive?

Picking up at the lycée in Paris the studies he had left in Blida, Trigano passed his baccalauréat, learned Hebrew and set out for Israel, immersed in the kibbutz, the landscape, Zionism, and studies at Hebrew University, graduating with a BA in political science. But the coherence he hungered was not yet on the program. The dichotomy between “thought” and “Jewish thought” existed in Israel as in the Diaspora as in Western civilization. “Israelis,” says Trigano, “speak a European language with Hebrew words.”

He returned to France to pursue a quest that seemed to require linguistic duality, using French to cast light on the stunning dimension of Biblical Hebrew. With a Doctorate in Sociology, he began the university career that has allowed him to write while exercising his authentic talent as a teacher. He took a six- month leave of absence to compose Récit de la disparue, an essay on Jewish identity, sent the manuscript “over the transom” to numerous publishers… and had no response until, one year later, he learned that Pierre Nora, an editor at the prestigious house of Gallimard, had decided to publish the manuscript after getting the approval of Emmanuel Lévinas, Henri Meschonnic, and Maurice Blanchot. The book came out in 1977.5

Thirty-seven years later, Shmuel Trigano finds himself once more in a linguistic-cultural-geographic conundrum. The French language, which has lost nothing of its vibrant beauty and capacity for expression, is losing its territorial scope. And Jews in France are tottering on the edge of a familiar precipice. The same Muslim population that forced them to flee Arab lands has now created such a hostile environment in France that many envisage another exodus. The French language once practiced by fine minds all over the world is becoming a backwater, a trap for thinkers whose work is not easily translated and marketable. We who are enduring this difficult period in contemporary French history have the privilege of reading their works in the original; it isn’t a golden age, but there’s some silver in it.6

The outburst of violence against Jews triggered by the “Al Aqsa Intifada” awoke, in the depths of Shmuel Trigano’s soul, hidden memories of the exodus from Algeria. As if he could finally experience the pain and distress and know, once again, the sinking feeling that the state cannot protect you. After more than a decade of intense writing and activity centered on this new anti-Semitism often disguised by an anti-Zionist cloud, Shmuel Trigano discovered, as if it had written itself, his magnum opus, Judaïsme et l’esprit du monde.

Acclaimed by Roger Pol-Droit7—“an exceptional endeavor…. remarkable coherence imposed on a dizzying diversity of themes…”—this monumental work reveals the erudition that underlies Shmuel Trigano’s every intellectual gesture. Jacques Tarnero, reviewing Trigano’s most recent publication, Politique du people juif, praises his extraordinary intellectual creation, a tireless quest, the matrix of his thought: what is the question that Israel raises in a world relentlessly determined not to hear it? “Judaism,” says Trigano, “is a concept of the world, a vision of the universe and the cosmos, not a narrow province…”8

“The world, the void, nothingness, creation are not mysteries, they can be the subject of Man’s comprehension. No magic is possible in this perspective….  The intellectuality of Judaic spirituality is touched with grace, informed with a poetic sensitivity. The language …is not dry rhetoric; it is the contours of a natural landscape… The Land of Israel is that land and that language.” Judaïsme et l’esprit du monde [p. 196]

image001EDITORS NOTE: Nidra Poller’s book is Karimi Hotel is now available in English and Al Dura: long range ballistic myth is available on Kindle.

[1] Video of colloquium http://www.akadem.org/_articles/342/57342.php . An English version will eventually be available.

[2] http://www.d-intl.com/2014/02/10/frances-united-front-of-jew-hatred/?lang=en

[3] La Démission de la République/ Juifs et Musulmans en France. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2003.

[4]  http://www.controverses.fr/ N° 4, Feb. 2007

[5] Le récit de la disparue/ essai sur l’identité juive. Paris, Gallimard, 1977, Folio-Gallimard, 2001

[6] English-speaking readers can discover  Shmuel Trigano in: Philosophy of Law Shalem Press, 2012

The Democratic Ideal, the unthought in Political Modernity SUNY Press, 2009.

Texts http://www.shmuel-trigano.fr/texts-english.html] and

Interviews  http://www.shmuel-trigano.fr/interviews.html in English on his site.

Shmuel Trigano’s “intellectual confession” will appear in Jewish Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century: Personal Reflections, edited by Aaron Hughes and Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Brill Academic Publishers. http://www.brill.com/

[7] [Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/livres/article/2011/02/03/shmuel-trigano-voir-le-judaisme-du-dehors-et-du-dedans_1474367_3260.html]

[8] [http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/jacques-tarnero/politique-peuple-juif_b_2581932.html]

Libertarian Party of Texas Poised for Largest State Convention in its History

1535541_10152009311404079_391973742_nAUSTIN, Texas, April 2, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — With Generation Liberty! as its theme, the Libertarian Party of Texas will host its 2014 state convention April 11-13 at the Frank W. Mayborn Civic and Convention Center in Temple.

The party will nominate candidates for statewide office and elect new state party officers. The convention will feature an exciting lineup of speakers and events supporting Libertarian goals of peace, liberty and justice for all.

While national trends show declining party registration for Republicans and Democrats, since November 2012 the Libertarian Party has shown 11.4 percent growth (Ballot Access News).

The Libertarian Party of Texas has enjoyed growth as well. “Our growth has come from a wide variety of Texans, but we especially see interest among young people,” reports Patrick Dixon, Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas. “I am very encouraged to see future generations of Libertarians getting involved.”

The Libertarian State Convention will see over 200 delegates, with 25 candidates seeking nomination for 15 offices, and, what is tracking to be the largest number of non-delegates, in attendance.

Friday events are free and open to the public while Saturday and Sunday includes meal and speaker events that require registration.

With a 1 p.m. kick-off, Friday’s first session will provide important training for delegates to learn mechanics of the procedures observed during convention business sessions. A 3:30 p.m. “Come and Take It” rally in the Mayborn Center parking lot will feature speakers including C.J. Grisham discussing the importance of defending Second Amendment rights. Candidate debates for statewide offices are scheduled from 6 – 9 p.m.

Saturday business sessions will address state rules and nominations while break-out sessions will address topics like, “The Libertarian Message and Drugs, Data and the Dominatrix: Civil Liberties in Texas.”

Saturday’s lunch will feature Students for Liberty (SFL) founder Alexander McCobin discussing how the young generation can carry the Libertarian message.

The dinner banquet will include speakers Wes Benedict, Michael Cloud and Ben Swann. Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee, and Cloud, president and co-founder of the Center For Small Government, will talk on effectively spreading the party’s message. Swann, a broadcast news journalist known for creating “Reality Check” and his own media company, the Truth in Media Project, will deliver the keynote address.

On Sunday, 2013 SFL Student of the Year award winner, Noelle Mandell will discuss why young people matter and how Libertarians can work to attract/engage the next generation, and will also facilitate a hands-on exercise in activism.

A Sunday break-out session, “Free Beer: Liberating our favorite libations,” will highlight the challenges of small business owners in a highly regulated environment while lunch speakers will discuss “Bitcoin, Banks and Bailouts: How do Bitcoin, the Federal Reserve System, and crony capitalism affect the economy.”

Full convention schedule:
https://www.lptexas.org/2014-schedule

Registration information:
https://www.lptexas.org/convention-registration

Saving Civilization Means Killing Equality

If a famine befell us and you couldn’t save everyone, would you withhold the food you had and let every citizen starve rather than endure the inequality of just saving some? If recent history is any guide, certain leftists just might say yes.

A good example of this phenomenon involved a multiple sclerosis patient in Gothenburg, Sweden, who was denied a more effective and expensive medication — even though he was willing to pay for it — because, wrote columnist Walter Williams in 2009, “bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.” No wonder Winston Churchill said that socialism’s “inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

And another example just reared its ugly head in Plymouth, Michigan, where the locality’s high school is tearing down newly constructed bleachers in deference to the equality police. MyFoxDetroit.com reports on the issue, writing:

A new set of seating is being torn down outside the Plymouth Wildcats varsity boys’ baseball field, not long before the season begins, because the fields for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal.

A group of parents raised money for a raised seating deck by the field, as it was hard to see the games through a chain-link fence. The parents even did the installation themselves, and also paid for a new scoreboard.

So what happened? Some unnamed malcontent lodged a complaint with the feral government, at which point U.S Education Department Office for Civil Rights overlords decreed that the seating must go. Ain’t equality grand?

Except that equality is simply a ruse. And think about it with respect to this issue:  the principle is that facilities “for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal,” but are boys’ and girls’ athletics equal? The striking contradiction in these male/female sports equality controversies is that calls for “equality” are deferred to within the context of the acceptance and promotion of an inherently unequal system. That is to say, if equality is the guiding principle here, why have separate leagues, teams and tours — protected from the best competition — for girls and women?

The solution, whether it’s the Plymouth situation or calls for equal prize money in tennis, is simple. If a lightweight boxer wants the purses the heavyweights get, he needs to fight and succeed in the heavyweight class; likewise, if feminists want what the boys/men have, they should try to compete in their arena. And I do advocate this: eliminate separate categories for women, and let the sexes compete together on a level playing field. After all, to echo what Lincoln said about laws, the best way to eliminate bad social policy is to enforce it strictly. If you believe in equality, practice it.

Live it.

And live with it.

And since the boys’ American high-school mile record is considerably faster than the women’s world record — and since this gap appears, with some variation, across sports — my proposal would provide some necessary “policy clarification.”

The education department’s decree is also an attack on charity. The message is that pursuing good works just might be a waste of time because, inevitably, they’ll conflict with some government regulation or mandate. It’s in addition a quasi-Marxist assault on the market. After all, the Plymouth community’s interest in building new baseball bleachers was no doubt driven by there being greater fan turnout for the boys’ games. And the market renders such verdicts all the time. It’s said that female fashion models earn three times what their male counterparts do, bars may offer women free drinks or entry without a cover charge, and no one troubles over women-only health clubs. It’s only when market determinations seem to benefit boys or men that the equality ruse is trotted out.

The truth is that equality dogma is a fiction of modern times. As for the timeless, the word “equality” appears in only 21 biblical verses, mostly referring to matters such as weights and measures. There’s good reason for this, and don’t blame it on the supposed “backwardness” of religion because a devout evolutionist would have to be the staunchest believer in hierarchies born of natural inequality. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, “[I]f they [people] were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” Look around you at the world of nature and man, which, if the evolutionists are correct, are certainly one and the same. How much equality do you see? Rams butt heads, and one ram wins and the other loses; wolves have alphas and one male lion dominates and leads a pride. Then, there are 3.1 billion possible combinations when a couple has a child. And, oh, what combinations they can be. How many of us can play golf like Tiger Woods, defy gravity and shoot baskets like Michael Jordan or compose music at four years of age as did Mozart? People have greatly varying IQs, physical capabilities, personalities, inclinations toward virtue and gifts. Equality is a pipe dream.

This variation exists among groups, too. Ashkenazi Jews have the world’s highest average IQ, while Asians enjoy that status insofar as major groups go. And disease and conditions have no regard for equality, either: the Pima Indians have the highest rate of diabetes on Earth, breast cancer afflicts mainly women, the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease is highest among Jews, black men suffer from prostate cancer at twice the rate whites do, while sickle-cell anemia is found almost exclusively among blacks. I guess reality is “racist.”

Reality is actually this: it’s completely illogical and contradictory for a person to claim on one hand that he believes in classical, cosmic-accident evolution, but on the other that all groups somehow, quite accidentally, wound up the same in capacity, inclination and worldly abilities. After all, since evolution holds that groups lived and developed separately for millions of years — subject to different environments, stresses, adaptive requirements and to the luck of the draw — their winding up “equal” was, for all intents and purposes, a mathematical impossibility.

Earlier evolutionists recognized and accepted this reality, mind you, and in fact became eugenicists. Note here that the term “eugenics” was coined by Charles Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton. Also note that the concept greatly predates the term: Greek philosopher Plato advocated murdering weak children, and the Spartans had actually done it.

This doesn’t mean I embrace eugenics or classical evolution (my views on the latter are found here). The point is that whether you believe we’re accidentally different or that, as St. Therese learned, there are even divinely ordained hierarchies in Heaven, equality is certainly not a thing of this world.

This helps explain why entities prescribing “equality” — such as the early French republic and all the Marxist killing-field regimes — become the worst tyrannies. Since equality is wholly unnatural, its mullahs must violate man’s nature, must trump it and twist it, in an effort to pound their sinister square peg into the round hole of reality. And woe betide he who defies their self-deified will.

Cries for equality are today the second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel (shouts of “racism” are the absolute last). Contrary to what Churchill said, however, they don’t actually visit upon us an equal sharing of misery. Rather, the pigs more equal than others will dispense the ever-diminishing pork to the peons, as they feed at the trough of modern man’s sloth, envy and error.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Josephou. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.