Justplainbill's Weblog

June 24, 2015

America: One Nation, Indivisible, by Victor Hanson [c]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Historical context, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:19 pm

America: One Nation, Indivisible
June 24, 2015 1:57 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
The Confederate battle flag is far from the only worrisome symbol in America today.
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Protesting the Confederate flag in Columbia, S.C. (Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty)
Everyone is weighing in on the horrific murders in Charleston and blaming the mindset of the mass murderer on wider social pathologies. After the airing of the racist crackpot ideas of the unhinged Dylann Roof, calls have gone out to ban the public flying of the battle flag of the Old Confederacy, which has also been incorporated in various forms in four state flags. Perhaps we should step back and eschew symbolism that separates us by race rather than unites us as fellow citizens.
Aside from the specious argument that the flag, along with media like Fox News and talk radio, fuels homicidal maniacs like Roof, there is quite another question: whether implicit state endorsement of Confederate symbolism offers sanction for the old idea of an apartheid nation, and thus sends entirely the wrong message of American separatism rather than unity. While many Southerners object that the flag simply proclaims the battlefield honor of those who were defending their homeland, the Confederacy was so entwined with the idea of preserving slavery that the flag, even today, can evoke racial polarization. For all the Southern patriots who understandably see in the Confederate battle flag the historical resonance of Pickett’s Charge or the resistance to Sherman’s March to the Sea, there are probably just as many who equally understandably consider it a nostalgic icon of white supremacy. In a racially diverse society, it makes sense to phase out state sanction for the battle flag — as South Carolina governor Nikki Haley advocated yesterday, in calling on the state legislature to vote for the removal of the battle flag that has been flying over the grounds of the state capitol.

But perhaps we should not stop there, given increasing ethnic tensions and widening racial fault lines. There are plenty of other overt racialist symbols that separate Americans. One is the prominent use of La Raza, “The Race” — seen most prominently in the National Council of La Raza, an ethnic lobbying organization that has been and is currently a recipient of federal funds. The National Council of La Raza should be free to use any title it wishes, but it should not expect the federal government to subsidize its separatist nomenclature.
The pedigree of the term La Raza is just as incendiary as that of the Confederate battle flag. The Spanish noun raza (cf. Latin radix: “root” or “race”) is akin to the now-discarded German use of Volk, which in the early 20th century came to denote a common German racial identity that transcended linguistic and cultural affinities: To be a real member of the Volk one had to “appear” German, in addition to speaking German and possessing German citizenship.
La Raza is just such a racialist term. It goes beyond a common language and country of origin, and thus transcends the more neutral puebla(“people”: Latin populus) or gente (“people”: Latin gens). Raza was deliberately reintroduced in the 1960s to promote a racially superior identity of indigenous peoples and mestizos born in the Spanish-speaking countries of the New World. That is why the National Council of La Raza once had a close affinity with MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán), the infamous racialist U.S. student group (its ironic motto is “Unity creates strength”), some of whose various past slogans (cf. the Castroite derivative “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”) finally became sources of national embarrassment.
La Raza is now a calcified separatist slogan, one full of implications that are unworthy of taxpayer support.
The use of the phrase La Raza reflects its illiberal modern origins. It came into popular currency during the 1930s in Spain, when the Fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco wished to promote a new Iberian identity that went well beyond the commonality of Spanish citizenship and fluency in the Spanish language. Franco expropriated La Raza to promote the racist idea that the Spanish were a superior people by birth. He penned a crackpot novel, Raza, embodying Fascist and racist themes of Spanish genetic and cultural superiority. La Raza appeared on the big screen in the form of a hokey 1942 Spanish-language movie, full of racist themes, anti-Americanism, and fashionable Fascist politics.
But Franco was only channeling another, more famous contemporary Fascist, Benito Mussolini, who had his own Italian version of the term, la Razza. In 1938 Mussolini published his Manifesto della Razza (“The Racial Manifesto”), which defined Italians as a superior Aryan race and excluded Italian Jews, Africans, and other supposedly less pure groups from various positions in the Italian government.
In sum, the word “Raza” has a disturbing recent history, and that is why Spaniards and Italians today have dropped its common usage. Yet that well-known association with racial chauvinism was precisely why the founders of the National Council of La Raza, by their own admission, reawakened the word in the 1960s to focus on what they saw as a particular racial category of Spanish speakers. But La Raza is now a calcified separatist slogan, one full of implications that are unworthy of taxpayer support.

One wonders why in 2015 there is still nomenclature such as “the Congressional Black Caucus,” over half a century after the civil-rights movement sought to promote integration and the idea that Americans should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.. The Caucus ostensibly seeks to ensure the end of exclusion by race from full participation in American society by creating a lobbying group focused entirely on one particular race. The postmodern rationale is either that groups that have suffered past disfranchisement and discrimination should not be subject to current anti-discriminatory protocols, or that they should at least enjoy a compensatory period of exclusion from color-blind values to offset centuries of oppression.
The premise seems to be that African-American House members seek to promote a common “black” agenda that transcends their local, county, or state interests.
Thus the group’s membership is entirely race-based. The Caucus is not open to those members of the House of Representatives who are not African-American, but who might share the Caucus’s racial or political agenda — as the Jewish-American Representative Steven Cohen learned when he was elected to Congress in 2006. The Lebanese-American Ralph Nader was once attacked at a Caucus meeting in clearly racial terms on the understanding that the group was exempt from charges of racism. How far is the racial concept transferable — “the Asian Caucus”? “the Latino Caucus?” “the White Caucus?” “the European-American Caucus”? The premise seems to be that African-American House members seek to promote a common “black” agenda that transcends their local, county, or state interests. If an Asian, white, or Latino voter’s congressional representative is a member of the “Black Caucus,” does that mean that the voter will receive less attention than a black voter — as de facto white caucuses in the Old South most certainly did ignore the interests of their non-white constituents? Is that why conservative African-American legislators who see all their constituents in terms that transcend race tend to avoid joining the Caucus? Could not the “Black Caucus” rebrand itself as the “Civil Rights Caucus” or the “Progressive Caucus”?

Reexamination of the battle flag offers us a teachable moment. Critics made a good point that any state sanction of the secessionist flag inevitably sends the wrong message to millions of Americans, who in their private lives are free to display any symbol they wish. But the current racialist reaction to past racism has become equally indefensible in an increasingly fragile multiracial state. The state should not support any racially separatist symbols, titles, or groups.
We should pause to appreciate that the American democratic experiment in ethnic and racial diversity is nearly unique. Indeed, the very idea of racial diversity and nationhood does not have much of a record of success in history. Few countries have been able to transcend their ethnic origins and sustain a racially pluralistic society. Rome was an exception and pulled it off for nearly 500 years, as the Roman Empire grew to encompass non-Italian peoples from the Euphrates to Scotland before unwinding into tribal chaos. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires worked for long periods, though they relied on the use of autocratic force and imperial coercion to suppress minorities, in ways antithetical to modern notions of governance.
In more recent times, religious and racial diversity — in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, or contemporary Nigeria — has resulted in chaos and, occasionally, genocide. True, some nations have been able to incorporate different tribes, as in the United Kingdom’s unification of the various peoples of the British Isles, but usually after hundreds of years of fighting and only when there were underlying racial and cultural affinities that could trump tribal differences.
In other words, the United States is history’s exception, not its rule. America is a great, evolving experiment of a constitutional republic in which peoples of all different races, religions, and ethnic backgrounds are equal under the law and see themselves as Americans first and members of tribes second — appearance and religion being incidental rather than essential to the American body politic.
In an America that was originally founded by mostly Northern European immigrants, a Juan Lopez from Oaxaca is freely accepted as a U.S. citizen in a way that a white Bob Jones would never fully be embraced as a citizen of Mexico, a country whose constitution still expressly sets out racially chauvinistic guidelines that govern immigration law. Someone who appears African or European would have a hard time fully integrating as a citizen in Chinese, Korean, or Japanese society, in a way not true of Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in America. The world assumes that in America a president, attorney general, secretary of state, or Supreme Court justice can be black; but it would be as surprised to find whites as high public officials in Zimbabwe as to find a black as prime minister or foreign minister in Sweden or Germany.
In the last half-century, Americans have increasingly tended to emphasize race and tribe in promoting “diversity,” rather than seeking to strengthen the more tenuous notion of unity with their fellow citizens. We have forgotten that human nature is fond of division and must work at setting aside superficial tribal affinities to unite on the basis of core values and ideas.
Symbols, flags, organizations, and phrases that emphasize racial difference and ethnic pride are no longer just fossilized notions from the 1960s; they are growing fissures in the American mosaic that now threaten to split the country apart — fueling the suspicion of less liberal and more homogeneous nations that the great American experiment will finally unwind as expected.
That would be a great tragedy, but a catastrophe entirely predictable if citizens seek symbolic solidarity with their tribe rather than in the common idea of just being American.

[And, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, The Italian anti-Defamation League, &c.

Personally, when advertising agencies aim at one ethnic group rather than the entire market segment, in the interest of diversity, and polling companies don’t include ‘American’ as a demographic group, the racism becomes more and more ingrained in the culture to the detriment of ALL!.]

April 15, 2015

On Abraham Lincoln and the Inversion of American History, by Boyd D. Cathey, [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:24 pm

On Abraham Lincoln and the Inversion of American History
By Boyd D. Cathey • April 15, 2015 • 1,700 Words • 15 Comments
• Reply
shutterstock_115238551

Back in 1990 in Richmond, Virginia, as part of the Museum of the Confederacy’s lecture series, the late Professor Ludwell Johnson, author and professor of history at William and Mary College, presented a fascinating lecture titled, “The Lincoln Puzzle: Searching for the Real Honest Abe.” Commenting on the assassination of Lincoln now 150 years ago, here is a portion of Dr. Johnson’s prepared remarks:

[After his death] for many, Lincoln became a symbolic Christ, for some, perhaps, more than symbolic. They could scarcely help themselves, the parallels were so striking. He was the savior of the Union, God’s chosen instrument for bringing the millenium to suffering humanity, born in a log cabin (close enough to a stable), son of a carpenter. . . . He was a railsplitter (close enough to carpentry), a humble man with the human touch, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, called by his followers to supreme greatness, struck down by Satan’s minions on Good Friday.

Said one minister in his Black Friday sermon: ‘It is no blasphemy against the Son of God and the Savior of Men that we declare the fitness of the slaying of the second Father of our Republic on the anniversary of the day on which he was slain. Jesus Christ died for the world, Abraham Lincoln died for his country’. . . . Another spoke of his ‘mighty sacrifice . . . for the sins of his people.’ Yet another proposed that not April 15, but Good Friday be considered the anniversary of Lincoln’s death. ‘We should make it a movable fast and ever keep it beside the cross and grave of our blessed Lord, in whose service for whose gospel he became a victim and a martyr.’

For years after the war the rumor persisted that Lincoln’s tomb in Springfield was empty. Lincoln was also frequently compared to Moses, who led his people to the Promised Land that he was not allowed to enter, and, like Moses after viewing Canaan, was taken by death.

It is right and fitting, then, given the legacy now increasingly laid at Lincoln’s feet, the resultant and seemingly unstoppable growth of the “Behemoth” managerial state that has occurred since his presidency, and the anniversary of his death, to examine again his actual meaning in the context of our history.

Probably too much has been written about Abraham Lincoln. Most school age children know almost nothing about him, except that “he freed the slaves,” which, of course, is patently untrue: he freed not one slave. Yet, his looming presence as a pre-eminent national lodestar, his role as a kind of holy icon after death, and the radical task he accomplished in completely restructuring the original American nation that the Founders created, remain constantly with us. In a real and palpable sense, as the text excerpted from Professor Johnson shows, Lincoln immediately became the founder and canonized “saint” of a “new” nation, in which the ideas of “democracy” and “equality” were enshrined as bedrock principles.

As the late Professor Mel Bradford illustrates abundantly in his signal volume, Original Intentions, with Lincoln and his successors, concepts rejected outright by most of the Founders and eschewed by the Authors of the Constitution, replaced the original understanding of what this nation was supposed to be and represent. The Gettsyburg Address makes clear that Lincoln based the American founding on the Declaration of the Independence (“Four score and seven years ago….”) and on his shaky reading of that war time document.

As such, today the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the most heinous, the most grave, in our benighted land are “crimes” against “equality,” whether committed against racial minorities, or against “women,” or against homosexuals who want to force the rest of us to fully accept their lifestyle…and “crimes” against “full democracy,” including voter IDs, and preventing illegals from full participation in all the goodies that the Federal government can dole

This is not to say that there is an unbroken, direct line connecting the “Lincolnian Revolution” of the 1860s with the public and private defecated culture and corrupt and managerial political system that engulf us today. Indeed, the history of the USA since 1865 is filled with vicissitudes and “curves and variations.” It would be unfair perhaps to blame Lincoln directly for these present happenings. Indeed, more than likely, as a 19th century liberal, he would be offended and shocked by much of what besets us today culturally and socially. But Lincoln, like other leaders of 19th century Liberalism, opened the door to future, much more radical change. So, while it is assuredly not correct to hold him responsible for, example, same sex marriage, there is a torturous genealogy that can be traced without injury to the historical narrative.

Of those radical changes that came as a result of the Lincolnian Revolution and that directly affect us today, the cataclysmic effects of the (illegally passed) 14th Amendment must be highlighted. Indeed, one could suggest that it is under the rubric of the 14th Amendment that most all of our present decay and distress has occurred. If there had been no 14th Amendment, would most of the horrendous court decisions we’ve seen have been rendered? Yet, the 14th Amendment grows directly out of the consequences of Southern defeat in 1865, in a War begun by Abraham Lincoln.

Certainly, there are those who would argue that the “Reagan years” or even the 1920s represented respites in this ongoing revolution. Nevertheless, the general and overwhelming propulsive movement, the historical dynamic, has been in just one direction. In sum, the triumph of the Lincolnian Revolution in the American nation was, in fact, the real triumph of the 19th century “Idea of Progress” and the belief in the inevitable and continuing liberation and enhancement materially and intellectually, of human kind.

It is interesting, I think, to focus the great Iliad of the Confederacy in the context of the brutal and vicious universal war between the forces of 19th liberalism and the forces of tradition and counter-revolution. The Confederacy, the old South, played a not unimportant role in that conflict, and, even if most Southerners did not recognize that context at the time, many European traditionalists, Legitimist royalists, and Catholics most certainly did.

In my research over the years, specifically while I studied in Spain and Switzerland, and then taught in Argentina, I was struck by the fact that almost without exception, all 19 th century traditional conservatives, Legitimists, and Catholics not only favored the Confederacy in its crusade against the North, but they did so enthusiastically, to the point that thousands of European traditionalists found their way to cities like New Orleans to volunteer to fight for the Confederate cause. As many as 1,800 former soldiers of the old Bourbon Kingdom of Naples (Two Sicilies) arrived in Louisiana in early 1861 to offer their services to the South after their defeat by the arms of the liberal Kingdom of Piedmont-Savoy. Volunteers from the Carlist Catholic traditionalists in Spain came by way, mostly, of Mexico. According to Catalan historian, David Odalric de Caixal, as many as many as 4,000 Carlists enlisted in Confederate ranks, many in the Louisiana Tigers (see M. Estella, “Un historiador investiga la presencia de carlistas en la Guerra de Secesion,” El Diario de Navarra [Pamplona], December 9, 2011). French Legitimists (the “ultra-royalists” who opposed the “democracy” of the Citizen-King Louis Philippe) also volunteered, mostly notably the Prince Camille Armand de Polignac, a hero of the battle of Mansfield.

The Italian Duchy of Modena, under its duke Francesco V (called by modern writer and historian Sir Harold Acton, “the most reactionary ruler in all of Europe”), actually recognized the Confederacy. And Pope Pius IX offered de facto recognition to the Confederate cause, and his sympathies were quite open, as were the Confederate proclivities of the official publication of the Vatican, “La Civilta Catolica.” The Crown of Thorns that Pius IX wove with his own hands for President Jefferson Davis while Davis was a post-war prisoner in Fortress Monroe remains in a museum in New Orleans, a memorable relic of papal sympathy for the Confederacy.

And who can forget the favor given by and collaboration of the Habsburg emperor of Mexico, Maximilian? It was to his empire that many Confederate soldiers fled after Appomattox and Palmito Ranch. (Recall the John Wayne classic, “The Undefeated,” and other cinematic representations of that relationship?)

The traditionalist press in Europe openly believed that the Confederacy was part of a much greater conflict—a conflict, a universalized war, to halt the advance of the effects of the French Revolution, and to–if possible–reverse the worst aspects that resulted from the opening of that Pandora’s Box. And in particular, they visualized the Confederacy as a co-belligerent in the effort to stop the growth of “democratism” and “egalitarianism.”

Certainly, one can debate if this vision by European traditionalist conservatives was completely valid, or mere fancy. But the reasons supporting it, given our subsequent history, are strong in an ex post facto way.

What we are talking about is, then, the triumph in the 19 th century of a radical transformation in the way our society and our citizens look at history and change. Indeed, the result was the enthronement of the “Idea of Progress” as the norm, such that movement in history always is “progressive” or, better described, “a la Sinistra”–to the Left. And, given this template, does not the ongoing Leftward—”progressive”—movement of both Democrats AND Republicans in the US, as well as both Socialist and establishment “conservative” political groupings in Europe, make sense?

Until this narrative–this sanctified and blessed “progressivist” idealization–is overturned and reversed, we shall continue to be at the mercy of faux-conservatives who continue to lead us into more Revolution, even if by a slightly different route from the hardcore revolutionaries.

Thus, Professor Johnson’s account of the apotheosis of Lincoln and the enshrining of the “Lincoln Myth” go hand-in-hand with the mythologization of Garibaldi in Italy, or of Louis Blanc in France, as symbolic of what happened to an older, pre-Revolutionary civilization…and to the “exceptional” American nation along the way.

In the USA it really began in earnest, as Ludwell Johnson recounts, almost immediately after Lincoln’s death, and it continues full force today.

April 4, 2015

thereligionofpeace.com [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Racism, Religion, US Constitution, Valerie Jarrett, Yemen — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:51 pm

TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam

What does the
Religion of Peace
Teach About…

Violence

Question:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill in his cause.

Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”

Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”

Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”

Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Muslim (19:4294) – “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Bukhari 1:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Additional Notes:

Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, then things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran plainly says. They reach subjectively for textual context across different suras to try and mitigate the harsher passages. Even though the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, Muslim apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret the verses without their “assistance.” Like many religious people, they want the text to fit their pre-established moral framework.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance – because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

© 2006-2016 TheReligionofPeace.com. All rights reserved.

February 16, 2015

Freedom of Speech, censorship, Islam, how about the 2nd Amendment? [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Elections, Islam, Law Enforcement, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:36 pm

Erasmus
Religion and public policy

Previous
Next
Latest Erasmus
All latest updates

Religion, Europe and Denmark
Shooting at cartoonists, again
Feb 15th 2015, 15:31 by B.C.

Timekeeper

Copenhagen cafe attacked by terrorist

THE terrorist shootings in Denmark are the latest skirmish in Europe’s ongoing contest between freedom of expression and radical Islamists, and as with January’s attacks in Paris, they targeted both the press and the Jewish community. On Saturday afternoon, one person was killed and three police officers wounded when a gunman opened fire on a free-speech debate at a Copenhagen cafe (pictured) hosted by a controversial Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks. Hours later, a Jewish man was killed and another two police were injured near a synagogue. Today, police said they had killed the presumed perpetrator of both attacks after he opened fire on them.

Denmark is where this battle, part physical and part moral, got started a decade ago, after a Danish newspaper’s publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad led to riots. This is unsurprising, since the country presents an extreme case of western Europe’s paradoxical religious order. Christianity is historically privileged but practised in a serious way by only a small minority. Islam is numerically small but followed more passionately, at least by a substantial minority of its adherents; Muslims are quite sharply divided over how to interpret their faith. Judaism is even smaller and feels increasingly vulnerable. A substantial share of the population is either completely indifferent, or mildly hostile, to religion in all forms.

Mr Vilks, who escaped yesterday’s assault unhurt, has been involved in the conflict for years. He received multiple death threats after publishing a sketch in 2007 that depicted Muhammad as a donkey. Scandinavia in general has been the object of Islamist ire ever since the start of the so-called Danish cartoons affair in September 2005, when the Copenhagen newspaper Jyllands-Posten carried 12 drawings of Islam’s prophet; they were then republished by a Norwegian newspaper.

The cartoons affair had some dramatic immediate effects. In early 2006, there were protests across the world, with up to 200 people reported killed. This wasn’t a spontaneous outburst of rage, but a well-orchestrated one. A delegation of Muslims from Denmark had toured the heartlands of their faith, drawing attention to the sketches. As boycotts of Danish products were proclaimed in many Islamic countries, the government called it the country’s gravest foreign-policy crisis since 1945. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (later, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC) condemned the drawings and redoubled its efforts to establish the principle that blasphemy should be barred by law. The Economist argued that Western leaders were doing a poor job of defending free speech.

Over the next few years, some mildly reassuring things happened. An alternative voice for Danish Islam emerged, the centre-right politician Naser Khader who condemned the anti-cartoon activists as an unrepresentative minority who were bent on making political capital. One of the most active anti-cartoon campaigners, Ahmed Akkari, had a change of heart and said he had become a believer in free speech. (It’s slightly worrying that he now finds Greenland a more comfortable place to live than Denmark.) Even the OIC, under American pressure, has soft-pedalled its efforts to persuade the UN to criminalise blasphemy.

This weekend’s events, coming hard on the heels of last month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, could reignite passions. But one of Denmark’s most passionate free-speech advocates, who happens to be of Muslim heritage himself, is adamant that now would be the worst possible time for politicians to slacken, even by careless use of language, their determination to protect liberty of expression.

Jacob Mchangama, a lawyer and founder of a human-rights think-tank called Justitia, told me it would be a disaster if his country were to grow faint-hearted in its defence of free speech. “There can be no truce in the struggle between secular democracy and extremism,” he says.

Above all, politicians should avoid the trap of saying or implying that violence was really the fault of provocateurs, or that religious insult was to be equated with physical injury. Giving in to that sort of relativism would be letting down those followers of Islam who were brave enough to stand up for free speech, and indulging in a sort of “bigotry of low expectations”, said Mr Mchangama, whose paternal forebears were Muslims from the Comoros Islands. A good point.
Previous

Gender, violence and religion: When north and south agree
Next

Submit to reddit

View all comments (197)Add your comment
More from The Economist

Daily chart: Islam in Europe
Daily chart: Islam in Europe
Starbucks in Britain: A loss-making machine
Starbucks in Britain: A loss-making machine
What Russia wants: From cold war to hot war
What Russia wants: From cold war to hot war

Britain’s role in the world: Muscle memory
German-Americans: The silent minority
The unbalanced global economy: American shopper

Zimbabwe’s economy: Nothing for money
University endowments: The lolly and the Ivies
Rolls-Royce: Rolls with the punches

Readers’ comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

January 22, 2015

Everyday Muslims on an Outing, from John [nc]

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:33 pm

These are NOT radicals. These are everyday Muslims enjoying themselves, notice, near the end, what they are drinking and doing.

Muslims & WWII Cemetery

WW II – British Military Cemetery in Libya. See this video while it’s available and before it is removed!!!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RtgbvotqVFE%3Frel%3D0

January 20, 2015

Why 12 U.S. Presidents have kept Cuba Isolated, Capt Joseph John, USN, [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:15 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Jan 19 at 5:45 PM

During Obama’s run for the Presidency in 2007, we alerted our supporters that there were photos of Che Guevara plastered on the walls of Obama’s campaign headquarters in Texas. Che was the hard core Communist revolutionary who was killed while trying to export Communism to Bolivia; he was being lionized by Castro and by supporters in Obama’s presidential campaign. While Castro’s Cuba is on the ropes economically, Obama is coming to the rescue of such a dangerous and oppressive Communist regime by recognizing Castro Cuba; lifting economic sanctions, supporting tourism, and allowing free trade, without insisting on concessions before recognizing such an oppressive Communist Cuban Government.

The New Black Panther Party has been receiving instruction in terrorist tactics and bomb making in Castro’s Cuba for the past 6 years, and Obama’s new travel policy will enhance that terrorist training (all terrorist training for the New Black Panther Party must cease prior to recognition). American Black Revolutionaries, who have assassinated US Police Officers over the years, then fled to Cuba, have been given a safe haven by Castro (their return should be demanded prior to recognition). There are 100,000 political prisoners in Cuban prisons & labor camps and Obama should demand that Castro allow fundamental human and religious freedoms for political prisoners (they should be should be freed prior to recognition). The financial support generated by the new tourist trade will permit Castro to export Communism and weapons to communist revolutionaries throughout South America; (there should be restrictions imposed on the export of Communism throughout South America prior to recognition) A US Embassy in Cuba should not be funded by Congress until the above listed concessions are imposed and actually put in place by Castro’s Cuba.

Up until Obama was elected, Castro’s weak economy restricted him from aggressively exporting Marxism–Leninism Communism for 53 years (yet he still had some successes in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guatemala). Preventing the export of Marxism–Leninism Communism throughout the Western Hemisphere was the very reason why, for 53 years, 12 Democratic and Republican US President from President Dwight Eisenhower to President George W. Bush isolated Cuba, and why sanctions worked to a great degree for those 53 years (the below listed article further explains those facts). With the full knowledge that Castro murdered up to 17,000 free Cubans, Obama is coming to the aid of Castro’s Communist Cuba, by, pledging to lift all economic sanctions and establish diplomatic relations, just at the precise moment when Venezuela’s economic miseries have required it to cut off its huge billion-dollar subsidies to Cuba, and at the same time Russia’s economic weakness has cut off financial support to Cuba. Nothing has changed in Cuba’s oppressive Communist regime in 53 years, but “What a coincidence” that Obama is coming to Castro’s Communist regime financial aid, just at the very time Venezuela and Russia can no longer provide financial support.

Obama’s Radical Islamic foreign policies has destabilized the Middle East and his failure to properly engage ISIL while it is killing thousands of Assyrian Christians contributed in large measure to turning the Middle East into the most violent area of the world. Now Obama’s Marxist foreign policy aimed at South America will further destabilize another part of the world, The Western Hemisphere. The new financial support generated by tourism, by Obama lifting of economic sanctions, and by allowing expanded business trade will permit Castro’s Cuba to export communism aimed at undermining democratic governments throughout the Western Hemisphere, and it will continue to aid the New Black Panther Party to foment violent racist streets demonstrations within the United States. No other US President in 53 years has supported such an inept and dangerous foreign policy which will undermine the National Security interest of the United States and create a dangerous environment for its citizens. The Congress should use the power of the purse to prevent the construction of an embassy in Cuba, should oppose the lifting of economic sanctions of Castro’s oppressive Communist Governments, and should do all it can to restrict trade with Cuba.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why We Isolated Cuba for 53 Years

Commentary By

Lee Edwards

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.

Contrary to what President Obama has asserted, U.S. sanctions have worked. Communist Cuba is so economically weak it cannot export Marxism-Leninism as in the past, and pro-democracy advocates have become emboldened.

For more than five decades, presidents, Democratic and Republican, politically isolated and economically sanctioned Communist Cuba for the best of reasons. Here are four of them:

Cuba has been a communist prison since Fidel Castro came to power. From 1959 through the late 1990s, more than 100,000 Cubans were placed in forced labor camps, prisons and other places of incarceration. Between 15,000 and 17,000 people were shot. Castro justified his reign of terror with these words: “The revolution is all; everything else is nothing.”
Communist Cuba exported Marxism-Leninism throughout Latin America, in Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela and especially Nicaragua, which was taken over by the Marxist Sandinistas in the late 1970s. Another target was the small island nation of Grenada, which was to function as the third leg of a communist triangle of Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua. President Reagan foiled the communists’ plans by freeing Grenada from a pro-Moscow radical regime. As a Venezuelan communist leader explained, the Cuban revolution was like a “detonator.”
Communist Cuba often provided the ground troops for the Soviet Union’s strategy of inciting Third World revolution, especially in Africa. From 1975 to 1989, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” Cuba was the major supporter of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola. Castro sent an expeditionary force of 50,000 men to Angola, explaining in part why for decades Moscow propped up the Castro regime in the amount of $5 billion a year.
Communist Cuba brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 when it allowed the Soviet Union to build sites for offensive nuclear missiles aimed at major cities in the United States. Castro knew what he was doing: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev has said that Castro requested a Soviet nuclear attack on the United States.

As The Washington Post editorialized, President Obama pledged to lift economic sanctions and establish diplomatic relations at the precise moment when Venezuela’s economic miseries seriously threatened its huge billion-dollar subsidies of Cuba and when more and more Cubans were pressuring the Castro regime to allow fundamental human freedoms.

The Castro regime was on the ropes, but in the words of Cuban dissident Yoani Sanchez, “Castroism has won.” Today, Fidel must be smiling and lighting up a large El Rey del Mondo cigar in his Havana palace.

January 16, 2015

FBI Confirms 19+ Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes in the US – What are your elected officials doing about this???? [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:03 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Jan 15 at 4:51 PM

The FBI is aware of 19 Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes operating mTostly in remote and wooded areas in 15 states, however there may be as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the United States under development. The paramilitary communes are training indigenous “home grown” Muslim converts; they are Islamic enclaves were residents live under Sharia Law. The communes are gated no-go zones with armed guards at the entrance; they are off limits to non-Muslims; Police tend to avoid the enclaves. A shadowy Pakistan-based group, Jamaat al-Fuqra, and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. (MOA) operate the communes and controls the paramilitary training.

The leader of all the communes is Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who move to the US in 1979, when he began development of the Islamic Paramilitary Commune network. Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani was investigated by the Pakistani Government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and he encourages members of the commune to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training.

Headquarters for the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes is in Islamberg, New York. The Islamic Paramilitary Communes trains and radicalizes young men and women; they are trained in the use of small arms, strangulation techniques, and military tactics. In 1992 the Islamic Paramilitary Training Commune in Buena Vista, CO was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement, previously the Islamic Training Commune in Baladulla, CA was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement in 1991.

Most of the recruits living and training in the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing time in state and federal prisons. There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming as far back as the 1990s. In 2007, the FBI documented that members of Jamaat al-Fuqra were involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three fire bombings, one attempted fire bombing, two explosive bombings, and one attempted explosive bombing. The below listed articles provides additional information.

Why would the Federal government allow terrorist training camps to exist on US soil, where the occupants are taught to execute military style attacks. The way to eliminate theses Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes that are a major National Security threat, is to have the US Senate and the US House Intelligence Committees designate Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. as terrorist groups that are a threat to the National Security Interest of the United States. If that were done the remaining Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes could be closed as the tow communes were shut down in 1991 1nd 1992. Would Pakistan allow the United States to set up Paramilitary Training Camps in Pakistan. Politically correctness pushed by the Obama administration in the media, in federal government bureaucracies, in the Congress, in the FBI, in the CIA, and in other Intelligence agencies is responsible for allowing this dagger thrust to remain aimed at the heart of the security of the United States. .

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXCLUSIVE

22 terror camps verified inside U.S.

Groups fly under radar as Congress seems unconcerned

Leo Hohmann

Leo Hohmann is a news editor for WND. He has been a reporter and editor at several suburban newspapers in the Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, areas and also served as managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Last week’s brazen attack by a “home-grown” terrorist cell in France that targeted the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has drawn renewed interest in potential cells operating inside the United States.

And there are many.

The FBI is aware of at least 22 paramilitary Islamic communes in the U.S., operated by the shadowy Pakistan-based group Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main U.S. front group, Muslims of America Inc.

With U.S. headquarters in Islamberg, New York, the group headed by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani operates communes in mostly remote areas of California, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Michigan, Tennessee and other states.

The FBI describes the MOA compound in Texas, called Mahmoudberg, as an enclave and “communal living site.” Located in Brazoria County along County Road 3 near Sweeny, Texas, it was discovered a couple of years ago by the FBI through a tip from an informant in New York.

The Texas commune, in a heavily wooded area, is estimated by a local resident to encompass about 25 acres. It dates back to the late 1980s, the resident said, which is confirmed by the FBI documents previously reported on by WND.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-usa.jpg

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Pamela Geller, author of the Atlas Shrugs blog and the book “Stop the Islamization of America,” has been following the militant training compounds since 2007.

Gilani’s group operates a slick website in which a female narrator in one promo video waxes beautifully about how the group has rescued many young Americans from a life a crime, drugs and poverty. The group claims to focus on a ministry to “indigenous American Muslims.” One would never guess from the video that the group trains young men and women in the use of small arms and military tactics.

Most of the recruits living at these communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing hard time in state or federal prisons, Geller says. They have operated “under the not-so-watchful eye” of the FBI since the early 1980s, she says, but few Americans are aware of their existence all these years later.

“Probably they haven’t been raided because Jamaat al-Fuqra is not listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government and because there is a great reluctance among government and law enforcement agencies across the board, no matter who is president, to appear to be anti-Muslim,” Geller told WND. “These compounds say they’re peaceful Muslim communities, and the government wants to give the impression that such things can exist in the U.S. without any trouble.”

Indeed, MOA has operated freely under the watch of every president since Ronald Reagan. The group’s leader, Gilani, moved to America from Pakistan in 1979 and has been developing his network of communes ever since. He was once investigated by the Pakistani government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Some reports say he has as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the U.S., although only about 22 of the sites have been verified.

There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming back in the 1990s.

In 1991, after a MOA bomb plot in Toronto was foiled, a federal search warrant for three suspects was issued and a nearly 45-acre compound about 70 miles south of Dallas was raided. The location of the compound corresponds to a reference in an FBI document obtained by the Clarion Project that says about seven MOA members purchased property near Corsicana, Texas.

Federal officials found four mobile homes; three military, general-purpose tents; and six vehicles. Also discovered were loose ammunition, books on counter-terrorism techniques and weaponry and various items with “Jamaat Fuqra Land” written on them.

Another compound in Buena Vista, Colorado, was raided and shut down by state authorities in 1992. But there have been no raids on any of the encampments since the 1990s.

See the penetrating investigative film that exposed the subversive plans of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception”

Murder, firebombing

A 2007 FBI record states that members of the group have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing.

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government,” the document states. “Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

The document also says Muslims of America is now “an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

Robert Spencer, author of the JihadWatch blog and several books about radical Islam, says the communes operate much like Europe’s “no-go zones,” which are Islamic enclaves where adherents live under Shariah law and are off limits to non-Muslims. Police also tend to avoid the enclaves.

“Yes, there are similarities. They’re both very hostile to outsiders and have a history of hostility to law enforcement, and there has been evidence that police are hesitant to go into these communes just as they are in Europe,” Spencer told WND.

They are different in that they operate mostly in remote rural areas of the U.S., unlike the urban no-go zones in Europe’s major cities.

A mystical sect of Islam

Gilani is a follower of Sufi Islam, an ancient mystical sect that believes in miracles, signs and wonders.

Some Middle East historians have described the Sufis as more moderate and peaceful than their Sunni or Shiite cousins, but this is a mistake in Spencer’s view.

The Chechen jihad against the Russians was led by Sufis from the 19th century until the influx of Wahhabi Arabs in the late 20th century.

And Hassan al-Banna, one of early leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, prescribed Sufi exercises for Brotherhood members, Spencer said.

“They’re more mystical, but that does not mean they reject the principles of violent jihad,” he said.

Muhammad al-Ghazali, a Persian philosopher and founder of the modern Sufi movement in the late 11th century, “was very clear and strong in speaking about the necessity of waging violent jihad,” Spencer said.

The FBI report on Muslims of America has been heavily redacted but clearly says the group has engaged in murders and fire bombings in the U.S.

“So that’s the FBI speaking not some Islamophobe,” Spencer said.

Gilani, who did not immediately respond to WND’s request for an interview, teaches that Muslims should be self-sustaining and separate from the broader American culture. But he also purports to teach that they foster “good relations with our Christian brethren,” according to the group’s website.

Watch MOA’s promotional video below, casting itself as a mystical sect concerned about humanitarian-based rescues of Americans trapped in a life of crime and drugs.

Christian Action Network did a documentary on the elusive Gilani in 2009. The documentary shows the Christians being greeted at the entrance to a compound in New York with tremendous hostility.

“Christian Network was told by the local cops not to go there and not to bother them but they went anyway, and neighbors said they heard firearms training and all kinds of things going on there,” Spencer said.

Check out the Christian Action Network’s acclaimed documentary, “Homegrown Jihad,” which blew the whistle on Muslims of America communes and what its recruits are taught.

According to their own video, the MOA groups are all about peace, miraculous sightings of Allah and the mystical healing of incurable diseases from AIDS to cancer. They also make a point of claiming to develop their brand of Islam within the framework of being good American citizens.

This is all written off by Spencer as “window dressing” and Geller agrees.

“All Islamic groups make similar claims – including the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates,” Geller said. “These claims have to be balanced against the group’s others words, and its actions. MOA members have been involved in murders and firebombings in the U.S.”

They have also been involved in violence against other Muslims.

The Islamic spiritual leader Rashad Kalifa was one of the victims. He was a Muslim scholar who translated the Quran into English and also developed a teaching based on a Quranic numbering system that marked him as a false prophet and a heretic by many Muslims, including those affiliated with the MOA. Kalifa was found stabbed 29 times in the kitchen of a Tuscon mosque in 1990. One member of MOA was found guilty of conspiracy in the killing and sentenced to 69 years.

“We should monitor them very closely. Hold hearings if necessary (in Congress),” Geller said. “Conduct a thorough investigation of each of these compounds with or without hearings.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was one member of Congress who tried to get her colleagues to pay more attention to groups like MOA, but had little success.

“For years we’ve heard viable reports and seen photos and video tape suggesting Islamic jihadist training camps located in states such as Texas, Georgia and elsewhere. U.S. national law enforcement agencies have a duty to secure the safety of the American people – that is the number one duty of government,” Bachmann told WND.

But the federal government, and increasingly state and local governments, have been more concerned about offending Muslims and bowing to the wishes of Muslim Brotherhood front groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations, she said.

“For law enforcement to fail to investigate reports of U.S.-based terror training camps or to turn a blind eye to incitement activities in U.S.-based Islamic centers is to intentionally avoid a tragic reality of American life,” she said. “In retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better for the U.S. military to have acted on their evidence and suspicions of the Fort Hood shooter? Wouldn’t it have been better for the FBI to have investigated the Islamic center of Boston prior to the Boston marathon bombing?”

“The clues to see Islamic jihad were and are in front of our eyes,” Bachmann added. “If only our government had the political will to see and act upon them.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/22-terror-camps-verified-inside-u-s/#H1WIKmGzo8MPYdJE.99

January 12, 2015

The Progressive Racial Narrative and Its Beneficiaries, by Bruce Thornton [nc]

Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:04 pm

The Progressive Racial Narrative and Its Beneficiaries
January 11, 2015 7:41 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
Debunking the lies about race in America.

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine

al_sharpton_speaking_reuters-450x337A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reveals that nearly 6 in 10 people believe race relations are bad, with 23% saying they are “very bad.” The causes of these perceptions are many, including nationally publicized police killings of two black men, disorderly and violent demonstrators ignoring the facts of the cases to brand the police “racist,” a lazy media neglecting to dig up and then publicize those facts, and a president, Attorney General, and mayor of New York willing to exploit and widen racial division and consort with hustlers like Al Sharpton.

What we see at work in these events is the long established racial narrative in which endemic white racism accounts for all the ills that afflict black people. Not just individual whites harbor this original sin, but our educational, political, social, justice, and economic institutions are racist as well, favoring white people and hence conferring on them “white skin privilege.” The wide scope of racism means that no matter how well meaning towards blacks, or how socially and economically disadvantaged, individual whites cannot purge themselves of racism. Only radical transformation of all our institutions can redeem America from racism.

This fairytale regularly ignores numerous facts. The decline in black poverty, for example, calls into question the notion that there is “institutional racism” warping the economy. Thanks to postwar economic growth, the black poverty rate decreased from 87% in 1940 to 28% today. Similar improvement can be seen in the growth of the black middle class and increases in black home ownership. And the claim that blacks are shut out of the job market is hard to square with the fact that millions of illegal aliens are working in this country, and immigrant entrepreneurs are creating small businesses.

Similarly, the idea that the police are an “occupying army” targeting blacks, a cliché we heard repeatedly during the recent demonstrations over the police shootings in Ferguson and Brooklyn, is exploded by simple statistics that show about 200 blacks a year––most shot while possessing a gun or knife––are killed by police officers, while almost 6,000 a year are killed by other blacks. It’s a strange “army” that endangers itself in order to protect and save the lives of those it’s allegedly “occupying.”

Then there’s the “voter suppression” charge, the assertion that attempts by states to ensure only legal voters cast ballots really are designed to discourage black voters. The increasing numbers of black people registering and turning out to vote belie this claim, as does the much greater number of blacks holding elected office. Indeed, in 2012 the proportion of black voters turning out in the national election was greater than that of white.

The fact is, by global standards the largest number of politically free and well off blacks is in the United States. As for those blacks still mired in dysfunctional communities filled with crime, violence, unemployment, drugs, and fatherless children, those evils do not reflect white racism or a “legacy of slavery.” Rather, they can be traced to what Michael Gerson called the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” the culture of dependence and the erosion of self-reliance and self-responsibility created by government handouts and the liberal narrative of endemic white racism that demeans blacks as helpless victims incapable of improving their lives or being accountable for their actions, since through no fault of their own they are imprisoned by “institutional racism.” And don’t forget progressive government policies that inhibit economic growth, historically the great engine for improving black lives, and the culture-wide degradation of sexual mores and the collapse of traditional marriage.

So cui bono, as the lawyers say, who benefits from this narrative? The federal and state entitlement industry, of course, whose agencies and bureaucrats profit from having a permanent underclass of clients. So too the Democratic Party, which buys black votes with promises to keep the transfers and set-asides flowing. So too the racial grievance industry, that gang of activists, academics, ethnic studies professors, “diversity” consultants, and shakedown artists like Al Sharpton who use black misery as leverage for more power and pelf. So too the leftover leftists, who find in racial discord a weapon for attacking the country that kicked their cherished collectivist ideology into the dustbin of history.

Most black Americans aren’t invested in this narrative. They’re too busy working and raising their families. But let’s not forget the role this narrative plays in camouflaging the privilege of those millions of blacks who live better and have more social clout than millions of white people. By ignoring their economic advantages and brandishing their scars from alleged racist wounds, many in the black upper-middle and upper class, particularly those in education, sports, entertainment, and government, can gain vicarious victim-privilege and hence social leverage. Thus through a spurious claim to racial brotherhood, they plunder and spend the capital of black suffering many of them have never experienced. They then can enjoy a social cachet and a whiff of exotic authenticity that sets them apart from their bland white counterparts, and that gives them an air of gnostic racial wisdom embodied in the cant phrase, “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand.”

The phoniness of this ploy can be seen in the various claims well off blacks make about their personal experiences of racism. In the 90s it was the epidemic of racist cabdrivers refusing to pick up black passengers. That one faded when research showed that many of the cabdrivers were themselves black, and were prudently avoiding the murder and mayhem they often experienced at the hands of black passengers. Then there was the “driving while black” trope, which focused on the disproportionate number of blacks pulled over for traffic violations like speeding. Department of Justice investigations ended up with sanctions imposed on states for “racial profiling.” But the study done of drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike, a much-publicized case of “profiling,” revealed that while blacks were 25% of all speeders, they were 23% of those pulled over. That is, they were underrepresented, not overrepresented, among those stopped.

More recently we have heard affluent, privileged blacks like Eric Holder, and the white father of a half-black son, New York mayor Bill De Blasio, indulge another hackneyed trope, the “talk.” This is the conversation black fathers must have with their sons in order to “train them to be very careful when they have . . . an encounter with a police officer,” as De Blasio said, lest they give a policeman a pretext for the violence incited by their racism. The irony of this claim is that if reflects just how privileged these children are, for people who grow up in the dangerous neighborhoods the police must frequent drink that wisdom in with their mother’s milk. Worse yet, it assumes that a white kid who resists arrest, fights a cop, curses him, or otherwise challenges his authority will be treated with kid gloves. I’ll have to see some hard data before I believe that. The reality is, the biggest danger to a young black man today is not a policeman, but another young black man.

No doubt some blacks have experienced rude cops or cabdrivers, or have been subjected to the other evidence of racism like those Obama claims to have experienced, such as women clutching their purses more closely in an elevator, or locking their car doors at the approach of a black man. But even if true, these slights don’t amount to “systemic racism.” They more likely reflect prejudices, many acquired through unpleasant experiences. If you want to see what real racism looks like, visit this site and peruse its collection of lynching postcards. You’ll see just how much progress has been made over the last half-century.

But facts or even common sense don’t matter when it comes to a narrative with so many beneficiaries, the biggest one being Barack Obama, who never would have become president without it. The saddest part of all this, however, is that the black people truly suffering today aren’t on that list. In the racial narrative, black lives don’t matter.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/the-progressive-racial-narrative-and-its-beneficiaries/

Copyright © 2015 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

January 9, 2015

While Paris Burns, Obama’s apptee gets set to import 70,000 Muslims into USA [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 10:16 pm

Joseph R. John
To
‘USBPSSA Robert M. Trent, (Ret) (WO2/ANG/USMC)’
Today at 3:55 PM

Bob, Thank you. We believe the below listed Assistant Director USCIS will most likely rubber stamp the entry of 70,000 Muslim refugees from Syria without properly completing the necessary background investigation on each refugee to determines if their acceptance would endanger the National Security interest of the United States. Her department doesn’t have the thousands of well-trained intelligence analyst required to do the in depth background investigation on each refugee.

Obama has quietly agreed to resettle 70,000 Muslim refugees throughout the US as part of the UN Resettlement Program, and is putting the refugees on a fast track for US citizenship; the Obama administration has accepted more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined. These new Muslim immigrants are posing a major security risk, will cost $10 billion to resettle, and some of the Muslim immigrants may have previously joined ISIL. Some of the Somalis that were on the fast track program, and received US citizenship have already gone to fight for ISIL in Syria and when they return will pose a serious threat to the United States. It has been reported that Al Q’ieda is infiltrating the UN Resettlement Program to obtain legal acceptance as US citizens in the US.

In addition, DHS’s Immigration Service will approve the issuance of Social Security numbers and work permits to 5 million Illegal aliens, without doing the proper investigation required to determine if the 5 million illegal aliens have resided in the US for 5 year, are not convicted criminals, or have any terrorist links. The Obama administration has rented new office space, and is are hiring 1000 new employees, with no experience, to accomplish the detailed review and processing of each Illegal alien. If each of the 1000 new employees reviewed 5 illegal aliens each day on a 5 day week, it would normally take over 4 years to process the 5 million Illegal aliens, but those new employees will be directed to rubber stamp each application with little or no investigation, and it won’t take 4 years to process them.

It is very dangerous for the National Security interest of the United States to issue social security numbers and work permits for 5 million Illegal aliens and fast track 70,000 Muslim refugees for US citizenship without doing the in proper depth background investigations on each individual, in order to determine if they are convicted felons, involved in drug smuggling, and to determine if they have terrorist ties. The Obama administration seems to be approving one program after another that is destabilizing the National Security interest of the Republic

Respectfully,

Joe

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Robert Trent [mailto:roberttrent1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 6:25 PM
To: aaa aaa
Subject: Assistant Director USCIS

See where we are going…

MEET OUR NEW ASST DIRECTOR FOR US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION…

Another “qualified” appointment by BO in Homeland Security. No doubt she’ll be essential to his Muslim immigration efforts.

Unfortunately, this is true and she is another unqualified, inexperienced Obama appointee!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fatimanoor.asp

Meet Fatima Noor, President Obama’s latest appointment to a high level position in the Department of Homeland IN-Security, the post of Assistant Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration.

cid:4EF6A03A-BFE7-4E1E-BB41-7EC7ECC9E0C7

Ms. Noor has little if any experience in the compliance or enforcement fields. Her total experience in government related work is limited

to volunteer work with World Relief Memphis and as activities coordinator the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

She majored in psychology with minors in Spanish and Arabic international relations.

She recently completed a month-long research fellowship in Muslim psychology hosted by Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, yes you read that correctly . an entire month long research fellowship ; her research will be ongoing as part of her work the DHS.

No, this is not a joke.

January 8, 2015

An Unavoidable Truth About Terrorism, by L. Neil Smith [nc]

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:34 pm

An Unavoidable Truth About Terrorism
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

Attribute to L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

When I boot up every morning, my “homepage” for at least twenty years has been The Drudge Report. I don’t possess broadcast television (I watch Netflix), so this morning I was surprised by screaming headlines concerning some homicidal loonie taking over a chocolate shop full of hostages in downtown Syndney, Australia, in the name of Allah.

I followed the story to the online Daily Mail, which was full of the same photographs, enormous and in full color, we’ve all seen a thousand times before: the idiot himself, the religious and political slogans, mostly written (one wonders why) in an alphabet I can’t read, terrified hostages, relieved when they had escaped, a splash or two of blood {“If it bleeds, it leads.”) and what seemed like hundreds of government tough-guy typess, all carrying automatic weapons—M-16s—standing around, waiting for their glorious leaders to get off the pot.

Three people died before it was over, two of them unnecessarily. My first thought was that it was the fault of Australian legislators, and the morally lazy voters who offer them support, who stripped the Southern Continent of its personal weaponry—brutally violating a thousand-year-old tradition among English-speaking peoples—and leaving it helpless before genetic culls like this. Speaking plainly, this asshole should have died the instant he opened his mouth about taking over the shop, at the hands of the barista, armed with a .45 automatic.

And hundreds of millions of decent, productive, nonviolent Muslims around the world wouldn’t have to go on taking the rap for jerks like him.

I also knew it was time to declare that the dangerous delusion which has been destroying Western Society is over. Peace is neither won nor maintained by the unarmed. Clearly, government cannot—will not—protect us; we must protect ourselves. I was reminded recently that I once said that terrorism is decentralized. It has no leader. It has no center. It’s a diffuse phenomenon, best dealt with by diffuse means: in this country, that means hundreds of millions of armed individuals.

Terrorism is the kind pf problem that can’t be solved by a handful of heavily-armed thugs, prancing around in their military fat-suits, but by the average suburban housewife—multiplied by a hundred million—with three small kiddies in tow and a .380 automatic in her purse.

Self-defense is a wholly individual bodily function tha can no more be delegated to somebody else—especially to the thumb-fumbling government—than can going to the bathroom, eating, or making love. If the individual people of the United States, Canada, Great Britain (or the United Kingdom—I’m unaware the distinction), Australia, New Zealand and any territories associated with them, were to arm themselves, even with .22s and .25s, that would be an end to terrorism.

(Yes, yes, I know there would still be bombs, poison gas, and various biological and radiological threats. Those are different problems, every one of them with different soutions. Want another essay?)

The simple change that I propose would not be unaccomanied by screaming, wailing, hair-tearing, and tooth-gnashing by the whining babies who have made this mess. Every proposal they make, every law they pass and enforce only make it easier for hobgoblins like this one in Sydney to have their way, to get their fifteen minutes of fame. Those who oppose what I am calling “ballistic democracy” are nothing more than knowing, willing enablers and accessories to terrorism and mass-murder.

The king of them all, multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a jumped-up Charles Manson, with a haircut and necktie.

In 1776, the great economist Adam Smith wrote that, if only each individual looked out for his own interests, and minded his own business, a nation would prosper as if guided by an “Invisible Hand”. It is our task now to make sure that the Invisible Hand has a gun in it.

January 4, 2015

MO Elected Official threatens whites [c]

Filed under: Econonics, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:43 pm

[“White Privilege?” Who does she think paid for her education? Her “Affirmative Action?” Her NAACP privileges? What idiot thought up this new taxpayer oppression? Whatever happened to the democracy in Democrat?]

Elected Missouri Democrat threatens voters over white privilege on Twitter

January 4, 2015 12:01 AM MST
• Facebook
• Twitter
• More
• Comment

Democrat state Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal issues racist threat to voters on Twitter.
YouTube/Screengrab/Nicole Gipson
On Saturday, Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democrat serving in the Missouri state Senate whose district includes Ferguson, issued what many took to be a racist threat against white people on her Twitter feed. Her message, while apparently escaping the notice of local media outlets, angered a number of people.
“LET ME BE CLEAR,” she screamed on Twitter. “When you exercise your #WhitePrivilege, don’t think I’m not going to remember. I will use it for the future. Uncomfortable?”
“The system has literally failed the people I represent,” she said hours later. “There is no hope that anything will change. We go through the motions (because) we have to.” She also said the country has failed. Ironically, the conservative blog Weasel Zippers observed, she made the comment while using an image of Communist dictator Fidel Castro as her background.
“If you r not a legislator representing #Ferguson & you have not communicated w me, yet u have a ‘resolution’, expect fire,” she said in another angry tweet. Several responded angrily to that message as well, calling her a racist and a bigot. One responded by telling her to quit having supporters direct violence at police officers.
“So, you are a racist & are saying as an elected official, you only represent select people,” one person said in response. Another person asked Chappelle-Nadal if she intends to round white people up and place them in internment camps.
“Does the nursing staff at the hospital you live at know you’re on their computers this late at night?” another person asked. “Let me be clear,” added another Twitter user. “THE VOTERS ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ will remember you when it comes to voting for you. You just burnt your future.”
On the same day Chappelle-Nadal issued her racist message, the Associated Press said legislation she is sponsoring would, if passed into law, narrow the instances when police officers may use deadly force. Her proposal would also require the state attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate deaths or injuries caused by police. Currently, those incidents are handled by the locally elected prosecuting attorney. She also wants uniformed officers to wear cameras and believes institutional racism was behind the August shooting of Michael Brown.
This is not the first time Chappelle-Nadal has made controversial remarks. At one point, she accused police of purposely planning and executing the violence in Ferguson. But she changed her tune in November, when she told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell the looting and burning taking place in Ferguson was “our race war.”
“Not only has this Mike Brown movement revealed the true intentions of people in police departments across the state, but I have to tell you that there has been systematic racism, institutionally in state government for decades, including my own state party,” she said. “People are angry, and they are hurt, and they’re trying to figure out: how are they going to receive justice?”
“I have to tell you, this is St. Louis’ race war,” she added. “We didn’t have a race war like other cities throughout the country. This is our race war.”

December 31, 2014

Confessions of a Public Defender, Michael Smith Esq., from “Face to Face with Race” [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:07 pm

It may help explain Ferguson. This was one of the stories in Face to Face with Race.

Confessions of a Public Defender

Confessions of a Public Defender

Michael Smith, American Renaissance, May 9, 2014

Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me.

The media invariably sugarcoat black behavior. Even the news reports of the very crimes I dealt with in court were slanted. Television news intentionally leaves out unflattering facts about the accused, and sometimes omits names that are obviously black. All this rocked my liberal, tolerant beliefs, but it took me years to set aside my illusions and accept the reality of what I see every day. I have now served thousands of blacks and their families, protecting their rights and defending them in court. What follow are my observations.

Although blacks are only a small percentage of our community, the courthouse is filled with them: the halls and gallery benches are overflowing with black defendants, families, and crime victims. Most whites with business in court arrive quietly, dress appropriately, and keep their heads down. They get in and get out–if they can–as fast as they can. For blacks, the courthouse is like a carnival. They all seem to know each other: hundreds and hundreds each day, gossiping, laughing loudly, waving, and crowding the halls.

When I am appointed to represent a client I introduce myself and explain that I am his lawyer. I explain the court process and my role in it, and I ask the client some basic questions about himself. At this stage, I can tell with great accuracy how people will react. Hispanics are extremely polite and deferential. An Hispanic will never call me by my first name and will answer my questions directly and with appropriate respect for my position. Whites are similarly respectful.

A black man will never call me Mr. Smith; I am always “Mike.” It is not unusual for a 19-year-old black to refer to me as “dog.” A black may mumble complaints about everything I say, and roll his eyes when I politely interrupt so I can continue with my explanation. Also, everything I say to blacks must be at about the third-grade level. If I slip and use adult language, they get angry because they think I am flaunting my superiority.

At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports. Blacks are unable to understand that I do not yet have answers to all of their questions, but that I will by a certain date. They live in the here and the now and are unable to wait for anything. Usually, by the second meeting with the client I have most of the police reports and understand their case.

Unlike people of other races, blacks never see their lawyer as someone who is there to help them. I am a part of the system against which they are waging war. They often explode with anger at me and are quick to blame me for anything that goes wrong in their case.

Black men often try to trip me up and challenge my knowledge of the law or the facts of the case. I appreciate sincere questions about the elements of the offense or the sentencing guidelines, but blacks ask questions to test me. Unfortunately, they are almost always wrong in their reading, or understanding, of the law, and this can cause friction. I may repeatedly explain the law, and provide copies of the statute showing, for example, why my client must serve six years if convicted, but he continues to believe that a hand-written note from his “cellie” is controlling law.

The risks of trial

The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.

Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.

Prosecutors are delighted when a black defendant takes the stand. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, the defense usually gets to cross-examine the black victim, who is likely to make just as bad an impression on the stand as the defendant. This is an invaluable gift to the defense, because jurors may not convict a defendant—even if they think he is guilty—if they dislike the victim even more than they dislike the defendant.

Most criminal cases do not go to trial. Often the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, and the chances of conviction are high. The defendant is better off with a plea bargain: pleading guilty to a lesser charge and getting a lighter sentence.

The decision to plea to a lesser charge turns on the strength of the evidence. When blacks ask the ultimate question—”Will we win at trial?”—I tell them I cannot know, but I then describe the strengths and weaknesses of our case. The weaknesses are usually obvious: There are five eyewitnesses against you. Or, you made a confession to both the detective and your grandmother. They found you in possession of a pink cell phone with a case that has rhinestones spelling the name of the victim of the robbery. There is a video of the murderer wearing the same shirt you were wearing when you were arrested, which has the words “In Da Houz” on the back, not to mention you have the same “RIP Pookie 7/4/12” tattoo on your neck as the man in the video. Etc.

If you tell a black man that the evidence is very harmful to his case, he will blame you. “You ain’t workin’ fo’ me.” “It like you workin’ with da State.” Every public defender hears this. The more you try to explain the evidence to a black man, the angrier he gets. It is my firm belief many black are unable to discuss the evidence against them rationally because they cannot view things from the perspective of others. They simply cannot understand how the facts in the case will appear to a jury.

This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.

My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”

No fathers

As a public defender, I have learned many things about people. One is that defendants do not have fathers. If a black even knows the name of his father, he knows of him only as a shadowy person with whom he has absolutely no ties. When a client is sentenced, I often beg for mercy on the grounds that the defendant did not have a father and never had a chance in life. I have often tracked down the man’s father–in jail–and have brought him to the sentencing hearing to testify that he never knew his son and never lifted a finger to help him. Often, this is the first time my client has ever met his father. These meetings are utterly unemotional.

Many black defendants don’t even have mothers who care about them. Many are raised by grandmothers after the state removes the children from an incompetent teenaged mother. Many of these mothers and grandmothers are mentally unstable, and are completely disconnected from the realities they face in court and in life. A 47-year-old grandmother will deny that her grandson has gang ties even though his forehead is tattooed with a gang sign or slogan. When I point this out in as kind and understanding way as I can, she screams at me. When black women start screaming, they invoke the name of Jesus and shout swear words in the same breath.

Black women have great faith in God, but they have a twisted understanding of His role. They do not pray for strength or courage. They pray for results: the satisfaction of immediate needs. One of my clients was a black woman who prayed in a circle with her accomplices for God’s protection from the police before they would set out to commit a robbery.

The mothers and grandmothers pray in the hallways–not for justice, but for acquittal. When I explain that the evidence that their beloved child murdered the shop keeper is overwhelming, and that he should accept the very fair plea bargain I have negotiated, they will tell me that he is going to trial and will “ride with the Lord.” They tell me they speak to God every day and He assures them that the young man will be acquitted.

The mothers and grandmothers do not seem to be able to imagine and understand the consequences of going to trial and losing. Some–and this is a shocking reality it took me a long time to grasp–don’t really care what happens to the client, but want to make it look as though they care. This means pounding their chests in righteous indignation, and insisting on going to trial despite terrible evidence. They refuse to listen to the one person–me–who has the knowledge to make the best recommendation. These people soon lose interest in the case, and stop showing up after about the third or fourth court date. It is then easier for me to convince the client to act in his own best interests and accept a plea agreement.

Part of the problem is that underclass black women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different black men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work. I do not see this among whites, Hispanics, or any other people.

The black men who become my clients also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support. When I learn that my 19-year-old defendant does not work or go to school, I ask, “What do you do all day?” He smiles. “You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

If you tell a black to dress properly for trial, and don’t give specific instructions, he will arrive in wildly inappropriate clothes. I represented a woman who was on trial for drugs; she wore a baseball cap with a marijuana leaf embroidered on it. I represented a man who wore a shirt that read “rules are for suckers” to his probation hearing. Our office provides suits, shirts, ties, and dresses for clients to wear for jury trials. Often, it takes a whole team of lawyers to persuade a black to wear a shirt and tie instead of gang colors.

From time to time the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population. This is supposed to be an outrage that results from unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. What the media only hint at is another staggering reality: recidivism. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians.

Stats

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

At one time our office was looking for a motto that defined our philosophy. Someone joked that it should be: “Doesn’t everyone deserve an eleventh chance?”

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

December 29, 2014

Race Mongers All, by Sylvia Thompson [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Education, Historical context, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:24 pm

Sylvia Thompson column
Race mongers all, with blood on their hands

Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
December 28, 2014

President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and race-hustler Al Sharpton are most definitely complicit in the recent deaths of two New York City police officers. I refuse to listen to the blather that says otherwise. These four race mongers set the stage for the hateful act committed by Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the murderer. Furthermore, I reject the playing down of this hater’s guilt by branding him “mentally unstable.” He was a typical hateful black person spawned by the Left’s decades-long campaign to brainwash American blacks.

Police officers across the country are rightfully enraged at these despicable men, wielding their enormous political power against the entire law enforcement community. Shunning de Blasio is the least these officers could do to show the leftist mayor how much they despise him. All of America should despise all four of these men.

That said, I focus this commentary on the incredible naivety of so many pundits, such as Greta Van Susteren’s. The pundits are puzzled by Obama’s and Holder’s lack of a convincing response to the murders. These two men, in their positions of authority, refuse to make any genuine attempts to quell the hatred that spawned Brinsley’s murderous scheme, which is why they are culpable.

Classic liberals (and I consider Ms. Van Susteren one of them) are completely clueless when it comes to assessing black behavior. That naivety is what accounts, in my view, for the assumption that most of us blacks are in need of their protection and guidance. It is a condescending attitude, but many of them are completely ignorant of how they come across. I learned this fact over the years, which is why I ignore classic liberals. I follow closely, however, the diabolical leftists. Failure to understand leftism is dangerous.

This naivety also explains why many pundits and educated white Americans are baffled over Obama’s choice of a character, such as Al Sharpton, to be a legitimate representative of black America. It requires an understanding of black elitism to comprehend this behavior. As a non-elite, I have found that black elites, like their counterparts in other ethnic groups, are adept at using people whom they perceive to be beneath them to do their bidding. Blacks of Sharpton’s character are ripe for manipulation. They possess little in intellect and they crave great power. They acquire a perceived power in being near the powerful.

Obama and Holder, and all of their ilk, know that some activities (such as street rabble-rousing) are beneath them. Therefore, they plant the seeds of hatred; Sharpton and his ilk stir up the soil so that the seeds will grow. They provide the poison; the Sharptons stir it into the water and encourage blacks to drink up. In Obama’s eyes, Sharpton is merely a tool.

Greta Van Susteren laments that Obama does not approach blacks such as Senator Tim Scott to assist with issues of race. Simply stated, Senator Scott cannot be used.

Sharpton may well understand this thinly vailed disdain, and it could be that a mutual “using” is taking place. The elitist using the despised black of “the other class” to foment unrest and hatred, as part of the Left’s grand plan to destroy America, and the lower-classed hustler gaining a level of recognition that the circumstances of his birth denied him. Hustlers are skilled manipulators in their own right, and Sharpton has many years of experience under his belt.

We often hear pundits of both races decrying “America still has racism and something has to be done about it.” That excuse is used to further the Left’s agenda of “transforming” (meaning “destroying”) America. Newsflash: We will never be completely rid of racist thinking until Almighty God removes it from the flawed psyche of those who refuse to let go of it. And He will indeed do that, in due time.

Meanwhile, I truly hope that more white Americans will come to an understanding that this whipping rod of “perpetual racism” is a ploy. People on the Left use it because it works. The solution is that Americans who are not racist must stop allowing the Left to use the ploy against them. Reject it; call it out for what it is – a pernicious scheme.

I offer a fervent plea to my fellow Americans of any color who are really sick and tired of it all – stop listening to the race baiters. Even the ones who sound reasonable or wear white collars of the clergy, but will not task blacks with any of the responsibility for their circumstances. The plight of disadvantaged black Americans will not improve until they remove themselves from the yoke of leftist liberalism. They must begin to take personal responsibility for how they live, behave, and rear their children, as well as which leaders and educators they accept into their communities.

This rethinking needs to happen soon, because there will not always be race-baiting professed black leaders in control of this country. There will come a time when leaders will be in charge who are immune to overwrought cries of “racist” and “racism.” And we had better hope that they are decent men, because the game of “payback” will be detrimental if they choose to play it against us twelve percent of the American populace.

Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture.

Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently residing in Tennessee. She formerly wrote for the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley California Newsletter and the online conservative blog ChronWatch, also out of California.

She grew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve, nor will we ever elevate our culture, as long as there are victims to be pandered to and villains to be vilified. America is better served without victims or villains.

© Copyright 2014 by Sylvia Thompson
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/sthompson/141228

Col. Bud Day, USAF/ Medal of Honor Recipient, on torture [nc]

Filed under: Education, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:19 pm

Colonel Bud Day

I JUST ENJOY HOW HE RELATES TO OBAMA & THE REST OF CANDY ASS WASHINGTON CROWD!!!!

I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967, a Squadron Commander.
After I returned in 1973…I published 2 books that dealt a lot
with “real torture” in Hanoi . Our make-believe president is
Branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he
has no idea what torture is.

As for me, I was put thru a mock execution because
I would not respond.. Pistol whipped on the head….same event..
Couple of days later… Hung by my feet all day.
I escaped and a couple of weeks later, I got shot and recaptured.
Shot was OK…what happened afterwards was not.

They marched me to Vinh…put me in the rope trick, trick…almost
pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with
a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut,
andmy unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms…re-broke my right wrist…
wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands….
rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement
of my L forefinger. So I started answering
with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi ..on my knees….rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling–hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone
thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was
the Senior Officer of a large building… because of escape…
they started a mass Torture of all commanders.

I think it was July 7, 1969…they started beating me with a car fan-belt.
In the first 2 days I took over 300 strokes, then stopped counting
because I never thought I would live thru it.

They continued day-night torture to get me to confess to
a non-existent part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days.
On my knees… fan belting…cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke.
Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger…
I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape…
and that my 2 room-mates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of
the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12th..
to 14 October 1969.
I continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe President
has declared to the world that we (U.S.) are a bunch of Torturers…
thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us…
because that is what the U.S. Does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks
that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a
pair of women’s pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE..
He is a meathead.

I just talked to Medal Of Honor holder Leo Thorsness, who
was also in my squadron, In jail…as was John McCain…and
we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group
when he claims that Al Gharib was Torture…
or that “water boarding” is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing
our great country are a disgrace to the United States . Please pass
This info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the
stupidity of the claims that water boarding…
which has no after effect…is torture.

If it got the Arab to cough up the story about
how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC …
Hurrah for the guy who poured the water.
____________________________________________________________________

“Bud” Day, Medal Of Honor Recipient

George Everett “Bud” Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired
U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the
Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S.
Service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having
Received some 70 decorations, a majority for actions
In combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor.
————–
Please pass on to your
Family and friends

What is America’ Survival Plan? by Carol Brown [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:55 pm

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/what_is_americas_survival_plan_.html

December 26, 2014
What is America’s survival plan?

By Carol Brown

We’re facing the greatest national security threat we have ever known and there is no coherent plan to battle the enemy. This nation is so far behind the eight ball, the president and his minions won’t even name the enemy, no less fight it.

Name = Islam

Even worse, those in positions of power and influence misrepresent what the enemy stands for. Like a pre-recorded announcement that just won’t stop, we are endlessly subjected to the false refrain: Islam is a religion of peace. By Muslim lights, we live in the Dar al Harb, the territory of war, simply because we refuse to accept Islam. We didn’t declare war, Mohammed did.

And when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism, it’s not only the left that’s putting us at risk. The right is hardly better, as both parties serve up a boatload of ignorance, complicity, and cowardice on a daily basis. Our elected officials draft legislation, set foreign policy, speak at podiums, sit on panels, write press releases, pen op-eds, and yack away on talk shows about the wonders of Islam. If anyone challenges what they’re peddling, the peddlers get rather hot under the collar. As for the truth-tellers, they are mocked, marginalized, and vilified.

And what a truth it is, as we confront a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination ruled by one religion — an ideology that is infecting every aspect of our culture and which has the potential to destroy all of civilization.

Despite this grave threat, you can count on one hand how many leaders are informed and speaking the truth. And even they — and God bless every single one of them — have offered ideas in bits and pieces, with faint calls to investigate Huma Abedin, a proposal to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, a proposal to strip citizenship from Americans who travel overseas to fight for terrorists, along with a few states that passed anti-Sharia laws. Woefully inadequate as these actions are, three-quarters of them barely saw the light of day as the truth-tellers were pilloried and the legislation never came to pass. In any case, the solutions noted above are not an overarching strategy.

Not even close.

How can that be? The most brutal and ruthless enemy is advancing toward us and has infiltrated every arm of our government, and there is hardly a word said, no less a plan offered, as to how to beat them back. Quite the opposite. We are welcoming them with open arms. Giving them the keys to the kingdom.

If we are to survive, this madness must end. And toward that end, I suggest the following:

Name the enemy: If you don’t name the enemy, how can you win the war? Let’s stop talking like idiots. We’re battling a totalitarian ideology as written in the Koran, and the people who follow it. It’s called Islam. Not “radical Islam.” Just Islam. By any standard, the teachings in the Koran are radical. When people say “radical Islam,” it suggests there is some other form of Islam that is more tempered. Moderate, as they say. But such a thing does not exist, except as neglect of scriptural imperatives. And should anyone claim there are peaceful verses please point them to Chapter 2, Verse 106 (Abrogation) which states that later (violent) verses override and/or replace earlier (peaceful) ones.

Stop saying “war on terror”: This expression is vague and minimizes the scope of the battle. We’re fighting Islamic jihad in all its forms — from physical violence to creeping Sharia and everything in between. We are at war with those who follow the teachings of the Koran — whether they are violent jihadists or members of the school board trying to influence curriculum.

Shut down Iran’s nuclear program: Iran is a mortal threat to Israel, the United States, and indeed the entire civilized world. We should not be involved in negotiations with a nation that has declared its murderous intentions against America and her allies. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the world as we know it will be forever altered as a blanket of death will descend. We must destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon before it is too late. And the clock is running down. Quickly.

Address the malevolent influence of the Muslim Brotherhood: It is critical that we address how deeply the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated our government. We must designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, remove members of the Muslim Brotherhood from government positions, and shut down all Muslim Brotherhood front groups. We cannot survive if the enemy is not only attacking from without, but also from within (per their stated plan). Terrorists have no place on American soil, no less within our government. Identify them, arrest them where appropriate, and send the rest packing.

Stop construction of mosques and shut down most of those already built: Mosques are popping up all across America, with a 75% increase in new construction since 9/11. There are now well over 2,000 mosques in America (some of them “mega mosques”) with no end in sight. Two separate studiesdocument that 80% of mosques in the United States preach jihad. That number is staggering. The situation is intolerable. It pushes the limit of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. A nation cannot endure direct threats against it if it hopes to survive.

Shut down Islamic schools and get Islam out of public school classrooms: We cannot allow Islamic schools to indoctrinate the next generation of Muslim Americans, where students are taught Islamic dominance, forced conversions, death to non-believers, and the destruction of Israel. This is not a reflection of American values and serves as a direct threat to our future. If Muslim Americans want their children to attend such schools, the family should relocate to an Islamic country. We must also remove Islamic propaganda from our public schools, private schools, college and universities. And while we’re on the subject, Muslim colleges are blossoming. The most prominent (Zaytuna College) opened five years ago in Berkeley, California. But there have been others, including the Islamic Online University. At the very least, these institutions must be monitored.

Shut down American jihadist training compounds: We cannot tolerate Muslim enclaves in America where jihadist training is taught. Muslims of America have training compounds scattered throughout the country poised to inflict violence on a massive scale. This cannot stand. America is a nation that is free, not a nation that is stupid. “Anything goes” is not our founding principle. It is sheer insanity to tolerate people and organizations that train jihadists to attack Americans. Plus, last I checked, it’s against the law. We know where thesecompounds are. We must shut them down. Immediately.

Address prisons as breading grounds for Muslim converts: Prisons have become breeding grounds for Islamic converts and jihadist indoctrination. We must block the outside influence from Saudi Arabia and terror states, ensure those in the prison power structure become educated about Islam, and involve subject matter experts to help vet and monitor Muslim chaplains. No one — imams or prisoners — must be allowed to engage in violent rhetoric or activity, Muslim prison gangs must be broken apart, and perks that Muslim prisoners alone get must be stripped away.

Stop immigration from Islamic countries: As seen throughout Europe, it doesn’t take a lot of Muslims to wreak havoc on a nation. To help ensure we don’t wind up like Europe, we must halt all immigration from Islamic countries. The risks are simply too high. No nation has an obligation to allow immigration from any and all countries. And in the case of immigration from Islamic countries, it is impossible to fully vet Muslim immigrants for the following reasons: (1) We cannot know who has an agenda to impose Sharia law (and statsshow most support it). (2) We need to recognize that increasing numbers of Muslims who seem like regular folks are morphing into jihadists. (3) We must understand the role that taqiyya (sanctioned deception) plays in any vetting process. Islam is not compatible with Western values. It is not compatible with Judeo/Christian values. It is not compatible with liberty and freedom. It’s illogical to import people from cultures where some, many, or most individuals hate America and want to destroy everything we stand for. (When considering this issue, one should also keep in mind the 3 stages of jihad.)

Stop moral equivalence: All cultures are not the same. All ideas are not the same. All religions are not the same. Stop speaking as if they are. Islam is the 21st century Nazism. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “We’ve seen this before. There’s a master race; Now there’s a master faith.” Human beings have the ability to discern. Let’s start using this God-given gift. Western cultures are better than Islamic cultures. The idea of liberty is better than the idea of oppression. Values of love and life trump those of darkness, death, and destruction. Everything is not the same. Spread the word.

Ban the burqa and niqab: A person’s face must be exposed for all the obvious reasons. In addition, swaths of fabric draped over and around one’s body mask the human form and can also hide weapons. We’ve already had criminals exploit burqas in order to commit crimes. This sort of identity-hiding garb has no place in a modern, Western society. If a Muslim insists on wearing a burqa I suggest she move to any one of the dozens of Muslim countries where such attire is welcome, if not required. It’s not how we do things in the United States and we shouldn’t start. Cultures are different. Values are different. The United States, thank God, is not an Islamic nation. And we shouldn’t slide any further down the path of embracing Islamic values (such as they are) and norms. Including Islamic dress codes.

Allow people who want to join terror groups overseas to leave the country and ensure it’s a one-way ticket: When we become aware of persons planning to travel overseas to join ISIS or any other terror organization, we should not stop them. There is no reason to have such individuals among us. We should let them go, then slam the door behind them so they can never return: revoke their passport, visa, and U.S. citizenship. They must not be allowed to engage in this treasonous act without consequence (as is currently the case).

Secure the border: The United States must secure its borders so that, among other things, we don’t leave ourselves open to terrorists coming across. It defies common sense and sound national security to have open borders. The border must be secured.

Achieve energy independence: We must break our reliance on oil from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries that are run by dictators who use their power and influence to undermine our nation. There is no reason this great nation cannot become energy independent if we set about to achieve that goal. We have the resources. Now we must find the will.

Stop supporting terror: We must stop all funds that go to the Palestinian Authority. We must investigate Turkey and Qatar as state sponsors of terror and reassess our ties with these nations. We should suspend funding for the UN Human Rights Commission.

Become citizen activists: This battle must be fought on all fronts by everyone. Leftists might be permanent goners, but there are a lot of folks who are simply uninformed. Get involved and speak out. Be savvy about the best way to approach others. Don’t overwhelm. Choose your focus, your words, and your support materials carefully. Here are a few ideas:

Educate others about the Koran: This is critical. Islam is a totalitarian ideology at its core and we must tell it like it is when we speak about it. Educate yourself. Then educate others. Robert Spencer has two excellent books that I highly recommend if you haven’t read them already: The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

Educate others about the 3 stages of jihad: Islam has a methodical method to the bloody madness. Part of that method involves how to advance jihad in three stages to reach its most bellicose form. David Wood of Answering Muslims has an excellent video on the subject, here.

Support people and organizations that are on the front lines of this battle: There are many brave patriots working tirelessly to wake people up to the threat of Islam. They are a great resource and they also need our support. For blogs that focus exclusively on Islam, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among countless examples. See here and here for political action organizations focused exclusively on Islam. (Remember, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. JoiningAct for America, for example, can help provide focus.) For legal centers on the front lines of this battle, see here and here.

Reach out to others in your place of worship: Churches and synagogues should be leading voices in this battle. Sadly, they’re not. “Interfaith dialogue” has become all the rage as many churches and synagogues enable the enemy. In addition, many churches have joined the BDS movement against Israel — a nation on the bleeding edge of the fight against jihad. We must shift this dangerous course. (When enlightening members at your place of worship, theChristian Action Network might be a resource for some that is particularly resonant.)

Know what’s going on in your community: In addition to the construction ofnew mosques, there are myriad ways that creeping Sharia creeps. Stay on top of what’s going on in your community and take action. See here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, and here for a snapshot among an endless battery of examples that are reminders of how vigilant we must be.

Stay on top of what is going on in schools: Whether you have children in school or not, it behooves all of us to know what’s going on in the school system. Lord knows, CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups are campaigning, lobbying, applying pressure, and in some cases, suing to make sure Islam marches through the halls of our public and private schools (as well as colleges and universities). We will all pay a price for the next generation’s brainwashing if we don’t address it. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here, and here among countless examples.

Let your elected officials know where you stand and what you expect from them: Most of them are clueless. At best. They need to be educated. Who’s going to educate them? That would be us. We cannot, for example, ever again have an imam lead a prayer in Congress. Not. ever. again.

Contact the media: Speak out about biased and erroneous coverage of Islam, Sharia, and terror. Urge them to stop inviting guests who are members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Educate them about this issue.

Be creative and take initiative: Every day, whether on an international, national scale, or local level, the West is increasingly in the grip of Islamic law. Find ways to speak the truth and educate the public. Here’s an inspiring story: A group of concerned citizens formed an organization called the Counter Jihad Coalition. They created brochures on Islam and, armed with knowledge and these materials, they stand in a public square (in this case, 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California) and educate others. To read more about them and hear an interview, see here.

And: The Counter Jihad Report has compiled a comprehensive list of things citizens can do. Each item on the list links to a page with more detail on the particular area of interest. There are also excellent suggestions on the best ways to approach people. I highly recommend AT readers visit this page where you can explore and find one or two things to act on, here.

In closing, I would like to say that the current state of affairs with respect to our nation’s retreat is unsustainable. We either fight with everything we have, or we will be undone. The terrifying command to “convert or die” will not be a savage reality forced upon people in other nations. It will be bellowed through this land. And while many of us feel overwhelmed with our time and energy stretched thin, please consider that if we don’t take this on now, an inconceivable darkness will envelope our lives that will silence our voices — if not our beating hearts — on this, and every single thing.

No one will be immune to the evil that is coming. Democrats, Republicans and Independents; patriots and dhimmis; men, women, and children; the young, the old and everyone in between; rich and poor; Christians, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists; black, brown, and white; the educated and uneducated; public servants and private sector employees; doctors, teachers, roofers, truck drivers, lawyers, veterinarians, CEO’s, cooks, plumbers, dog walkers; as well as dogs.

America is the ultimate target of this evil. We either fight now, or face the unthinkable later. And later is much sooner than we think.

December 23, 2014

Micheal Brown, of Ferguson MO, in action

Filed under: Historical context, Law Enforcement, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:56 pm

a clip of the gentle giant Michael Brown of Ferguson fame.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=062_1418174243

December 16, 2014

Garner Death Facts, by Bryan Fischer [nc]

Filed under: Education, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:36 pm

Almost No Truth in Media Reports on Garner Death

By Bryan Fischer, American Family Association

It turns out that almost everything bleated out by the race-mongers and the low-information media about the Eric Garner tragedy has turned out to be wrong.

Eric Garner, a 43-year-old father of six, is dead. This is a tragedy, regardless of the circumstances. We rightly mourn with his wife and children. They will never see their husband and father again, and that should break everyone’s heart.

When we witness a gut-rending tragedy like this, we want to know ! who is responsible. Who is to blame for depriving this family of its husband and father? As the facts emerge, it becomes increasingly clear that, as tragic as this situation is, in the end the culpability for Eric Garner’s death rests with… Eric Garner.

To put it as simply as possible, if Mr. Garner had not broken the law and then resisted arrest, he would be alive today.

While protesters are trying to make this about race, it must be noted that the police showed up in response to complaints from black business owners. The arrest was ordered by a black officer, and the arrest itself was supervised by a black officer, a female sergeant.

A crackdown on the sale of illegal, untaxed cigarettes – called “loosies” since they are sold in singles rather than in packs – had been ordered just days before Garner’s arrest by the highest ranking black police officer in the NYPD, Philip Banks.

So a black officer ordered the crackdown, black business owners called for the arrest, a black officer ordered the arrest, and a black officer supervised the arrest itself. It’s also worth noting that the 23-member grand jury which refused to indict the arresting officer included nine non-white members. Ask yourself how many of those facts you have heard from any member of the race-obsessed, low-information media.

Garner had been arrested 31 times, and eight of those had been for selling loosies. His rap sheet goes back decades and includes arrests for assault and grand larceny.

At the time of his death, Garner was out on bail after being charged with multiple offenses, including illegal sale of cigarettes, marijuana possession, false impersonation and driving without a license.

So he certainly knew the law, knew he was in violation, and knew doing it again would likely lead to his arrest, a drill he’d been through dozens of times before.

There were 228,000 misdemeanor arrests in New York City in 2013, the last year for which figures are available. All of them put together led to precisely zero deaths.

Garner, all six-foot, three inches and 350 pounds of him, clearly resisted arrest, swatting away the arresting officer’s hands while loudly exclaiming, “Don’t touch me!” After he was taken to the ground, he growled, “This ends here!” That could be taken any number of ways, but in the heat of the moment it certainly could be read reasonably as a declaration that he was going to fight arrest until he was subdued by compelling force.

The patrolman who wrestled Garner to the ground, Daniel Pantaleo, did it by the book, using a takedown maneuver every policeman is taught at the academy. He did not, in fact, use a chokehold, which is defined by the NYPD as “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.” Now Garner was clearly able to breathe, since that’s the only way he could repeatedly say, “I can’t breathe.”

The autopsy explicitly declares that there was no injury to Garner’s windpipe or to his neck bones. This was a wrestler’s headlock, not a ch! okehold. (As a sidenote, chokeholds, while contrary to police policy, are not in fact illegal in the state of New York when an officer uses one to restrain a resisting subject. They are not even illegal in New York City, at the insistence of liberal mayor Bill DeBlasio.) Patrolman Pantaleo was not indicted for the simple reason that he did nothing wrong.

Garner’s death likely should be attributed to the fact that he himself suffered from severe asthma, something the arresting officers had no reason to know. According to Garner’s friends, his asthma was severe enough that he was forced to quit his job as horticulturist for the city. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk so much as a city block without having to stop to rest. Garner “couldn’t breathe” because of his asthma, not because of a chokehold.

In addition, he suffered from heart disease, advanced diabetes, hypertension, obesity and sleep apnea. Contrary to public perception, he did not die on site, nor did he die of asphyxiation. He suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance and was declared dead about an hour later at the hospital.

So it turns out that almost everything bleated out by the race-mongers and the low-information media has turned out to be wrong. As the wisest man who ever lived wrote 3,000 years ago, “The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).

Eric Garner and Michael Brown both fought the law, and the law won. In the end, they have no one to blame but themselves.

New York Post columnist Bob McMcanus concluded his column on Eric Garner this way:

“There are many New Yorkers – politicians, activists, trial lawyers, all the usual suspects – who will now seek to profit from a tragedy that wouldn’t have happened had Eric Garner made a different decision.

“He was a victim of himself. It’s just that simple.”

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. He hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

December 10, 2014

Bill Whittle on the Real Race War, from Capt. John [nc]

Filed under: Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:45 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 4:14 AM

By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to listen to Bill Whittle, as he reveals the truth about the “Real Race War” that has been going on for 6 years. The race riots that erupted in Ferguson, Missouri were instigated by progressive and communist demonstrators who were bussed into Ferguson from New York. The lawless street demonstrations were not spontaneous, they were premeditated, and initiated to inflict chaos, uncertainty, and danger. The Street demonstrations were right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook; and are criminal activities designed to destroy everything in their paths, especially the “truth.”

The organizations and individuals who have been using opposition to the two Grand Jury decisions, to try to dismantle the nations legal cultural foundation and the authority of local police forces, are: the New Black Panther Party, the Weatherman Underground, SIEU, The Communist Party USA, the Black Guerilla Family, Amnesty International, the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Valerie Jaret, disciples of Saul Alinsky employed in the Obama administration, and many of George Soros funded leftist & Marxist organizations (“This Stops Today” ,“The Unified Committee For Police Reform”, ”Black Lives Matter“, “Operation Ferguson”. “We Copwatch”, etc.).

One of the goals of the progressives and communists is to employ lawless street demonstrations, similar to those often seen in European civil strife, to overload the local police forces & courts, and to indefinitely continue prolonged racial conflict (the current street demonstrations began in August). The end goal is to drastically change the law and order systems of the Republic, make local police forces less effective, and change the perception of criminal destructive street demonstrations to make them an acceptable political act with no consequences to the demonstrators. The lawless street demonstrations are also providing cover and taking attention away from (1) the illegal release of 16 very dangerous terrorist from Gitmo (Obama has now designated those terrorists refugees), and (2) Obama’s violation of Federal Immigration Laws & the US Constitution when he authorized the issuance of social security numbers and work permits to 5 million illegal aliens.

Ferguson and the Real Race War

This racial divide has been perpetrated for 6 years by the progressives and organizations listed above, and is being coordinated by the Saul Alinsky disciples in the Obama administration. The progressives and communists are not trying to achieve justice by their criminal behavior, they are trying to dismantle the law and order culture of the nation. Although Obama has a unique historic opportunity to defuse the on-going racial strife, as Martin Luther King once did, he does not intend to do so, or he would have condemned the criminal street activities and named the organizations instigating racial strife during a major address to the nation from the Oval Office. It has been reprehensible that Obama has taken sides to further divide the country along racial lines—he and Holder are only criticizing the police and the courts, not the criminal activities in minority neighborhoods where police are called by residents to enter those neighborhoods to quell criminal acts.

Obama and Holder should explain to the minority communities, that their perception of black deaths at the hands of Police Officers are wrong. It is a fact that 99.3% of the 11,000 daily encounters American citizens have with Police Officers are non-fatal encounters—0.7% of all annual arrests by police officers escalate into the requirement to employ of deadly force, often because criminals are attacking Police Officers or physically resisting arrest. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, an average of 1.2 million crimes occur every year, and in the last decade there were 58,261 assaults on Law Enforcement Officers, and since 1791, there have been over 20,000 Law Officers killed in the line of duty. The FBI reported that there were 404 incidents of justifiable homicide by US Law Enforcement Officers last year, 123 of them were with black Americans, out of a population of 43 million blacks, while in the same year blacks killed over 4000 other blacks in their communities. Annually, 150 US Law Enforcement Officers are killed in the line of duty (more than justifiable homicides of blacks).

The focus of the demonstrations has been against two Grand Jury decisions which found two white Police Officer not guilty in the death of two black criminals. The conflicts occurred when two white Police Officers tried to arrest two known black criminals; both men physically resisted arrest in the street. Because both men failed to heed the lawful orders of the Police Officers and physically resisted repeated attempts to arrest them, what could have been a peaceful arrest and the release of both known criminals after they were booked at the police station, the attempted arrests escalated into deadly force encounters with Police Officers.

One black criminal in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, was high on drugs, had robbed a convenience store, then roughed up the proprietor of the convenience store, when a Police Officer was dispatched to deal with the robbery brown beat him in his car, then Brown tried to take the Police Officer’s gun, Brown refused to obey repeated lawful orders issued by the Police Officer, Brown then charged the officer a second time, and was shot to death. It was not a racial motivated event; 5 black witnesses stated Brown charged the Police Officer and did not raise both hands as if he were surrendering.

The other criminal, Eric Garner, had 31 previous arrests over a 30 year period. Garner was a very large man who towered over the 5 police officers who were called in by merchants on Staten Island, New York; they wanted the police to stop Garner from selling individual cigarettes outside their stores where the merchants only sold cigarettes by the pack. Garner refused to obey repeated lawful orders by the Police Officers to cease & desist so they could peacefully handcuff him, and Garner physically resisted repeated attempts by the 5 Police Officer’s to arrest him. The standoff escalated into a deadly force incident, when one officer tried to do a take down around Garner’s neck, so he could be finally handcuffed; Garner said he couldn’t breathe and died at the scene. If a Taser had been employed against a very large man, instead of employing a take-down hold, the results of the second arrest might have turned out differently. There has been no proof that the arrest was racially motivated, and Garner’s wife and daughter made public comments to that effect.

In a one way approach to both incidents, Obama and Holder have stated that the police have to be retrained. What they should be saying is that the youth in minority neighborhoods should be made aware that if a Police Officer states he intends to affect an arrest, the place to fight the charge is not in a physical confrontation in the street with the Police Officer, the place to fight what may be viewed as an unwarranted arrest is in the courts with the aid of an public defender. Obama and Holder should be calling for indoctrination of minority youth who lack male supervision in their single family homes. The youth should be informed that injuries and deaths occur between civilians and Police Officers, for the most part, not because Police Officers have a power problem, but because civilians are breaking the law.

Unfortunately, until there is not a balanced approach to the racial conflict, the conflict will not end. Unless Obama and Holder criticize the lawlessness and the high crime in minority neighborhoods, that nervous police officers are forced to enter, when they are called by residents because of shootings/robberies/drug deals/murders/domestic disputes, the racial strife and deadly attacks against whites and police officers will continue. It has been difficult to promote racial healing and harmony while Obama and Holder continue to promote racial division in their continuing attack on Police Officers and Grand Juries. The violent street demonstrations in Ferguson escalated into the firebombing of businesses, torching of automobiles, burning of American Flags, and have resulted into repeated beatings and the murder of innocent white men and women by black assailants.

On December 6th, a 26-year-old white Bosnian woman was dragged out of her car early in the morning by three black thugs brandishing a gun; they broke here windshield with a crow bar, threw her on the ground and kicked her in the same South St Louis neighborhood where, last week, a white Bosnian man, Semir Begic, was bludgeoned to death with hammers by four black assailants. The Bosnian man had stopped his car because it was being repeatedly hit with hammers; when he exited his vehicle to determine why they were damaging his car, he was beaten to death with those hammers by the four black assailants. Police are investigating the attacks as possible hate crimes, because the 26 year old female victim who was beaten on December 6th said the three black assailants beating her asked her if she was also a Bosnian during their attack. In the same vicinity of Ferguson, Seldon Dzananovic, a white man aged 24, was attacked while walking down the street by black teens wilding hammers; he was able to fight them off while running away from them. Also in Ferguson, an elderly white man on his way to his car, was beaten with the oxygen tank he needs to help him breathe, by a black mob, then his car was stolen, and he was run over with his car. .

The “first step” to create havoc in the streets by progressives, in a number of premeditated lawless steps, was to promote continued lawless and prolonged street demonstrations. The “second more dangerous step”, is to spread a number of lies to the demonstrators; that there is an epidemic of Police Officer brutality against blacks, that the flawed justice system in the nation doesn’t protect blacks, and that the US Justice system can’t be trusted or obeyed any longer. This “second step” has been well-orchestrated to destabilize law and order throughout the Republic, and the leaders of the demonstrations are calling for violence against Police Officers. The blatant lie now being promoted by Saul Alinsky progressives in the streets is that Police Officers are now hunting down and killing black men In response, the Black Guerrilla Family is now gunning for off duty police officers in New York; all off duty New York Police Officers have been cautioned to carry their weapons at all times, wear their bullet proof vests, and carry extra magazines for their weapons.

Since August, the Police Force in Ferguson and the Missouri State Police have found it virtually impossible to engage in civil discussions, or explain their crowd control methods to leaders in the minority community. They Police Chief has been refuting claims that Police Officers are trying to kill black men, but Holder continues in flame the situation and has threaten the police force in Ferguson. The progressive leaders led by Al Sharpton do not want to defuse the situation and refuse to tell their followers that the police will support and protect peaceful demonstrations. If there were racial harmony, there would be no need for the power bases of leaders like Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, and other progressives, and there would be no need for their federal funding.

The progressives with the help of the Obama administration, have now moved the conflict to a “third step” in their process of destabilizing law and order in the Republic. The “third step” is to try to rein in local Police Power and effect national control over local police forces, so the nation will only be left with little more than many local police forces, controlled by a central federal police task force. The goal is to change the current tried and true civilian control of local police forces by local elected officials, to instead to be effectively controlled by the federal government. The Obama administration, has begun its campaign to try to eliminate the localized servant-to-the-people-type police departments that currently exist in communities throughout the nation, and will try to have strings attached to the issuance of military surplus equipment, to the funding for body cameras for individual Police Officers, and the federal funding for local police forces. The attempt by Holder to establish specific criteria for local police departments has already begun; Holder has already announced that he intends to prevent local police forces from profiling potential criminals & their activity, he has already announced that local police forces must be re-trained using new restrictive federal standards, and he plans to make it an infraction to detain & turn over illegal aliens to ICE. The strings attached to federal support would require local police forces to submit reports on how they are complying with new federal police standards, in order to continue receive federal funding, and to avoid the risk of being charged by the Justice Department with violating new federal policing standards. Congress must prevent the Obama administration’s proposed policies to take the control of local police forces from taking effect

The release of dangerous terrorist from Gitmo, who will go back to killing US military personnel, have been kept off the front pages of news, because the racial street demonstrations have been kept alive by the left of center liberal media establishment. The fact that Obama employed an unlawful Executive Order to violate Federal Immigration Laws, in order to issue work permits and social security numbers to 5 million illegal aliens is also being kept out of the news by the continuing news coverage of racial street demonstrations. Obama’s Immigration Executive Order will permit 5 million illegally aliens to use their new work permits and social security numbers to obtain drivers licenses. The new drivers licenses will help the illegal aliens perpetuate massive voter fraud, since they will be able to show their drivers licenses and social security numbers in order to illegally register to vote in 2016.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House is still not using the power of the purse to put a stop to the Obama administration’s intent to destabilize law and order in the Republic, to try to make criminal behavior in the streets an acceptable political act, to oppose the violation of Federal Immigration Laws, and to oppose the release of dangerous terrorist from Gitmo? The American citizens who elected the new members of Congress watched today as the Speaker of the House approve a $1.2 trillion budget thru September 2015, that will not even slow down the occupant of the Oval Office from his repeated violations of the US Constitution and Federal Immigration Laws. The Republican leadership could have reined Obama in by only funding the government with a continuing resolution thru February 2015—not the inept current agreement entered into by the Speaker of the House with Senator Reid to fund the government thru September 2015 with a continuing resolution. Providing a continuing resolution thru September 2015 will definitely fund the issuance of Social Security numbers and work permits for 5 million illegal aliens. That is not what the American people just voted for, and they should let their Congressional representatives know it.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

Hillary’s Bad Politics and Worse Ideas, Bruce S. Thornton [nc]

Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:16 pm

Hillary’s Bad Politics and Worse Ideas
December 10, 2014 7:15 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine
Photo via FrontPage Magazine

Photo via FrontPage Magazine

Once again Hillary Clinton has given the Republicans some suicidal soundbites they should stash away for 2016 in the likely event she is the Democratic candidate for president. A review of some of her recent statements reveals that Clinton is not just entitled, money-grubbing, unlikeable, unpleasant, and unaccomplished. Nor do they just show that she is a political dunce who has obviously learned nothing from her politically brilliant husband. More seriously, they expose her commitment to failed ideas and dangerous delusions.

First there was the “What difference at this point does it make!” she practically shrieked to Senator Ron Johnson during a January 2013 hearing on the Benghazi debacle that unfolded on September 11, 2012. Clinton had told the grieving parents of the victims during the transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force base that they died because of “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Four Americans, including an ambassador, had been murdered on her watch, but she refused to explain to the Senate why she blamed the hapless maker of a YouTube video, who spent a year in jail.

This evasion is significant, for within hours of the attack it was clear that it had been a carefully coordinated, well-planned assault, not the spontaneous reaction to a video. Soon it also became known that ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested increased security, but had been denied by officials in the State and Defense Departments. As Secretary of State, Clinton was ultimately responsible for those decisions made by State, as well as for the astonishing failure to notice the escalating violence in the months before the attacks, or the significance of the anniversary of 9/11, or the immediate evidence that the attack was not a spontaneous reaction to a video that had been on YouTube for weeks.

But in her response to all this evidence of negligence and post facto political spin, all she could do was indignantly declare that all these failures were irrelevant. In 2016, this footage of the arm-waving, shrill Clinton transparently trying to misdirect the Senators and the citizens from her patent incompetence should be played and replayed in political ads.

Next came the more recent revelation of her embarrassing economic ignorance, shameless pandering to her left-wing base. At a campaign event in October, attended also by lefty heartthrob Elizabeth Warren, Clinton lectured, “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Somehow Clinton missed the 1980s, when economic and tax policies that encouraged business investment led to spectacular growth. As the Laffer Center explains,

“According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years. This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it. In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short. In fact, throughout American history, the nation’s economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time. But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.”

Compare that to the performance of Obama’s economic policies over the last 6 years, when intrusive regulatory regimes like Dodd-Frank and a runaway EPA, Obamacare’s highjacking of the health-care industry, the trillion-dollar stimulus squandered on crony socialist projects like “green energy,” and the anti-business rhetoric of Obama’s “you didn’t build that,” have all led to sluggish economic growth, metastasizing debt, declining income for the middle class, an explosion in entitlement spending, and nearly 20 million unemployed and under-employed.

Contrary to Clinton’s Keynesian superstitions and dirigiste magical thinking, what has “failed spectacularly” has been progressive economic policies that think parasitic politicians and unaccountable government bureaucrats can manage a complex, dynamic economic system better than a free market that incentivizes people to actually build businesses that create jobs and increase wealth. And just as spectacularly incompetent is Hillary’s political tin ear that lets her make such a statement just to curry favor with a narrow base of anti-capitalist fundamentalists, when she surely must know that come the 2016 presidential election, those words will be pinned to the Obama albatross sure to be hanging around her neck.

Finally, there is the bizarre statement at Georgetown last week about improving our foreign policy with what she called “smart power”: “Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.” She then added a banal cliché of modern feminism, suggesting that the lack of women negotiators and signatories was responsible for the failure of many peace treaties. After all, women are naturally more empathetic and sensitive to others’ “point of view,” one of those Victorian stereotypes that feminists used to tell us were sexist insults.

These comments embody everything that is wrong with a modern foreign policy based on Kantian delusions about a global “harmony of interests,” the notion that all peoples are just like us and want all the same goods such as peace, prosperity, political freedom, and respect for human rights. If they behave differently, it’s because they just don’t know these goods are in their best interests, or they have been traumatized by history, particularly the depredations of Western colonialism, imperialism, and capitalist exploitation, which are the causes of their violent aggression and brutality. Thus if we “understand” and “empathize” with the roots of our enemies’ behavior, they will see the light and abandon aggression and tyranny.

This is the same delusion that Obama based his foreign policy on, as evidenced by his infamous “apology tour,” on which he donned the hair shirt of Western sin and groveled before foreign audiences. It’s the application to foreign affairs of the two-bit psychologizing that dominates the public schools, where boosting self-esteem and “empathizing” with punks and bullies are the favored mechanisms for teaching and civilizing young people. It utterly lacks any understanding of the tragic constants of human nature and the wisdom accumulated by the human race since the ancient Greeks and Hebrews––that, as Machiavelli said, “all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.”

For all her alleged foreign policy toughness, Clinton’s philosophy embodies the bad utopian ideals that have enabled much of the disorder afflicting the world since their spectacular failure in preventing World War I. We hear the same delusions in the words of Neville Chamberlain after Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, when he told the House of Commons, “We should take any and every opportunity to try to remove any genuine and legitimate grievance that may exist,” and then imagined telling Hitler, “The best thing you can do is to tell us exactly what you want for your Sudeten Deutsch.” Such blind “empathy” and “understanding” and “respect” for Germany’s “grievances,” of course, in 6 months culminated in the debacle of Munich and the devastating sequel of World War II.

Contrary to Clinton and Obama, enemies like Vladimir Putin, ISIS, Bashar al Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Xi Jinping are not the global village’s wayward teenagers “acting out” because they don’t know their own best interests and suffer from insufficient self-esteem and “respect.” They are hard, brutal men, vicious and ruthless, who know exactly what they want, and who possess beliefs alien to Western ideals like liberal democracy, human rights, tolerance, and a preference for diplomatic words and “mutual understanding and respect.” In their “perspective” and “point of view,” violence is a tool of international relations, and a legitimate instrument for achieving their aims and interests. And they have nothing but contempt for our schoolmarmish empathy and respect, which they correctly interpret as civilizational weakness and a failure of morale. All they respect is force. That’s the most important truth we need to “understand.”

These 3 statements reveal political beliefs and character flaws that should automatically disqualify Hillary Clinton from being president. And even if we attribute them to rank ambition and venal opportunism rather than sincere belief, their sheer political stupidity and lack of prudence bespeak a mind and character unfit for leading the most powerful country on the planet.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/hillarys-bad-politics-and-worse-ideas/

Copyright © 2014 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

December 9, 2014

The Economist on Advertising Euphemisms [c]

Filed under: Econonics, Education, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:14 pm

Johnson: Euphemism
Everyone does it
Dec 5th 2014, 14:26 by R.L.G. | BERLIN

Timekeeper

THE language of marketing usually promises wonderful things: whiter whites, sex appeal, adventure, excitement, a whole new you, just do it, I’m lovin’ it, have it your way, think different… Whether or not a shoe or a tablet computer can really transform our lives, the slogans briefly make us think they can.

But other marketers and advertisers have to be cleverer still—for they sell products inherently connected with unpleasant topics. A colleague and former defence correspondent for The Economist describes a tour of a French arms factory. His guide, showing off a certain item, touted it as “highly efficient in the anti-personnel function”. In other words, very good at killing people.

Many if not most of our products offer not some supplemental happiness, but release from some unpleasantness. The many inconveniences that plague the human body alone keep a large industry of product-makers in profit, and an equally large number of marketing-copy writers busy talking around them.

The ways marketers manage to get their point across without mentioning the unpleasantness in question offer a school of euphemism in miniature. One venerable strategy: speak not of the thing itself, but of a thing near the thing, letting the association do the work. This is how the toilet became the “bathroom” in American English; the “bathroom” at a petrol station will not have a bath, but the one at home does, and that is good enough. In much the same way, products like Danone’s Activia yogurt, are touted as helping “digestion”. Digestion is technically an earlier stage of the process in question. What Activia is really meant to do is better conveyed by the downward arrow on the yogurt’s label.

Feminine products get an extra dose of euphemism. In visual form, this means that those made for absorption are famously shown doing so soaking up pale blue fluid, and women riding horses or doing yoga. In words, it means talking not about the problem, but the desired outcome: “freshness”, “security”, “protection”. One brand, Kotex, decided to parody the typical evasiveness of such mealy-mouthed marketing in an advert—a brilliant idea, until American networks refused to air spots that mentioned where the product would be used. The word vagina was unacceptable on three big American networks, and even “down there”, a wink-wink workaround, was unacceptable for two. The spot is still pretty funny—but loses much of the punch it would have had in the original form.

Kimberly Clark, the makers of Kotex, lamely protested that American networks have no problem mentioning “erectile dysfunction”. But this just highlights another misdirection strategy: the use of long technical words for problems and touchy bits of the body. Johnson looked at how German and other cousin languages to English are shockingly frank about the body—Durchfall, or “fall-through”, is typically blunt; English-speakers, by contrast, resort to Greek for “flow-through”, or diarrhoea. This reflects a centuries-long habit of using the classical languages to guide our gaze away from the grubby reality. The Greco-Latin “Erectile dysfunction” is hardly direct; the word penis is never mentioned, and dysfunction is pretty highfalutin for something that simply isn’t working as it should.

And the technical-looking, Greco-Latin name offers up another avenue. These names are such a mouthful that it is natural to convert them into initialisms and acronyms: the companies that aim to treat it encourage you not to talk about erectile dysfunction, but ED, leading to a fixed catchphrase: “Ask your doctor about ED.” And those advertising to men are just as evasive with another, increasingly common problem, telling men to “ask your doctor about low T”, or low testosterone.

Some of this is just good old psychology: focus on the solution, and don’t dwell on the problem. But in too many other cases, failure even to mention the problem makes the sufferers of life’s ordinary ailments feel abnormal, or even that they should be ashamed. The language of advertising nudges broader social trends, making it hard for friends or parents and children to talk about life’s necessities. In some ways, children’s literature is rather more sensible than advertising for grown-ups: witness the English title of a popular Japanese children’s book, with the frank life lesson that “Everybody Poos”.

[Include words like diversity, multi-cultural, and pro-choice.]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.