Posts

Twitter Suspends Conservative Satire Site

In case you hadn’t heard, Twitter recently suspended our account. In an email to us, they claimed we violated their rules against “platform manipulation and spam.” The email included a warning that that if we tried to open another account, that new account would be suspended, too.

We published screenshots of the email and our suspended Twitter page, and called on our followers to make some noise. We started trending almost immediately and Twitter responded by reinstating us, saying we’d been suspended “by mistake.” So we’re back on Twitter, at least for the time being. But we share the concerns of others who’ve rightly observed that these “mistakes” tend to work in one direction.

We’re grateful to have followers who aren’t afraid to speak up and hold these big tech companies accountable. But there are no guarantees. We couldn’t be sure they’d reinstate our account. And we can’t know if they will the next time they make a “mistake.” But we can do our best to prepare for a worst-case scenario. At least we can if we have your help.

When we first launched our subscription service, the primary reason we gave for supporting us was to help us become less dependent on big tech companies. We explained:

We depend on Facebook and Twitter to drive traffic, and Google Ads to monetize it. Without these networks, we’d have no revenue to cover our expenses. And as you’re probably aware, none of these companies are friendly to Christians or conservatives. In fact, that’s a severe understatement. The control these companies exercise—and the outright hostility they display toward those with more traditional views and values—has us deeply concerned about our future as a publisher of Christian satire. But here’s the thing: If just a small fraction of our readers become paid subscribers, we’d have enough funding to survive without running ads, effectively eliminating our dependence on these big tech companies.

The more subscribers we have, the less we have to worry about our dependence on Twitter and the other big tech companies. If you want to see us prevail against Twitter, Snopes, and anyone else who might seek to discredit or deplatform us, please consider becoming a subscriber. Your support will make a difference.

From our whole team, thank you for your consideration and support.

Seth Dillon
CEO


Subscribe and Support The Babylon Bee


©The Babylon Bee. All rights reserved.

Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?

Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.

So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.

While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.

National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”

I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.

Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.

Georgetown University professor Christine Fair

“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:

…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.

As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”

Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?

hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.

Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.

Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”

But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.

In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s temporary immigration ban

UK: Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says jihad mass murderer was “not a Muslim”

Tell Me Who You Are and I Will Tell You What Is At Stake For You

“The more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling” – GEORGE ORWELL

ARE YOU A MAN?

If you are a man, your entire being, the appreciation of it, and the idea of your importance are at stake. Hillary takes any opportunity she can to eviscerate and emasculate men. I mean, we shouldn’t blame her, look who she married. Nonetheless, under a Hillary administration, affirmative action will be set up to target men. She will, without a doubt, come after you with a vengeance. Do not be surprised if men began to abandon their country in response to the persecution that she will unleash upon you for nothing else other than your gender. A globalist president would seek out to emasculate the country as a way to bring us down a notch, or two, or three in order to put us on an even playing field rather than the rest of the world, so why not begin with the men at home?

With Hillary, we will live in a nation that will have gone from “no means no” to even “yes means no” and every man guilty of having consensual sex with a woman will also potentially be guilty of rape as well for no other reason than that he is a man and men are rapists in Hillary’s America. Think I am being dramatic? Don’t risk it. This election has come down to self-defense and preservation of your rights and treatment as a man; do not let go of that just because society has been programmed to make you feel bad about it. Fight for yourselves. Take this country back. As a man, to cast a vote for her would be to vote to wage a war against yourself.

ARE YOU A WOMAN?

If you are a woman, you are a pawn to Hillary in her game of lies and deceit. She is using you. She is using you because you’re the easier target against her opponent. Although she wants you to think that you need her, she would be nothing without her ability to manipulate your support. She knows that Obama was the race president and she wants, very desperately, to be the gender president. Compare race relations and what is happening to the African-American population under Barack “The Race President Obama. Look at the beginning of Obama’s time in office to now, do you want to see the same thing happen to you as a woman just because Hillary wants to use you as a platform?

She wants to go down in history and a feminist trailblazer at any cost; even if that means women have to pay the price without even realizing it. She wants you to think that abortion is liberation, that the “wage gap” is strictly due to sexism, and that you’re a walking victim no matter where you go or what you do—which immediately puts you at a disadvantage at all times. How can you say you are empowering someone if you are always making that person the victim? Think about it.

ARE YOU AFRICAN-AMERICAN?

If you are an African-American, let me ask you, what do you have to lose? I mean that in the most respectful way possible but really, what has the current administration done or has Hillary promised to help heal the race relations in this country? Hillary Clinton has expressed her profound admiration for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a leader in the eugenics movement in which she promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and the sterilization of those individuals that she believed had “undesirable traits”. She fervently, yet discreetly, worked to place most of her clinics in primarily African-American neighborhoods. She undoubtedly believed in white supremacy and once wrote, “It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” It is important to know the origins of the people and the things we are supporting before we do so. Planned Parenthood was born out of the idea of white supremacy; do you want to support the candidate who admires the woman responsible for that?

I know that the media has instilled the idea that a white male president couldn’t possibly unify the country, but look what one of color has done in just eight years. People are worried that Donald Trump is going to take us back to a 1960’s America but, racially, we are already there, or at least on our way there, aren’t we? Agitating this race war is getting African-American people killed in the streets on what seems to be a daily basis.

Donald Trump has not only promised to work to heal the unruly situation between cops and the African-American community, but all crime against blacks—including black on black crime, which is the number one killer of black people in the united states. If black lives matter then they have to matter all across the board, not just the black lives taken by different races, but the black lives taken. Period. We can all agree that race relations in this country need to be healed, but protests and violence are not the ways to do it.

You are being crippled by the welfare state, making it possible for fathers to be taken out of your homes, for providers to be essentially useless and replaced by the government so that you’re forced to depend upon them rather than yourselves—the opposite of empowerment. FDR once said, about welfare, “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.  It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy.  It is a violation of the traditions of America.” Donald Trump wants to take you off the narcotic that is welfare and has said repeatedly that he will work tirelessly to bring jobs to the inner cities as well as give you and your children the option to go to the best schools in the area you live.

Vote to heal this country, vote for unity.

ARE YOU A LEGAL IMMIGRANT?

I may be preaching to the choir here because you know what it means to abide by the laws and to work for what you get, but voting for Hillary means voting for open borders. Voting to open the borders and flooding the country with immigrants just invalidates the work and dedication that it took you to become a proud citizen of this country. It also makes it extremely difficult for you and your fellow immigrants to assimilate into the America you have a right live in.

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL, OR TRANSGENDER?

Let’s face it; the LGBT community has been told, for much too long, that they had to vote democrat for in order to vote for equality. Things are different for you in this election. You are now in a post-Marriage Equality era, which means you no longer need to feel pressed to vote for all of the other damaging policies that fall under the umbrella of the liberal “equality” train. There are so many more important issues facing you today and there is a lot at stake for you in what may come next. You fought so hard for you rights but you can’t have rights if you don’t have a life. Hillary wants to bring in 550% more unvetted Muslim refugees into this country. Many of who are practicing a 9th century form of Islam that believes homosexuality is a sin. However, this is different than the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. What you have to remember with the Islamic faith is that it is not only a set of beliefs and teaching, it is a legal system as well. What does that mean? It means that, under their legal system of Sharia Law, it goes from a sin to a crime.

Now, let me preface what I am about to say by saying, I do not think all Muslims engage in the type of Islamic practice I am about to describe. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, one who follows a civilized form of their faith. However, there are many Muslims who don’t follow a civilized form, but a radical one. This is why Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting of refugees in order to keep us safe as well as protect law abiding Muslims in this country. With that being said, as a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender you need to understand that those who believe in the most extreme teachings of their Islamic faith believe that you should be thrown from rooftops, stoned, or even have “a wall toppled upon you as an evil-doer” according to the teachings of Abu Bakr.

Remember, just because the LGBT community has primarily voted democrat doesn’t mean that you can’t be the change in this election. Do not be shackled by the past. Embrace the candidate whose first priority is national security in order to preserve your safety to preserve your rights—your future depends on it.

ARE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?

Just for fun, I decided to Google “Cops for Clinton” and “Cops for Trump” and not surprisingly, I found nothing for the former and plenty for the latter. Maybe I am, again, preaching to the choir but humor me for a moment. Voting for Hillary will continue the disarmament of you and your fellow brothers and sisters in blue. If you value your lives and your jobs, do not give the most powerful position this country has to offer to a woman who has repeatedly vilified you for nothing more than doing your job. Recently, in Chicago, a female officer responded to a call for a car crash when she was savagely and ferociously beaten by a man under the influence of drugs, yet refused to use her weapon for fear of public backlash. This is a direct result of the war that the Obama administration has waged against police officers in America—the same war Hillary Clinton has begun to fight and will continue to fight if she wins on November 8th. Vote to protect yourself and your brothers and sisters.

ARE YOU IN THE MILITARY?

If you are in the military, most likely you, more than anyone else, do not wish to go into World War III. You probably understand, better than anyone else, that over the last eight years, our military has been depleted and weakened. Putting the Benghazi situation aside, it is as simple as voting for war or voting for peace.

Hillary Clinton’s gross inaction as Secretary of State should be enough to disqualify her for the presidency altogether but since there can be no way you haven’t already thought of that, think of this: Do you want war? Or do you want peace? It’s as simple as that. Donald Trump, on Monday, said he would meet with Vladimir Putin as soon as November if he were to be elected. This shows leadership that would be unfathomable to the Clinton campaign. She relentlessly insults Putin and is salivating at the thought of sending you and your comrades off to war. We are not ready for a nuclear war with Russia, nor do we want that. You get to decide who will command you and who will fight for you rather than who will only ask you to fight for her. What will you choose?

ARE YOU A STUDENT?

Are you a college student working hard to educate yourself and acquire an education that will better your future? What if I told you that soon, there would be students who don’t have to work for what you are working to give yourself? What if I told you that the free tuition that Hillary Clinton is promising would nullify the degree you’re working towards? How would that make you feel?

Everything you have worked for or are working toward will be much nearly useless if it’s handed out like candy under another Clinton administration. Vote to preserve the work you’ve put in and the pride that comes with knowing that you created that opportunity for yourself out of hard work and dedication.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

Christian values are traditional values. Although Donald Trump has had a rocky past as far as marriage goes, the man he is now represents traditional values. He will fight for religious liberty rather than persecution of the values we’ve held tight to since the birth of the nation. Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a lying, murderous thief who has no respect for the sanctity of life. She ridicules Trump for denying that global warming is a problem, citing that he must not understand science. How could a woman who denies that there is life inside the womb, according to science, claim superiority in the subject?

If you vote for nothing else but this one issue, you still have at least done your job as a Christian to fight for the unborn and the right, that every human shares, to life.

ARE YOU A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?

If you are a law aiding citizen, you not only value the law but you respect it as well. If you elect the criminal that is Hillary Clinton, you are sending a message. You are sending a message that not only are you okay with her previous crimes but that no matter what she does as president, you condone. If she commits criminal acts as the commander-in-cheif, you will have no ground to stand on in opposing her. You’ll have known who she is and, even worse, you’ll have put the power in her hands to commit these crimes. She has been a criminal her entire life. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder have been instrumental in getting her where she is today. Just this week, we found out that officials under her in the State Department attempted to bribe FBI agents to unlawfully change documents AFTER they had been subpoenaed and accumulated as evidence in a criminal investigation.

In the legal system, legal precedent is a legal case or incident that establishes a rule. That rule is later taken in other cases to determine the case at hand with similar issues or actions. If we let Hillary Clinton’s past crimes go unpunished, it will set the precedence of the Clinton administration if she is elected.

Hillary Clinton, herself, has been repeating the words, “America is great, because America is good.” Well folks, Hillary Clinton is not good. She doesn’t do good, she doesn’t represent goodness, nor have her actions shown any interest in the common good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Vote for goodness. Vote for greatness. Vote for America.

Which Group Poses the Gravest National Security Threat to America?

For decades I have said America’s number one national security threat is the Islamic ideology. Now in April 2016 as I have became a bit wiser about the ‘Big Picture’ of our world and how an elite few liberals control much of the world events, I feel there is a need to update my national security threat analysis.

Of course the Islamic ideology is dangerous and a threat to the entire world, but the question we must ask ourselves is how is Islam allowed to thrive in America despite many intelligent people understanding it can and likely will destroy the world.

Liberals in America, currently being led by America’s worst U.S. President (Obama), and by far the President who hates America and what it has stood for since it’s birth are the leading forces behind why the violent ideology of Islam is allowed to grow, flourish, and be accepted into all areas of Americans lives.

There are several definitions of a liberal, but my definition is the one you will never hear our media or politicians use. “Liberals in America are everything but American. Liberals are traitors to this great country and are the cause behind America’s destruction from within. Although many U.S. liberals were born here, they do not uphold basic American values and for this reason they are America’s number one threat to our nation security, our country’s survival, and the future of our children”.

There are a dozen or so legitimate counter-terrorism professionals in America. There are hundreds of self appointed fake counter-terrorism professionals in America who have fooled the American public into believing they know Islamic based terrorism issues inside and out. A few of the fakes include all major media people who pose as journalists, such as O’Reilly and Hannity. More such fakes are senior law enforcement officials at all levels of our government. Finally the leading fakes are Christian and Jewish leaders who pose as religious heads close to God and who by the very nature of their ‘jobs’ feel they understand Islam and Islamic based terrorism better than all others. Thankfully we do have a handful of Christian and Jewish leaders who truly understand the threat of Islam, but they are out numbered by a ration of 1000 to 1!.

Counter-terrorism professionals have proven over and over and over that the Islamic ideology is dangerous, violent, a threat to the entire world, and it’s poison has entrenched all corners of the world and America. Then why has the Islamic ideology, Islamic terrorists, Islamic supporters, and Islamic Centers been allowed to thrive and multiply in America? The answer is that liberals (American traitors) allow it to thrive. Liberals believe that the Islamic scholars and Jihadists throughout the world will give them a break when it comes to enforcing Sharia law in America, such as beheadings, being set on fire, rape of women, and death for the most minute obscure failings of human beings.

Liberals are very wrong of course. When Islam dominates America, there will be no safe zones for liberals or for any person who does not give their 100% allegiance to Islam.

  • Liberals are the people who advocate allowing illegal (criminals) to enter America, allowing mosques to advocate and promote violence, and even child marriages in America.
  • Liberals are the ones who advocate refugees who have not been properly vetted to come into our country by the hundreds of thousands.
  • Liberals are the one’s who give Islamic terrorist organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, and all mosques in America tax free non profit status.
  • Liberals are the one’s who allow the school text books of our children to be drafted by Islamic terrorists from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
  • Liberals are the people who allow Islamic terrorists from GITMO to be freed and allowed once again to target and kill our troops worldwide.
  • Liberals are the people who support Islamic based terrorists before they will American service members who have fought for America.
  • Liberals are the people who fight major wars using minor league rules and tactics.
  • Liberals are the people who voted an American traitor into office as our President.
  • Liberals are the people who support anti-Americans such as H. Clinton and a Socialist/Communist B. Sanders as possibly our next President.
  • Liberals are the people who will NEVER acknowledge that Islam is anything other than a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a few.

Abe Lincoln, one of America’s greatest Presidents (the 1st President from the Republican Party) said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.

Will Patriotic Americans defeat the liberals who are posing as Americans in America? Will true Americans save America before liberals destroy us forever? My answer is we could, but Americans have been so brainwashed by liberal thought for decades, that it is unlikely we can reverse the dangerous course of destruction we are on.

TIP OF THE DAY: “Black Lives Matter is a Propaganda tool of liberals and Islamic based terrorist groups”

Socialism Is Harder than You Think by Scott Sumner

Suppose you wanted to switch to socialism — what would be the ideal place to do so? You’d want a country with extremely high quality civil servants.

That would be France.

You’d want a country where socialism is not a dirty word, and capitalism is.

That would be France.

You’d want a country with the Socialist party in power, a party that was committed to enact the ideas of Thomas Piketty.

That would be France.

So how did things work out in France, when they tried to adopt a Bernie Sanders/Thomas Piketty approach to taxes?

IN THE eyes of many foreigners, two numbers encapsulate French economic policy over the past decade or so: 75 and 35. The first refers to the top income-tax rate of 75%, promised by François Hollande to seduce the left when he was the Socialist presidential candidate in 2012. The second is the 35-hour maximum working week, devised by a Socialist government in 2000 and later retained by the centre-right.

Each has been a totem of French social preferences. Yet, to the consternation of some of his voters, Mr Hollande applied the 75% tax rate for only two years, and then binned it. Now he has drawn up plans that could, in effect, demolish the 35-hour week, too.

Mr Hollande’s government is reviewing a draft labour law that would remove a series of constraints French firms face, both when trying to adapt working time to shifting business cycles and when deciding whether to hire staff. In particular, it devolves to firms the right to negotiate longer hours and overtime rates with their own trade unions, rather than having to follow rules dictated by national industry-wide deals.

The 35-hour cap would remain in force, but it would become more of a trigger for overtime pay than a rigid constraint on hours worked. These could reach 46 hours a week, for a maximum of 16 weeks. Firms would also have greater freedom to shorten working hours and reduce pay, which can currently be done only in times of “serious economic difficulty”. Emmanuel Macron, the economy minister, has called such measures the “de facto” end of the 35-hour week.

At the same time, the law would lower existing high barriers to laying off workers. These discourage firms from creating permanent jobs, and leave huge numbers of “outsiders”, particularly young people, temping.

For one thing, it would cap awards for unfair dismissal, which are made by labour tribunals. Laid-off French workers bring such cases frequently; they can take years and cost anything from €2,500 to €310,000 ($2,700 to $337,000) by one estimate.

Unfortunately, while France is moving away from these polices, the US is like to move some distance in their direction. Of course there are differences. Our minimum wage is still lower than in France, and our top income tax rate is closer to 50% in states like California and New York. But all the momentum is with the socialists, who are especially numerous among the younger voters.

Socialist ideas are superficially appealing. Paul Krugman (who favors very high income tax rates on the rich) often says that reality has a liberal bias. Actually, reality has a neoliberal bias, and if you don’t take incentive effects into account, you may end up disappointed.

Back in the US, Sander’s single payer approach also has problems:

A costing of Mr Sanders’s plans by Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, using more conservative assumptions, found that the plan was underfunded by nearly $1.1 trillion (or 6% of GDP) per year. If Mr Thorpe is right, higher taxes will be required to make the sums add up. In 2014 Mr Sanders’ own state, Vermont, abandoned a plan for a single-payer system on the basis that the required tax rises would be too great.

Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the union. Now think about the fact that they gave up on the idea, despite it having been previously approved and signed into law. Then think about the concept of rolling out a multi-trillion dollar plan at the federal level, soon after the only experiment at the state level failed to get off the ground.

Is that evidence-based liberalism, or wishful thinking?

This post first appeared at Econlog.

Scott SumnerScott Sumner

Scott B. Sumner is the director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center and a professor at Bentley University. He blogs at the Money Illusion and Econlog.

An Open Letter to Mr. Justin Trudeau

You have stated numerous times during the election campaign and since the elections that you will listen to Canadians. I sincerely hope you not only listen but very seriously consider keeping the Iranian embassy from reopening

According to reports from Iran, a fourteen-year-old child bride committed suicide in Ahwaz, Iran by throwing herself out of the window at her parents’ house. She was pronounced dead at the hospital. Her unknown husband told about the incident to Iranian media in an interview. This is only one example of many.

We hope PMO’s Farsi speaking staff would be able to translate this article and read Dr. Ahmed Shaheed’s grave concerns in this regard.

You have stated numerous times during the election campaign and since the elections that you will listen to Canadians. I sincerely hope you not only listen but very seriously consider keeping the Iranian embassy from reopening.

For your information, that fourteen-year-old child-bride’s murderer is the criminal Islamic regime in Iran and their barbaric ideology and culture but sadly and regretfully, Mr. Justin Trudeau has promised the reopening of the murderers’ embassy in Canada, and plans to travel to Iran and have a dialogue with the terrorist regime of Iran. I find it appalling and against Canadian values.

A few articles for your kind attention:

The Islamic Republic of Iran State sponsor of Terrorism

Iranian embassy recruiting expats by Steven Edwards

Iranian human rights situation following Iran deal

Iran Regime Publicly Advocates for Infiltration of West

Iran- Still in the Axis of Evil, by Gill Gillespie and Shabnam Assadollahi

Mr. Trudeau, Please do Not open Iran’s embassy in Canada. If you wish to help Iranian Canadian community and to protect our safety and security, you should open Iran’s interest section in Ottawa. We do not wish to have the Iranian diplomats’ presence in Canada. See here.

Activists protest Iran’s execution of political dissidents: Shabnam Assadollahi’s exclusive interview to Jerusalem Online

Analysis: Will Canada’s new Prime Minister be another Obama for Israel?

Regards,

Shabnam Assadollahi
Human Rights activist, Ottawa

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Canadian Iranian’s Perspective by Shabnam Assadollahi

What I Learned From Tibetan and Ukrainian Freedom Fighters

U.S. Liberal Jews Continue to Support Obama, Abandon Israel

Barack Obama pledged on the campaign trail in 2008 “to fundamentally transform” the United States, and perhaps consistent with that promise his presidency has been marked by a transformative indifference to legal process and constitutional procedure.  He most recently showed his disregard for the system of checks and balances by cajoling Congress to endorse his Iran deal despite the American public’s overwhelming disapproval.  He did so by misrepresenting the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran, failing to disclose side deals that make substantive enforcement unlikely and effective monitoring impossible, and mustering his partisan lackeys in the Senate to block a Republican resolution disapproving the deal – even as many of them acknowledged that Iran would certainly violate it.

Though establishment Jewish organizations condemned it, the sad reality is that many American Jews – including the majority of Congressional Jewish Democrats – supported the deal, just as they have supported the most anti-Israel president ever to occupy the White House.  The truth is that unified Jewish opposition by itself could not have defeated the deal; Jews have neither the numbers nor power to sway Congress, despite what conspiracy theorists might say about pervasive Jewish influence.  However, the goal of opposing the deal was not simply to defeat it, but to avoid giving the Jewish stamp of approval to a foreign policy that contravenes US interests and poses a genocidal threat to Israel and her people.

Unfortunately, attempts to withhold Jewish imprimatur were dashed by liberals whose support was used to bless the deal and validate the administration’s ridiculous claims that it will somehow bolster Israeli security and regional stability.  Jewish proponents seemed unmoved by Iran’s continuing anti-American rhetoric and threats to annihilate Israel; and some of them even mocked Israel’s existential concerns as overreactions.

No matter how often Obama excuses Islamists, insults Israel, or spits in the face of Jewish history, progressive Jews continue to support him with Pavlovian devotion.  And in justifying his corrosive Mideast policies, they demean Jewish historical rights and national aspirations – often repeating anti-Semitic slanders that have been embraced by the political left.

When Obama’s minions besmirched the patriotism of the deal’s critics, insinuated that Netanyahu was orchestrating domestic opposition to it, and identified its opponents with those who “rushed to war with Iraq,” they cagily invoked traditional canards of undue Jewish influence and warmongering.  Many Jewish progressives sold their souls by rationalizing or agreeing with such comments, or simply failing to chastise the evocation of classical stereotypes while the president claimed with faux innocence to be hurt by accusations of anti-Semitism.

Progressives will never admit that their actions provide cover for anti-Semites who deny Israel’s right to exist and excuse Islamic terrorism.  They delude themselves into believing that the BDS movement is engaging in legitimate political speech, that Palestinian revisionism supersedes objective Jewish history, and that progressive anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic.  And they remain devoted to a president whose policies have enabled Islamists, undercut Israel, and compromised American strategic interests.

The willingness of Jewish progressives to whitewash left-wing anti-Semitism reflects their estrangement from traditional values, ignorance of history, and failure of moral resolve.  It also connotes their attachment to a political ideology that excuses Jew-hatred and radical Islam with trite homilies about the evils of colonialism.  They falsely regard Israel as a colonial creation and western imperialism as the cause of Islamic radicalism, but ignore the long history of Islamic holy war, conquest and subjugation.  Likewise, they overlook the fact that civilizational friction between the Muslim and western worlds started not with the Crusades, but with the spread of jihad across Europe hundreds of years earlier.

Many progressives believe that anti-Semitism is simply a response to bad Jewish behavior.  In their view, the nadir of such behavior was the establishment of Israel at the putative expense of the Palestinians – a people whose apocryphal national identity was created for the purpose of repudiating Jewish history and the legal underpinnings of the modern Jewish State.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claimed to be following her “Jewish heart” in supporting Obama’s Iran deal, under which the Iranians will achieve nuclear breakout by the end of the agreement if they comply and much sooner if they don’t.  Given that credible intelligence sources indicate the Iranians have numerous covert facilities and will continue to enrich uranium under cover of the agreement, nuclear breakout will likely occur sooner rather than later.  This should be troubling to all members of Congress, particularly in light of Iran’s continuing anti-American incitement and threats to destroy Israel.  It is difficult to see how the “Jewish heart” can be called upon to sanctify an unenforceable agreement with a bad actor who promises a new Holocaust.

The progressive identification with policies that threaten Jewish survival, however, may well run deeper than simple partisan politics.

The compulsion to rationalize the president’s treatment of Israel and progressive anti-Semitism may be rooted in a ghetto mentality or the same pathological impulse that triggers Jewish self-loathing.  Certainly, not all progressives are self-haters; many are just ignorant of tradition and history and, accordingly, have no frame of reference for evaluating their questionable political loyalties and jaundiced views on Israel.  Some hold as an article of faith that liberalism is synonymous with Jewish values and that criticism of Israel is in the spirit of Jewish self-reflection, even when that criticism portrays Israel as a colonial occupier or apartheid state.

However, Israel is neither of those things under any objective analysis, and to claim otherwise bespeaks either ignorance or malice.  The litmus test for whether criticism of Israel crosses the line is whether it ignores history, distorts facts, or adopts the tropes of anti-Semitic rhetoric and propaganda.

Lack of knowledge does not necessarily imply bad faith, but willful ignorance and knowing distortions do.  Those who advocate the revisionist Palestinian narrative, rationalize Islamism as a response to western provocation, or deny the Holocaust are not simply naïve or misguided.  Neither are those who mangle history, condone political anti-Semitism, or condemn Israel’s identity as a Jewish State without criticizing the religious or ethnic character of the twenty-two Arab-Muslim states in the Mideast.

The persistence in applying one standard to Israel, which respects individual rights and the rule of law, and another standard (or none at all) to Arab and Muslim nations that suppress minorities, women, and political dissent, is malicious and dishonest.

The belief that unbalanced criticism of Israel reflects Jewish values is fostered by a mainstream press that actively promotes the Palestinian cause and delegitimizes the Jewish State.  In this biased mediaenvironment, stories that cast Israel in a negative light are deemed newsworthy no matter how dubious their sources.  Similarly, Jews who reject Israel, support BDS, and eschew traditional values are presented as authoritative and often used to counterbalance charges of progressive anti-Semitism.

Evidence of Jew-hatred on the left abounds, and yet progressives deny its existence or rationalize it as a response to Jewish transgressions.  They often disparage Israel in the vilest of terms and support Islamists who preach genocide, but deflect accusations of prejudice by pointing to Jews who do the same.  They ask how they can be considered anti-Semitic when there are Jews who also condemn Israel, repudiate Jewish history and snub tradition; and this rhetorical deceit is abetted by those liberals who fail to expose its calculated dishonesty.

The real question, however, is not whether animosity towards Israel and the Jews is absolved of its hateful impetus by the complicity of certain segments of Jewish society, but whether Jews who engage in such odious conduct are themselves anti-Semitic.  There can be little doubt that self-hatred is a potent form of anti-Semitism, which for generations has motivated turncoats and apostates to emulate their aggressors, torment their own people, and degrade their own communities.

Not all Jewish liberals who support the president are self-haters, but they’ve become so detached from normative values and priorities that they are unable to recognize when political ideology threatens Jewish continuity and survival.  Moreover, their affinity for Mr. Obama as the apotheosis of the progressive agenda blinds them to the harsh realities his administration has created.  One need only consider how American retreat and weakness have empowered Russia, China and ISIS – and how Iran has been emboldened by the nuclear deal – to see that Obama’s policies have set the stage for geopolitical disaster on a global scale.

Russia is increasing its footprint in Europe and the Mideast, propping up the Assad regime, and attacking US-backed rebels in Syria, while Iran is testing long-range missiles, funneling arms to Hamas, sending troops into Lebanon to strengthen Hezbollah, and increasing its involvement in terrorism.  Meanwhile, Obama’s military and humanitarian failures have caused a tidal wave of Syrian refugees to swarm Europe with disastrous political, social and economic consequences.

Those who believe that “Jewish heart” mandates support for policies that threaten the US and Israel – or for a president who finds moral equivalence between knife-wielding terrorists and their Jewish victims – need to question their own purity of heart, clarity of vision, and soundness of priorities.

There is no legitimate Jewish interest in supporting an administration that undermines Israel, appeases Islamists, and facilitates the nuclearization of Iran.  Political chaos and dysfunction may coincide with the president’s agenda, but they are antithetical to real Jewish values.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva. It is reprinted with permission from the author.

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Media’s Bias

Have they no shame? Can America’s ideologically constipated, left wing, mainstream media get any worse? The answer appears to be yes. After largely ignoring the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos and instead focusing on Marco Rubio’s wife’s driving violations, they have now moved on to Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

You likely saw the widely reported story about the two brothers from Boston who allegedly beat up a homeless man and, after being caught, were reported to have told police officials, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” But, did you see the other headline? The headline that read, “Alleged Manhattan Gunman was an Elizabeth Warren Supporter”?

Unless you read Conservative Review, Breitbart, or Heavy.com, then the odds of you reading this story are minuscule. The general premise the ideologically slanted mainstream media has been working with in its attempt to ensure maximum distribution of the Trump headline while suppressing the Warren headline, is “Conservativism inspires violence.”

Exposing media bias in cases like this is critical because the members of the media who are promoting the Trump story were not saying, “political speech inspires violence” they were saying “CONSERVATISM inspires violence.” Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen this theme appear in the writings of media figures on both the reporting, and opinion, sides of the media house.

Far left opinion columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post tried this same sleight-of-hand trick when he disingenuously tried to pin some of the blame on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Loughner, writing that she should “consider being quiet for a while” after the shooting. Robinson, either not bright enough to realize that his Palin hit piece was an anti-free speech screed, or so ideologically married to hard-left ideology that he was blind to the irony, penned a piece just three years later, absolving President Obama, Al Sharpton, and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for the actions of cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley (who was reported to have been inspired by a movement these far left political figures vocally supported). Robinson jumped the credibility shark in his subsequent piece by writing that they “are in NO WAY responsible” (emphasis mine).

Other committed leftist columnist, Dana Milbank, also of the Washington Post, is another hypocrite anxious to sacrifice his credibility for Internet clicks from rabid leftists. Milbank, who was quick to celebrate civil disobedience on the part of immigration activists who aligned with his ideologically leanings, even asking the President to join in the protest where illegal immigrants were present, was, hypocritically, quick to condemn civil disobedience in the case of Kim Davis. Milbank ridiculously attempts to explain away his hypocrisy by claiming that ignoring the law is okay as long as it doesn’t involve “ignoring court orders.”

Sadly, Milbank is serious with his outrageous attempt to be logical and consistent. In Milbank’s bizarre world, it’s okay to violate clearly written laws which conflict with far leftist ideology because this is the “good” civil disobedience, not involving “court orders” but, when a registered Democrat such as Kim Davis, engages in an act of civil disobedience, based on a sincere religious objection, and the cause conflicts with leftist thinking, then she deserves to be jailed. Don’t try to make sense out of this because you will pull your hair out in the process.

These blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies are not an accident. The organized left doesn’t believe in principled civil disobedience, they believe in the accumulation of power at any cost, the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. If jailing Kim Davis in perpetuity would advance their end game of dismantling the traditional family and instilling cultural relatively from the home, to the school, to the government, then that is exactly what they would do. The far left’s inclination will always be to suppress opposing political views because the movement’s scandalous flirtations with socialism can only evolve into a successful marriage if government force is involved and, tragically, history is clear on this.

Whether it’s punishing religious freedom, verbal policing on college campuses, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel’s push for regulating political speech online, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s push for expanded control over the web, the IRS, and their targeting of conservative groups, or the President’s dangerous rhetoric, directed at his political opposition, they will continue to take every opportunity to try to intimidate conservatives through the media, the regulatory and law enforcement infrastructure, and the legislative process.

So just stop pretending. People in positions of public influence such as Eugene Robinson and Dana Milbank should just be honest and tell America how they really feel. If you disagree with us we will support whatever means we need to do, including, but not limited to, destroying your name, jailing you, lying about you, and creating disingenuous false narratives, to ensure that we crush and silence you.

Information is power and the ability to see and bring attention to the constant stream of obvious media hypocrisy is a weapon we must employ to counter their endless feed of bogus narratives. It can be depressing to watch leftist activists pretend to be unbiased journalists or rational opinion writers but, on a positive note, we are winning the long game. Yes, we are winning due to the commitment of many conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans to exposing media trickery. Pulling back the curtain and exposing media bias has dissolved the trust between the media and Americans searching for the truth. Keep up the fight and whenever you see these examples of bias, get your letter to the editor ready, fire up your social media accounts, cancel your subscriptions, and get your game face on. This fight is too important to lose.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Dharapak | AP Images.

Is the West Threatened More by Islamist Fact or by Right-Wing Fiction?

The left characterizes non-liberals as extremists whether they are right-wingers or centrist conservatives, libertarians, independents, people of faith, or simply neutral critics of liberal social policy. This provides cover for Islamists.

Why are progressives so quick to disparage traditional Jews or conservative Christians who question the liberal agenda, yet so reluctant to criticize Islamists who oppress minorities and women, persecute those of other faiths, stifle free speech, and promote religious supremacism through jihad and genocide?  Not only do they downplay the terrorist threat at home and abroad, but they deflect attention away from Islamic radicalism by focusing on a supposed right-wing terror menace that has been defined into existence more by questionable statistics than objective analysis.

The New York Times recently reported that fewer people have been killed in the U.S. by jihadists than by right-wing extremists since 9/11, citing among other things data from the International Security Program at the New America Foundation (“NAF”), which according to critics uses the term “right-wing” so broadly as to dilute its meaning.  The NAF claims that jihadists have killed twenty-six people, while “homegrown non-jihadists” have killed forty-eight since September 11, 2001.  The implication is that Islamist extremism is the lesser threat.

The problem with this narrative is that it fails to factor in the growing number of homegrown jihadist plots that have been foiled by law enforcement.  Moreover, it excludes the 9/11 terror attacks themselves, which although perpetrated by foreign nationals, nonetheless killed three-thousand people on U.S. soil.  It also makes no mention of honor killings of Muslim women and girls who are condemned for adopting western culture or refusing to submit to prearranged marriages.

The message of the story is used to tarnish Republicans, conservatives, and pro-Israel advocates, who are often described by progressives as fascists and loons.  The left has a penchant for characterizing non-liberals as extremists whether they are truly right-wingers or are instead centrist conservatives, libertarians, independents, people of faith, or simply neutral critics of liberal social policy.  This tactic is used to provide cover for Islamists – whom progressives often regard sympathetically as victims of European and American oppression – at the expense of domestic political opponents, whose expression of dissenting viewpoints is actually more in keeping with America’s constitutional and electoral tradition.

Despite their obsession with proving that the right is more dangerous than radical Islam, progressive partisans and their mainstream media flunkies have identified no monolithic dogmas or institutions that endorse global right-wing terrorism for the purpose of destroying western civilization.  Neither have they exposed reactionary ideologies comparable to jihad that sanction the killing of innocents for doctrinal gratification, or rightist organizations analogous to ISIS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which aim to conquer and subjugate. Furthermore, Islamist terrorism is openly supported by state sponsors like Iran, whereas coordinated right-wing extremism is not.

If progressive alarmists truly wanted to show the existence of a global support network for non-jihadist terrorism similar to that which facilitates radical Islam, they would have to look back at the behavior of communist and socialist regimes over the years, including those in Russia, China and Cuba, which exported violence throughout the world and are estimated to have killed between 85,000,000 and 100,000,000 or more during the twentieth century.  But to do so would require the acknowledgement that progressives have a long history of supporting brutal dictatorships.

According to a number of experts and resource organizations, the FBI has purged its anti-terrorism training manuals of material deemed offensive to Muslims.  Nevertheless, the only consistent law enforcement warning regarding domestic terror these days seems to focus on Islamists – not right-wing zealots or anti-abortion fanatics.  In a recent “60 Minutes”interview, for example, FBI Director James Comey warned that domestic attacks by the Khorosan group could happen “very very soon” and conceded the difficulty of preventing radicalized Americans from joining terror groups like ISIS on the battle field and returning stateside on their US passports.

These observations seem all the more prescient in the wake of the recent shooting deaths of a US naval officer and four marines by a Kuwaiti-born American Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Some have tried to draw comparisons between Islamist terrorism and the recent racist shooting that left nine African-Americans dead in Charleston, South Carolina.  But as horrific as those murders were, they were not part of an international terror campaign to eradicate western culture and impose religious totalitarianism.  Those murders were the acts of a depraved individual who was motivated by despicable racial hatred, not an extremist doctrine that preaches the destruction of liberal democratic society.

The White House’s knee-jerk tendency to discourage any discussion of the religious roots of Islamist terror bespeaks a willingness to rationalize abhorrent conduct that would not be tolerated if perpetrated by Christians, Jews, Americans or Europeans.  However, government is not required to tolerate faith-based practices that threaten or harm others. There can be no excuse for honor killings, institutional degradation of women, or the suppression of other faiths in a pluralistic society like the United States, in which the Constitution mandates tolerance for the beliefs of all citizens but establishes no state religion.

America’s founding fathers conceived of a society balancing individual liberties and communal obligations regardless of personal religious belief. Generations of immigrants were able to embrace American culture without abdicating their ethnic or religious identities because the Constitution imposes no creed beyond the political ideals enumerated within it.  Jewish immigrants were able to adapt to the general culture because of the concept of “dina d’malchuta dina,” or “the law of the land is the law.”  In contrast, jihadist supremacism holds itself above the law of the land and contravenes the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.

It’s ironic that the Obama administration reflexively accuses its political opponents of demagoguery and zealotry, but seems to exempt from scrutiny the intolerant ideology of real extremists.  This inconsistency does not only compromise American national security and integrity – it also undercuts the aspirations of those Muslims who come to the US in search of a life free from tyranny and oppression.

An objective discussion of the theological basis of militant Islam cannot be omitted from the debate no matter how hard the Obama administration attempts to restrict the dialogue.  The reality is that radical Islamists are not a harmless minority, but a volatile element dedicated to perpetuating a state of holy war.  This is the central doctrine that motivates ISIS in its goal of reestablishing the caliphate, and which fuels Boko Haram’s war against Christians in Africa.  It galvanizes Hezbollah’s abuses in Lebanon, provokes Hamas’s genocidal hatred of Israel and the Jews, and informs Iran’s now unfettered nuclear ambitions.

Islamists will win if we restrict speech to avoid insulting them, give more credence to their cultural sensitivities than to our own beliefs and ideals, validate their revisionist grievances against the West, and behave with the meek resignation of the subjugated.

They will also win if we allow ourselves to be deluded by red herrings and bogeymen, including overblown reports of the right-wing terror threat, which obfuscate the true nature of their holy war against western society.  Islamists can only prevail in this clash of civilizations if we modify our conduct to accommodate them.  Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Obama administration has done – by refusing to acknowledge religious beliefs that sanctify terrorism, by minimizing the threat of ISIS, by ignoring strategic realities in Syria and Iraq, and by guaranteeing the nuclearization of Iran with a very bad deal after years of negotiating from an embarrassing position of moral weakness.

The dangers of Islamist extremism are real and will only be exacerbated by the failure to respond effectively.  It will not disappear by ignoring it or referring to it generically as “violent extremism.”  Nor will Islamic radicalism be defeated by welcoming its largest state sponsor – the Islamic Republic of Iran – into the community of nations while it continues exporting terrorism, working to develop nuclear weapons, exerting its influence throughout the region and beyond, and toppling other governments through its proxies.

The most clear and present danger to world order today does not come from some shadow right-wing conspiracy concocted by the administration and mindlessly parroted as immutable fact by its acolytes in the press.  It comes from the purveyors of Islamist extremism.  This is the reality, and it’s one that cannot be changed by wishful thinking, semantic disingenuity, political misdirection, or left-wing dissimulation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Israel National News.

Team Left vs Team Right

Here’s a quick run down on the two opposing forces in the USA.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

Liberals DO NOT believe in Freedom For All

This past week end, I spent a lot of time outside working on my landscaping.  The long, hard winter of 2014/2015 looks to be over.  And I would just like to say thank you to Global Warming advocates who are still at a loss as to why this planets climate has not lived up to the desert like conditions promised.

I guess global warming equals record cold temperatures and record snow fall.  Well if that is what global warming is, then I will jump on board because I love living in New England and I sure don’t want another Alaska type winter to befall us.  Note the sarcasm.  But I digress.

While working in my yard this past week end, I got to see some of what makes America great.  The freedom of people to be who they want to be.  I saw people walking in shorts and tank tops. Mind you, although it is warm, to me it is far from tank top weather.

I saw folks riding their motorcycles, big ones and small ones.  Some had flags on the back.

Some were the noisy type.  Some were the fast type.  And some were the big, touring grandparent type. I saw folks taking their convertibles out for a week end joy ride probably for the first time this year.  I saw and heard the younger set with all their windows down and music blaring.  Yes, we can hear you a half mile away and you are going to kill your ears by playing music that loud. But at least in most communities, those young people have the freedom to play their music in their car as loud as they want.

And there it is.  The freedom.  I saw people enjoying their freedom.  Nobody telling them they could not walk in a tank top yet.  Nobody passing a law preventing motorcycles from being ridden at this time of year.  No overreaching ordinances telling young people that in order to be legal others cannot hear your music outside of your car at all.

Now this part of the article is for all of my Liberal friends and haters out there.  This is where I point out how hypocritical you are.  Lets take gay rights for example.  Now this is America.  As some would say, ‘Murica.  And this is the land of the free.  Which, you on the left say, means that gays have the right to live as they please.  They have a right to live in peace.  They have a right to love who they please.  They have the right to have a life just like a straight person.  To which many other Americans would agree. But then you turn the tables on everyone else.  You want laws dictating how others act and react around you.  You wish to stifle or take away the freedom and rights of others just to fit your own selfish desires.  You say you want to be free, but you want big government to dictate how we all live and interact with each other.

It would be like telling the person on the fast motorcycle that he is not allowed to go 65 mph on the highway while allowing cars to do that speed.  In other words, you are not asking for freedom.  You are asking for special privileges.  Privileges in which the rest of the population is not able to avail themselves of.  You are asking to separate the people in to classes and groups. Some classes and some groups get more freedom than others.

That kind of thought is straight out of the pages of the novel Animal Farm.  In this novel there is a passage that says, “some animals are more equal than others” which means some animals are not equal at all.

This is the same thought process used to own and keep slaves.  Blacks were not thought of as being equal to whites.  Now gays want to say that straights are not equal to gays.  And thus a straight person has no right to admonish gays in any way.  However, when you ask the question of gays should they be forced to make a T-Shirt for a Muslim that says “gays are infidels and must die” the fast and quick answer is no way.

Well if you have the right to tell a straight person they must make you a t-shirt that says “being gay is fab” then the Muslim has the right to tell the gay person to make him a t-shirt of his choosing. But in order to get around this, gays would say that what the Muslim wants is hate speech.  So you want to create a law that stops hate speech.  Even though, in this country, the Muslim is free to say what he pleases just like you and I.  But you wish to live your life of freedom by taking the rights of others away simply because you don’t like it.

This is not an issue with Muslims.  I need to say it because some of you out there would point out Muslims should not have a right to say what they say.  To which I reply with a query.  Why?  Sure I find a lot of what they say offensive.  But does that give me the right to deny his free speech rights simply because I don’t agree or like his speech? Does this mean that gays should censor straights because they don’t like the fact that some straights don’t agree with homosexuality?  Does it mean that we force the motorcycle to go only 55 instead of 65 because they are not wrapped in a steal cage?

Who decides who gets special rights and who gets their rights denied?  The point is when you deny someone their rights, you are most likely starting down that slippery road process of denying your own rights.  And frankly that makes us all less free.  And less freedom has no place in ‘Murica.

The Greatest Liberal in the World

What evil deed must be done to win the “Greatest Liberal in the World” award?

Yes, I Blame White Liberals

A white teacher said he routinely overhears vulgar and racist comments from students at an all black high school. I blame the black youth’s negative mindset on blacks in the civil rights exploitation business and white liberals with their stomach-turning bigotry of lowered expectations.

We see snooty arrogant superior intellectual sounding white liberal pundits and hosts all over TV touting their absurd narrative that blacks have a right to be angry in racist America and must be coddled. These liberal celebs followed certain steps and behaviors to achieve success. And yet, they claim expecting blacks to follow the same road map to success is racist. Blacks should be repulsed by this liberal narrative which implies that we are inferior. I want to scream, “How dare you lower the bar for me! I “be” as smart as any white person!” Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

I have witnessed the same racist mindset in a white liberal couple who are longtime friends. They have had financial highs and lows in their efforts to run various businesses. They work hard and will take any job to pay their bills. Applying for government welfare is not on their radar. They employed horrible black employees, always making excuses for them; giving them a pass because they were black. I was amazed that they could not see the racism at the root of their low expectations, disguised as compassion.

At every turn liberals send the message that blacks are lesser Americans. Liberals say it is hateful for conservatives/Republicans to expect blacks to speak English correctly, show an ID to vote, refrain from murdering each other and stop dropping out of school. White liberals say asking blacks to refrain from having babies out of wedlock is culturally insensitive and imposes morality on them. Libs ignore the truth that fatherless households contribute to gang membership, black on black violence and poverty. Do you see the pattern? White liberals insinuate that urban blacks are poor uncouth savages. Therefore, a 6’4” 290 pound black thug should be given a pass for robbing a convenience store, assaulting the clerk and attacking a police officer while on his way to grandma’s house.

By the way, 54% of black kids grow up in single parent households which was reported as high as 72% in 2010.

Years ago, I spoke to a class of black students at a Baltimore middle school. Diction was so lazy and poor, I had to ask several students numerous times to pronounce their names before I understood what they were saying. Why was such lazy speech tolerated?

My late Aunt Nee was a pastor and a brilliant black women with only a fourth grade formal education; an avid reader and studier. Aunt Nee did not tolerate lazy or inarticulate speaking from me and my siblings. Etched on my brain is her sending me to the corner store at 7 or 8 years old. “Ask the man for Uneeda Biscuits.” She pronounced each syllable and spelled it. She respected my intelligence.

Politically, white liberals pander to blacks to recruit Democrat voters which furthers their socialist/progressives agenda. Their sales pitch is every problem in the black community is caused by racist white America. Therefore, blacks can not achieve without big government intervention; lowered standards and entitlements to make things fair. I suspect secretly, many white liberals do believe they are superior.

White students are taught to feel guilty for their “white privilege”; instructed to be tolerant of black anger and irresponsible behavior. Black students who do not resent white America are called stupid traitors to their race.

During a debate on TV, a fellow black guest attacked me saying, “I have researched you and you never met a white person you didn’t like.” The liberal host of the TV show said nothing. Imagine the fallout had that same statement been made by a white person to another white person. “You never met a black you didn’t like.”

To all you liberal college professors and intellectuals who say blacks are still suffering the psychological repercussions of slavery, please knock it off. You evil race hustlers are all about exploiting the goodness and fair-mindedness of the American people.

Slavery happened a ga-zillion years ago; get over it.

KIRK KISS UHURAIn the 1960s, my black college buddies and I were huge Star Trek fans. We loved watching the racially mixed crew of the star-ship Enterprise on which race was not an issue. Further making the point was the episode that white Captain Kirk kissed black Lieutenant Uhura which was pretty racy and shocking on TV back then.

Gifting an unworthy black president two terms confirms that Americans long to be united as one nation under God. America’s desire for national unity is sabotaged by liberals. Their modus operandi is to divide Americans into feuding angry voting blocs – rich vs poor, black vs white, employers vs employees; Americans convinced they are victims due to their race, gender or economic standing. Liberals consistently rip open “healed” racial civil rights wounds and pour in fresh salt. Despicable.

Liberals have been feeding black America excrement sandwiches for decades. Sadly, a majority of my fellow black Americans blinded by decades of liberal indoctrination and MSM spin keep consuming their excrement as if it is filet mignon.

For crying out loud, look at what liberals offer us. They did an extreme makeover packaging black thugs Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown; promoting them as heroes to black America. White liberals awarded an immoral black rapper who had 11 babies by 10 women with his own reality TV show titled, “All My Babies’ Mamas”.

Meanwhile, liberals reject and even vilify excellent black role models like world renown retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson and businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain. Why would liberals do that if they truly care about empowering blacks? Why do they offer us low rent faux black role models and reject the real deal?

Black America, you have been sleeping with the enemy, Democrats and white liberals, far too long. It is time to politically get out of bed, shower to wash away the stench of liberal racist low expectations and use Conservatism as the vehicle to speed to the fulfillment of your American dreams.

What is the Difference Between the Democrat Party and the Communist Party USA?

On the home page of the Communist Party USA it says “A better and peaceful world is possible—a world where people and nature come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.”

No, it’s not Socialism which is a watered down version of Communism. Real Communism is the kind that was practiced in the former Soviet Union. It can be found in Cuba and North Korea where the state controls all power and property,and the people have none.

Modified versions exist in China, Russia, Venezuela, and other nations where some aspects of Capitalism are maintained for the sake of their economies. In the West Socialism was incorporated by both the U.S. and Great Britain, and other nations via various social welfare programs.

Capitalism is about profits, innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment. It is about the freedom to acquire wealth. It emphasizes work, not welfare. It is the reason America has a dynamic economic system—when it is permitted to prosper, free from federal interference.

AA - Dem Party is CommunistIn America, conservatives have always been acutely aware of Communism, but the 47% who still approve of Barack Obama and those who are members of the Democratic Party are the dupes of those whose quest for tyrannical power permits them to tell the most appalling lies, particularly about Republicans.

The Democratic Party is so politically corrupt and devoid of moral standards that it is currently engaged in seeking to harm potential Republican presidential candidates with an utterly bogus indictment of Texas Governor Perry and the slanders leveled against New Jersey Governor Christie. It is a tactic of those who fear a loss at the ballot box.

It is the Democratic Party and its elected officials that have advanced the global warming hoax, now called climate change and the CPUSA website refers to the “Accumulation of greenhouse gases (as) a ‘planetary emergency’” This is what both the President and the Secretary of State are saying, but there has been no warming on a planet that is now 17 years into a cooling cycle.

As for those “greenhouse” gases, nitrogen and oxygen are the most abundant in the atmosphere, followed by nothing more dangerous than water vapor! Carbon dioxide is a very minor gas at 0.04%. And most importantly, the Earth is not a greenhouse. When the Sun’s radiation is reduced due to its own natural cycles, it gets colder.

Tied to the climate change message is an agenda that includes Obama’s “war on coal” and his refusal to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from our neighbor Canada, among other measures to restrict access and use of America’s vast energy reserves. This is an attack on the nation’s economy in the name of “nature” or the “environment.”

The CPUSA wants “No new sanctions on Iran” and the administration’s negotiations with Iran to slow or end its nuclear weapons program have dropped some sanctions to get them to the table, but no one believes that Iran will stop because they are openly avowed enemies of America and Israel.

If you wanted to harm America, you would undermine its southern border so that thousands of illegal aliens could join the estimated eleven million already here. That is what President Obama has done and he is joined by former Democratic Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi who said of the illegals, “We are all Americans.” No, they are not.

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, continues to push for amnesty for illegal aliens saying “It isn’t about politics at all. They (illegal aliens) essentially have become the backbone of the economy.” The Center for Immigration Studies has documented the many jobs that have gone to illegal aliens, leaving native-born and naturalized U.S. citizens with fewer employment opportunities.

In July Gallup reported that “With thousands of undocumented immigrant minors crossing the nation’s southern border in recent months, the percentage of Americans citing immigration as the top problem has surged to 17% this month, up from 5% in June, and the highest seen since 2006. As a result, immigration now virtually ties ‘dissatisfaction with government’ at 16%, as the primary issue Americans think of when asked to name the country’s top problems.”

ObamaCare - Needle_PosterThe Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare—is the perfect example of Socialism in its government control of what once was the world’s finest healthcare system and is being destroyed by a law for which only Democrats in Congress voted.

President Obama has illegally asserted more power than the Constitution grants the executive branch, unilaterally altering Obamacare. It is the reason the House of Representatives is suing him.

For several generations since the last century, Americans have been indoctrinated to accept an ever-growing central government, but even so an August Reason-Rupe survey poll found that fully 54% favored a smaller government providing fewer services. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 75% disapprove.

Though education is never mentioned in the Constitution, we have a Department of Education and the same applies to the Department of Energy, both created by Jimmy Carter. A Nixon executive order brought about the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency that is masterminding an attack on private property along with the manufacturing, agricultural and energy sectors of the economy.

If one looks at the Democratic Party today, there is often scant difference between it and the self-professed Communist Party USA which twice endorsed the election of Barack Obama, a man whose father was a Communist, whose grandparents who helped raise him were Socialists, and who was mentored in his youth by a card-carrying member of the CPUSA.

We have a President who believes that the problems throughout the world have been caused by America. His disdain for the nation and the military that serves to protect it is on full display. And the Democratic Party twice chose him as its candidate.

If you want to see what Communism looks like, acts and says, watch and listen to the Democratic Party.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

On the road to Fascism in America?

144px-George_Santayana

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana.

George Santayana, philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist, wrote:

American life is a powerful solvent. As it stamps the immigrant, almost before he can speak English, with an unmistakable muscular tension, cheery self-confidence and habitual challenge in the voice and eyes, so it seems to neutralize every intellectual element, however tough and alien it may be, and to fuse it in the native good-will, complacency, thoughtlessness, and optimism. All his life he [the American] jumps into the train after it has started and jumps out before it has stopped; and he never once gets left behind, or breaks a leg.”

Question: Are liberal democrats resurrecting the principles of Nazi Germany?

I ask some probing questions.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/qWBIKWiC4b8[/youtube]

 

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Adam Jones, Ph.D. and of the Auschwitz II-Birkenau – Death Camp – Processing Center – of Jewish Couple with Star of David Armbands – Oswiecim – Poland. The original image may be viewed here. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Auschwitz II-Birkenau was the largest of the more than 40 camps and subcamps that made up the Auschwitz complex. During its three years of operation, it had a range of functions. When construction began in October 1941, it was supposed to be a camp for 125 thousand prisoners of war. It opened as a branch of Auschwitz in March 1942, and served at the same time as a center for the extermination of the Jews. In its final phase, from 1944, it also became a place where prisoners were concentrated before being transferred to labor in German industry in the depths of the Third Reich.

The majority—probably about 90%—of the victims of Auschwitz Concentration Camp died in Birkenau. This means approximately a million people. The majority, more than nine out of every ten, were Jews. A large proportion of the more than 70 thousand Poles who died or were killed in the Auschwitz complex perished in Birkenau. So did approximately 20 thousand Gypsies, in addition to Soviet POWs and prisoners of other nationalities.