Monday, July 21, 2014

Conservatism, Meritocracy, and the New Elite

Conservatism, Meritocracy, and the New Elite:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…
I would argue that this self-evident truth is actually only half true. Certainly, all men are entitled to equal human dignity and equal standing before the law, but it is also self-evidently untrue that all men are created equal in ability.

Two of the major features of modern American conservatism are an affinity for meritocracy and an antipathy toward the elite. Throughout most of human history these have been complementary attitudes, as elite status has been due more to hereditary privilege than to personal achievement or ability. American conservatism has a long history of positioning itself as the champion of the self-made man, and of wealth based on industriousness and productivity. This ideal is often contrasted against indolent manor-born elite whose social and economic status and right to rule are due not to ability or industry, but to the accident of birth. But what if this dichotomy ceased to hold true? How should conservatives feel about an entrenched elite which achieves its status based on merit?

Much is been made about Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart. Attention has tended to center on Murray’s identification of a new entrenched elite, increasingly hereditary, insular, and disconnected with the mainstream of American society. The fact of this increase in social stratification is important and certainly deserves the attention it has received. At the same time, an equally important issue raised by Murray’s work has been comparatively neglected: the fact that the rise of the new elite is the result of unprecedented levels of meritocracy in American society.

Very briefly, Murray’s explanation of the rise of elites rise is as follows:

In modern developed economies the economic value of human capital has risen to levels unprecedented in human civilization. Intelligence and education are the two greatest contributing factors to the development of human capital. Ever-increasing numbers of Americans are attending institutions of higher education and the American university system is highly effective in sorting for intelligence. Unlike a century ago, when social standing and/or affluence were the major predictive factors of admission to an elite university, admission to elite American educational institutions for the past two generations has been overwhelmingly a factor of intelligence and ability.

Intelligence is largely a factor of heredity. The child of two parents of above average intelligence is almost certain to be of above average intelligence himself, while the child of two imbeciles is overwhelmingly likely to continue the family tradition of imbecility. Throughout most of human history it was quite common for people of high intelligence to procreate with people of low intelligence, as people tend to pick their mate from among those with whom they interact and society was generally not segregated according to intelligence. The combined effect of mass participation in higher education and our system of higher education’s effectiveness at sorting for intelligence has profoundly altered the patterns of human interaction. Today, much more so than any time in the past, highly intelligent people of both sexes are attending elite universities and dominating the professions (finance, medicine, law, and academia) which both constitute the new elite and place a high value on intellectual ability. These people tend to find their mates among their highly intelligent new elite peers. Their offspring are overwhelmingly of high intelligence and, consequently, likely to join the ranks of the new elite themselves.

Thus, over the past several decades the American elite has become increasingly an elite not just in terms of social and economic standing but of intelligence and ability. This is not to say that there are no longer affluent dunces and impoverished geniuses (there certainly are), but it is an indisputable fact that economic status is unprecedentedly correlated with intellectual ability in postwar America. Nor is it to say that elite status is significantly less a factor of heredity than it has been in previous eras, but it is increasingly as much (if not more) a factor of inherited intellect as of inherited wealth.

So what is a conservative who has both an affinity for meritocracy and an antipathy toward elitism to make the new elite? It is common to hear conservatives extol the virtues of merit and ability and at the same time decry the fact that our society is governed by an Ivy League educated, insular elite, Rarely is it acknowledged that that elite obtained its status in large part due to its own merit.

It’s true that intelligence is not necessarily indicative of wisdom (Barack Obama is a good illustration of someone possessing the former trait, but not the latter), but increasingly it seems that a significant segment of the conservative base considers a degree from an elite university to be more a mark of Cain than a feather in one’s cap. I’m a huge fan of Scott Walker and I hope he runs for president, but that the fact that he’s a college dropout is considered by many conservatives to be one of his positive attributes seems to me to be a bit misguided.

I’d like to be clear that I’m not writing in defense of elitist snobbery. I’m not. I think the most pernicious aspect of the rise of the new meritocratic elite is that it has adopted the insularity and disdain for the common man which characterized aristocracies of the past. That said, I think the current strain of anti-elitism popular among the conservative base has gone a bit too far. Skepticism toward elite claims to a monopoly of knowledge or of entitlement to rule is a vital to the health of a republic, but that does not mean that we should make a virtue of mediocrity. I recently had a conversation with a conservative activist who was highly critical of Ted Cruz (yes Ted Cruz) on the grounds that he is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School and was thus a member of the oppressive elite. In support of his claim that an Ivy League education should be a disqualification for a conservative leader he cited the famous line about preferring to be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston than by the faculty of Harvard. He declined to attribute the quote to its origin: William F. Buckley, Jr. (St. John’s, Beaumont; the Millbrook School; Yale, Class of 1950, and a member of Skull and Bones).

The post Conservatism, Meritocracy, and the New Elite appeared first on Ricochet.

Try A Novel Solution To Highway Trust Fund Crisis: Cut Wasteful Spending Which Drains It!

Try A Novel Solution To Highway Trust Fund Crisis: Cut Wasteful Spending Which Drains It!: The solution to the HTF's funding gap is to cut spending by $14 billion. He urges lawmakers to end mass transit and other non-highway funding, as today, one-fourth of HTF spending goes towards non-highway purposes. Cutting transit aid, he projects, would encourage cities to privatize their transit systems...

The Incoherent Excuses for Hating Israel

The Incoherent Excuses for Hating Israel:

Featured Commentary
via FrontPage
Israel’s military operation to degrade Hamas’ ability to rain rockets down on Israeli cities has stirred up the usual noisy and nasty protests in Europe.

Of Course the White House Knew the Border Crisis Was Coming and Lied about It

Of Course the White House Knew the Border Crisis Was Coming and Lied about It:

WHY oh WHY is it such big news today that the White House was hiding data and knew about a huge spike in illegal immigrant families from Central America flooding the Texas-Mexico border over a year ago?

Apparently, not only did they know about it, but they even misrepresented the facts, too?

You mean…wait, you mean the government LIED?

The Daily Caller reported:

The data, which was dumped by the U.S. border patrol late Friday afternoon, shows that inflow of youths and children traveling without parents has doubled since 2013, to 57,525 in the nine months up to July 2014.

But the number of migrants who cross the border in so-called “family units” has spiked five-fold to 55,420, according to the border patrol’s data, which came out amid a storm of news about the shoot-down of a Malaysian aircraft in Ukraine…

In the Rio Grande area where most of the migrants are crossing the border, the number of so-called “unaccompanied children” was actually outnumbered by the inflow by adults, parents and children in “family units,” according to the data.
Well it certainly is a much different picture than the one the White House and many Congresspeople and Senators have tried to paint in the media recently, isn’t it?

YES. It is. Why?


In fact, if the government makes any official statement at all anymore, it’s sure to be replete with one or more of the following: lies, deceptions, disinformation, omissions, inaccuracies, willful misrepresentation and/or flagrant hyperbole.

These are the official norm. Have been for quite a while.

There is a well-established pattern here on (broken) record, and it’s getting hard to stomach media outlets who muster up the gumption to report on these occurrences as if it’s just such a complete shock that the government got caught, once again, L-Y-I-N-G.

Our government’s representatives lie so often these days, that the lies that come out immediately give people paying attention a painful sense of déjà vu — from past, strikingly similar lies.

In this instance, for example, Obama’s Domestic Policy Adviser Cecilia Muñoz actually went on the record with, “Nobody could have predicted the scale of the increase we saw this year,” according to the Washington Post.

Set the current data find, conveniently released while the nation’s eyes and ears were focused elsewhere, aside for a moment…

Really? No one? No one at all could have ever predicted it?

No one like, say, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was both National Security Council White House Aide and NSC Liaison to FEMA, who just so happened to author the REX 84 plan? Short for Readiness Exercise 1984, the plan led to the creation of FEMA camps nationwide which were created under the pretext that a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens might cross the Mexico-U.S. border.

Billions have gone into FEMA and into border patrol for this exact purpose…but no one expected it?

It’s like that one time Condoleeza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center…” just months after 9/11 happened, even though NORAD had been running those drills for that exact scenario, simulating terrorist hijacking and crashing jets into buildings, including the Twin Towers. In fact, on the morning of 9/11, no less than five drills and war games were being played out, including terrorists hijacking planes (using real planes) and planes crashing into buildings.

But I digress…

So Domestic Policy Adviser Muñoz, who by the way is former Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza, said “nobody could have predicted” the scale of the “sudden” immigration spike…

The Post went on to report,

But top officials at the White House and the State Department had been warned repeatedly of the potential for a further explosion in the number of migrant children since the crisis began escalating two years ago, according to former federal officials and others familiar with internal discussions. [emphasis added]
Warned repeatedly?

You mean like that one time that our U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and his team were sending dire warning cables to a multitude of Obama Administration agencies for over a year before the terrorist attack on the consulate (Al Qaeda terrorists, the same ones we funded to help overthrow Gaddafi and, somehow, the same ones that our government says caused 9/11) left Stevens and three other Americans dead…you mean like that kind of “warned repeatedly”?

How can these reporters continue to report on one lie after another like it’s the first lie and not a fat bag overflowing with lie after lie after lie?

America has only the vaguest semblance left of what are supposed to be the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The tree is dying, although saying the words “executive, legislative and judicial branches” sounds a lot more official than “lying liars who lie for money and power”.

Like in this instance, for example. So the White House knew about the immigration crisis for well over a year (never mind the detailed timelines which show that the Obama Administration has been willfully dismantling our immigration laws ever since they came into power)…

Shouldn’t that put a damper on Obama asking Congress to approve $3.7 billion in “emergency” spending (which is partially going to be used to build even more FEMA camps)?

Must not really be that much of an “emergency” if the White House knew it was coming for over a year, right? That’s more like someone standing on a train track screaming “Noooo” at an oncoming train that’s still an hour away, but failing to get off the tracks anyway.

And what of those camps Homeland Security paid Haliburton subsidiary KBR $385 million to build back in 2006? Estimates say that each of the 600 emergency centers could house up to 5,000 people, with a total capacity of at least 400,000…These camps are operational, but instead of using any of them for their supposed intended purpose, the government is directing border patrol to fly immigrants around and let them go, so we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to…what? That’s right.

Obama’s big immigration reform plan involves building more FEMA camps!

But we aren’t even using the ones we have! Unless…unless that’s not what those camps were for in the first place.

Surely that’s not the case. That would mean the government is a bunch of lying liars.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

The post Of Course the White House Knew the Border Crisis Was Coming and Lied about It appeared first on Freedom Outpost.

Britain Is Losing Freedom of Speech from Islamic Diversity

Britain Is Losing Freedom of Speech from Islamic Diversity:

Britain is the number one example that Muslim immigration crushes free speech, because the local headchoppers claim their tender feelings are hurt when Islam is described accurately.

In April, Paul Weston read a Winston Churchill quote about Islam to get himself arrested to show the weakened state of free speech in Britain today, and it worked.

Anything that criticizes Islam is verboten, probably because the authorities fear the riots that occur whenever Muslims residing in Europe get angry about something. For example, the Muslims in Paris were ticked off about Israel invading Gaza and proceeded to rip up the pavement on streets. A couple weeks ago, Muslims rioted in French cities shouting “France is ours!” after Algeria won in the World Cup. And so it goes in diverse Islamified Europe.

CBN’s Dale Hurd interviewed Paul Weston and others about the state of free speech in Great Britain, and the answers are not positive.

Obviously, admitting Muslims as immigrants is the worst mistake a nation can make.
Britain’s Lost Freedoms: ‘We’re Living in a Madhouse’, By Dale Hurd, CBN News, July 18, 2014
LONDON – America owes much of its freedom to its British heritage. But today, Britain is losing its freedom.
Many Americans were stunned when British authorities arrested Liberty Great Britain party leader Paul Weston in April for publicly reciting Winston Churchill’s criticism of Islam.
The calendar might say it’s 2014, but in Britain it’s starting to feel like George Orwell’s “1984″ because “Big Brother” has decided that certain things can no longer be said.
Arrested over Churchill
Weston quoted from Winston Churchill’s book, The River War, in which he wrote:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”
As a young officer, Churchill fought Muslim jihadists in Sudan and believed Islam was a dangerous religion.
Weston chose to publicly quote Churchill because he thought that in today’s politically correct Britain, comparing Islam to rabies–as Churchill did–would likely get him reported to police and arrested.
It did.
“I wanted to make the point that, if it’s really become so bad in this country that you can no longer quote the words of the greatest living Englishman, then we really need to look seriously at what we can still say in this country,” Weston said.
“We don’t have (America’s) First Amendment. And speech is rapidly becoming a no-go area if you talk about certain issues. We are living in an absolute madhouse in this country with our free speech laws at the moment,” he said.
‘You Can’t Say That’
In today’s Britain, pastors, street evangelists, and political activists all risk being hauled into police stations and either being arrested or warned for speaking out against Islam, immigration, or homosexuality.
British evangelical Pastor James McConnell was questioned by Belfast police for a possible hate crime after a controversial sermon. He spoke about the danger to Britain from radical Islam in which he said, “Islam is heathen. Islam is Satanic. Islam is a doctrine spawned in Hell.”
McConnell said he went to the police station voluntarily, and he also apologized. But should he have had to?
“He was expressing a view about a particular religion. You can’t have freedom of religion without the freedom to have religious views about particular religions,” George Igler, with the Discourse Institute, said of the McConnell case.
It’s clear that British pastors have to watch what they say.
Simon Calvert, with The Christian Institute, a legal defense organization, assured CBN News that pastors are still able to preach the whole Bible without being arrested. But he still had some concerns to add.
“There have been some distinct problems in recent years. We have seen a number of cases, typically involving street preachers, of people being told by the police, effectively, ‘You can’t say that,’” Calvert said.
Law Against Insults
American street evangelist Tony Miano was arrested in Scotland earlier this year for allegedly using ‘offensive’ language while preaching against sexual immorality.
Police eventually dropped the charges against Miano. Police also dropped the charges against Weston.
But arrests and warnings still have what legal experts call “a chilling effect” on free speech.
Calvert said the speech situation in Britain improved greatly this year with the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, in which insulting someone could be a criminal offense.
He said the law is “every bit as crazy as it sounds. And that law against insults was being used to clamp down on street preachers preaching the gospel.”
The law against “insult” was removed from Section 5, but other laws against offending people remain.
“We’ve made such a big deal out of causing offense,” said Anne Marie Waters, a UKIP candidate and head of the website, Shariawatch UK.
“What if you deserve to be offended? Self-censorship is a big problem in Britain. People are afraid to speak. So, in that respect, freedom of speech has been seriously compromised. (Britons are) afraid to say what they think,” Waters said.
Britain ‘Free’ or No?
The experts we interviewed disagreed over whether Britain still has “free speech.”
Calvert said it does. However, Weston and Igler agree that when important political and religious speech is blocked, there is no free speech.
“We’re ultimately moving toward a situation where, necessarily, the state will have to tell us what kinds of opinions are acceptable and what opinions are not,” Igler said.
Weston said he will continue to test Britain’s speech laws, to show that speech is longer free.
“You are not going to shut me up. I am going to say it,” he said. “If you put me in prison, fine. That’s how bad it is now.”

The fight for our rights, and against Democrats’ deliberate deception, is now

The fight for our rights, and against Democrats’ deliberate deception, is now: The Founders of this nation had to use bombs, bullets and bayonets to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Today, we must use our brains, ballots and “boots on the ground” to maintain those rights.

How to destroy the U.S., one step at a time

How to destroy the U.S., one step at a time: One of our distinguished Massachusetts U.S. senators, Daniel Webster, once said, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government.” While people are more concerned with the latest binge-worthy television show or the newest game on their iPad, are they missing the destruction of the United States? How would you do it from within? The first step would be to jeopardize the country’s financial stability. Increasing the national debt by $7 trillion is a good starting...

A Question for Israel’s Critics

A Question for Israel’s Critics:

In light of the murderous actions and intentions of Hamas, what would you like Israel to do?

I wholeheartedly concur that the death of even one unarmed civilian is tragic, let alone the death of scores or of hundreds. And I affirm without hesitation that Arab blood is as precious as Jewish blood.

That being said, since Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction, since Hamas initiated the recent hostilities, since Hamas rejected cease fire offers, since Hamas is using civilians, including women and children, as human shields, and since Hamas is actively attempting to infiltrate Israel and murder, kidnap, and maim its people, what do you suggest that Israel does?

Would you prefer that Israel simply turned the other cheek and let its people be slaughtered?

Would you rather that Israel’s Iron Dome defense system was not as successful, so that an occasional missile landed in a heavily populated area and wiped out some Israelis?

Did you like things better in the days of the Second Intifada, when 1,100 Israelis were killed, the vast majority of them non-combatant civilians?

Is the whole problem that there are not enough dead Jews? (Click here for my November, 2012 article by that title; click here for a recent, similarly-titled article by Melanie Phillips.)

Reading a recent article in the New York Times, which provides a daily scorecard of Palestinian and Israeli casualties and bombings since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge, one gets the distinct impression that Israel is not playing fairly. Indeed, “After 11 days of fighting, 336 Palestinians and 5 Israelis had died.” How is that fair?

The photographs in the article generate sympathy almost exclusively for the Palestinians, with tragic images of a Palestinian man carrying the dead body of a little boy and of Palestinian women grieving, while the written text is hardly unbiased, with statements like, “Egypt’s proposal for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas collapsed a few hours after the Israelis had accepted it. Palestinian militants launched rockets on Israel, some of which are shown above, and Israel resumed its airstrikes on Gaza.”

It would have been more accurate to say, “Israel accepted Egypt’s cease-fire proposal but Hamas rejected it, responding to the proposal with more attacks on Israel.” To say that the proposal simply “collapsed,” expressed passively without blaming the guilty party, is to mislead.

Even fellow-Muslims have been critical of Hamas’s actions, with an Egyptian TV host (who was solidly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel) saying, “We are sick and tired of you.”

In the past, Israel’s critics denied or downplayed the Jewish nation’s attempts to protect Palestinian civilians, as if the IDF was making up reports that it dropped thousands of leaflets warning civilians to flee or called houses that were about to be bombed, urging those inside to get out.

Today, however, the IDF’s humanitarian actions are undeniable, as both Hamas and Fatah have urged civilians to ignore those warnings or, if they have evacuated, to return to their homes. Watch for yourself here as Hamas leaders say, “We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.”

So, Israel warns civilians to flee, not wanting to hurt them, while Hamas launches rockets from heavily populated neighborhoods, including schoolyards and hospital parking lots, urging civilians to return to these places of danger, yet Israel is somehow the guilty party, drawing violent, even blatantly anti-Semitic protests in cities like London and Paris.

One Palestinian woman commented on my AskDrBrown Facebook page that Hamas was not using its people as human shields. Instead, the people were willingly standing with their leaders, closing her post with, “Long live Palestine!” After all, the Israelis did not put Hamas in power, the people of Gaza did.

Sadly, if the citizens of Gaza wanted to live in peace with Israel and empowered a government that would act in their best interests, their standard of living would improve dramatically. As it is, in the midst of the warfare, Israel still sends humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis and continues to provide medical care to wounded and sick Palestinians.

And, the truth be told, given Israel’s firepower, if Israel wanted to inflict casualties on civilians in Gaza, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, as opposed to the hundreds. (Again, I do not for a moment minimize the current civilian casualties.)

Conversely, to put this in perspective, what would happen if the tables were turned and Hamas had Israel’s military capabilities? How many dead Israelis would there be?

Murderous sentiments like this, expressed in 2012 on Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV after one of their bombs wounded 22 Israelis in Tel Aviv, provide a vivid and gory answer to the question.  As the TV report showed footage of the bloody scene, the announcer said:

These are scenes of the casualties. God willing, we will soon see black body bags. I pray to God the exalted we will see body bags in a short while. . . . Right now in these moments, the mosques in the Gaza Strip, their minarets are loudly sounding cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’ and cries of joy, and the residents of the Gaza Strip are bowing down to Allah for this offering [or, gift]. The morale of the Gaza residents is in the sky right now, and is rising just as the rockets of the resistance.
As expressed more recently by a Muslim cleric in Lebanon (addressing Prime Minister Netanyahu), “We will give the skulls of your midgets as gifts for our children’s feet to play with.”

So, to rephrase my question, since 70% of the people of Israel have had to take refuge in bomb shelters and respond to sirens, and given the fact that Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction, what you would like Israel to do?

The post A Question for Israel’s Critics appeared first on

Alinsky’s 8 Things That Need/Are to Happen/Happening

Co-Operating w/ Saul: Alinsky’s 8 Things That Need to Happen: bho alinsky

bho alinsky
How many do you count as having already happened? Be sure to read all the way to the end.

Saul Alinsky, a quick biography… Saul David Alinsky, born January 30, 1909, Chicago , Illinois.   Died  June 12, 1972 (aged 63), Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, from a heart attack.  Educated at  University of Chicago, Ph.B.1930, U. of Chicago Graduate School, criminology, 1930-1932.  Occupation:  Community organizer, writer, political activist and known for  Political activism, writing, community organization.  Notable work(s): Reveille for Radicals(1946); Rules for Radicals(1971);  Awards:  Pacem in Terris (Peace On Earth) Award, 1969. 

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing.   He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.  He and his third wife (Irene McInnis) were the socialists that Barack Obama has studied and he followed their community organizer philosophy. His book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Satan. 

How to create a socialist state by Saul Alinsky:

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist state. The first is the most important.

1) Healthcare–Control healthcare and you control the people

2) Poverty–Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

3) Debt–-Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control–-Remove people’s ability to defend themselves from the Government.   That way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare–Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

6) Education–Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. Think: “Common Core”

7) Religion-–Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.

8) Class Warfare-–Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Any of this sound familiar?  Because it is exactly the agenda that the current president is following and, if it continues to the logical ending, the United States will be just a footnote in history – a noble experiment that didn’t last long enough.

The country CAN be turned around, but it will take a person whose loyalty is to the United States, whose background is rooted in The American Experience, and a person who puts the welfare of the country before any partisan debts.   There ARE such people still in this country, but character assassination, coupled with investigations to unearth the tiniest bit of information that will hurt that person, make it nearly impossible for people with good intentions to stand for political office.

In my opinion, governance should not be a career because it ceases to be objective and endows the holder of an office with the thought that they are, somehow, better than the people that elected them.  That they, because of some falsely-thought-of exalted position, do not have to follow the same laws that the rest of us do.  The president has term limits, and rightly so, so why don’t the rest of the federal employees?  That would put an end to the elitist class that has emerged over many decades, and which, if allowed to continue, will eventually aid in the downfall of America.

“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment.”–Robert M. Hutchins, former president & chancellor–University of Chicago

There it is, folks. If it was laid out any clearer it would have to be a video.  Take a bit of advice about history: you learn from it, or you will repeat it, take your choice.



The Immigration Bomb

The Immigration Bomb:

Somewhere in the Bush years, I threw in the towel on the Republicans. It was not the endless and largely pointless wars that did it for me. Iraq and Afghanistan were understandable blunders. Maybe not excusable, but certainly understandable. No, what did it for me was the domestic side. They did not do a damn thing to roll back the welfare state, despite having control of both houses and the executive. Not only did they not cut a single penny, they went on a spending spree. Worse yet, they expanded the portfolio of every domestic agency. It became clear that all the talk about small government and liberty was a big fat lie

Given that the other party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lunatic Inc, I’ve been in a  funk for a decade now. The election of 2010 did not offer much hope. One look at Boehner made it clear he was a timid, unimaginative man with the charisma of an old sneaker. The nomination of Romney for the 2012 election was comical, in many respects. Romney is a decent man and would be an able administrator, but he represented more of the same. You cannot be a credible alternative to the lunatics if you’re just offering more of the same.

Up until a month ago or so, I was pretty sure the upcoming midterms would be uneventful. A president’s second midterm is always rough as his own base has run out of steam while the other party’s base is motivated to send a message. Given the state of the GOP, but adjusting for the endless list of scandals and buffoonery from Obama, I was thinking the GOP adds to their margin in the House and maybe wins the Senate by a seat or two at most. The people may be pissed at the HLIC (That’s Head Lunatic In Charge), but the warm bowl of mush on offer from the GOP would temper their enthusiasm. Honestly, who can get excited about putting Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate?

I’m starting to change my mind. John Derbyshire points out in his latest transmission that Americans are actually talking about immigration. That’s something no one thought possible a year ago. Not only are they talking about it, they consider it the top issue. There’s also a big majority now in favor of decreasing legal immigration. Given the way we romanticize immigration, that’s mind boggling. What’s even more stunning is our rulers are now clutching their skirts over it. That’s when you know things have turned. Even lunatics are running for cover now.

Potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates are showing divisions over how to handle the surge of illegal immigrant children, underscoring how quickly the immigration issue has gone from what they thought was a guaranteed political winner to an electoral headache.

Some Democratic governors considering presidential bids also are having to grapple personally with the surge as they decide whether to fight or accept the Obama administration’s requests to house the children in facilities within their borders.

Those within Congress, meanwhile, will have to take tough votes on boosting spending and changing the law to allow for faster deportations — all under the close scrutiny of Hispanic groups that are prepared to punish those they deem to be working against immigrant rights.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley sparked a feud with the Obama administration in recent days when he publicly called on President Obama not to send children back to their countries of origin but privately urged a White House official not to house them at a site in Maryland, either.

“What I said was that would not be the most inviting site in Maryland,” Mr. O’Malley told CNN on Wednesday. “There are already hundreds of kids already located throughout Maryland.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a more enforcement-centered approach. She told a CNN-sponsored town hall last month that the children “should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.”

She said some children might have valid humanitarian reasons to stay but the key was to send a signal of tough enforcement.

“We have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. “So we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
The thing to keep in mind is Obama is the leader of the foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic wing of the Liberal Democrats. The Clintons are the leaders of the establishment lunatics. ( I really need to work on my labels) The two wings despise one another with the intensity of a thousand suns. Clowns like Martin O’Malley are in the Clinton wing. Fake Indian has the support of the Obama’s. If Cankles chooses not to run, she will throw her big fat ass behind O’Malley in the primary. Immigration therefore becomes the dividing issue in the Democrat primary battle.

Of course, the ongoing disaster on the border is what’s driving the the news cycle now. The administration has decided to take the Tony Blair approach to immigration. That is, they want to flood the nation with immigrants thus changing the debate from whether we should let them all in to how we should treat them now that they are here. That means the issue could very well be with us for a lot longer than the current news cycle. Faced with a tailor made issue to use against the other party, the GOP will be tempted to screw it up by preemptively surrendering on the issue. The defeat of Eric Cantor, however, seems to have removed that knife from their hands.

It’s way too soon to get hopeful, but the immigration bomb has gone off finally. Unlike most issues, this one is lethal for the Liberal Democrats. Blacks are strongly against immigration. Latinos are strongly against illegal immigration. On the other hand, the plutocrats at the top of the party want open borders. Upscale whites are divided on the issue. Those in STEM fields are fine with low skill immigration, but against the H1B1 rackets. Immigration is not a problem for the coalition as long as it is not an issue important to the public. That’s suddenly changed with the Children’s Crusade going on south of the border.

The GOP is not shielded from this explosion. Boehner and Ryan and Cantor were ready to do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce and pass amnesty this fall. That’s suddenly out the window. The people who vote for them and provide the boots on the ground are against amnesty. The shearing effect on the party will not tear it apart, but it does give the good guys a shot to force changes. Even Conservative Inc is jumping on the bandwagon. As John pointed out in his transmission, what was once considered off-limits is suddenly all the rage on the Right.

Maybe there’s some hope after all.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

DARKNESS: Abortion Seduces with Promised Sexual ‘Freedom’

DARKNESS: Abortion Seduces with Promised Sexual ‘Freedom’: serp

by TB Chamomile
Clash Daily Contributor

The idol of “convenience” has been resolved by abortion in a society that treats sexual freedom as an ultimate public good. Abortion has been made out to be a political, cultural, social and economic issue. However, any discussion or even mere references to abortion as a moral issue is dismissed as one that is unnecessary, old-fashioned, intolerant, bigoted or even hateful. Any talk about abortion being a moral issue is treated with the uttermost scorn as though it was heresy. Abortion is indeed an ideology in itself, and also a “moral” framework made to serve the idol of mammon.

Owing to sympathy for the woman who so heartlessly chooses to murder her child who treats it as a parasite fit only for the incinerator, the pro-life movement has failed to stand against what abortion truly is – child murder. As a result, it has failed to attack the pervasive abortion ideology that abortion is wrong only because it harms the woman, despite recognising that abortion is killing of a person.

Thus, the real issue is what drives the abortion industry, apart from the abortion business being an incredibly lucrative one. The question is not why do people have abortions, or even why women end up the so-called “crisis pregnancies”. The question is what influences people to see abortion is a tool of convenience, despite the unpleasantness and daunt that women who seek abortions feel.

Abortion is not merely a physical act; it is an ideology of its own that is the twin sister of the “god” of sexual liberalism. The act of abortion itself is despicable, and the cries of sympathy for women who seek abortions are naive and misguided. People call a person who molests a molester, a person who rapes a rapist, a people who steals a thief, a person who tortures a torturer. However, people do not call a woman who aborts her unborn baby a murderer. Why does society, including the pro-life community, not call women who have abortions murderers? Fear. This fear is one that cares for one’s own reputation, while at the same time trying to fight abortion and wondering why women still love to seek abortions.

One may argue that the sympathy for women who seek abortions is needed for one is to reach out to these women. How misguided! The one who seeks an abortion feels that she is entitled to sympathy from others, because she is evil, wicked and perverse. She is the harlot who seduces men to serve her own sexual interests. These women plan their abortion. It could not be any clearer that abortion is a pre-mediated murder. Anyone who denies this is either deluded or depraved of all integrity.

The women who seek abortions typically do so out of “convenience”. Very few abort a baby conceived in rape, but that a baby is conceived in rape is absolutely irrelevant as to whether the act of abortion is wrong. Why should the baby die for the crimes of the father? Why!

It is the very sympathy that people show to women who abort their babies that not only weakens the pro-life stance, thus defeating its real purposing, but ridicules and blinds the people of the pro-life movement. Such blindness has taken away discernment of the true Church: the only one that is able to discern spiritual and moral issues.

The ideology of abortion is a beast that has successfully blinded the church into fighting abortion to protect the murderers of children, like the siren who lulls the unknowing man who sympathises with her apparent loneliness, into the depths of Hell. By supporting such women, one is supporting the devil from whom murder comes.

Many Christians have failed to see abortion to be the matter of the heart. Instead, many Christians have been fooled into following the culture which hypocritically laments that abortion is a matter of women facing a “crisis”, “gender equality” or even personal “choice”.

Abortion is never a matter of whether one faces a supposed crisis, financial circumstances, equality or choice. Never! It is purely that of evil motives which inspire that wicked pursuit of sexual perversion. Such motives seek to serve one’s earthly needs first. The worship of earthliness is the worship of mammon – the idol that the modern world is blind towards in its own lust for comfort, convenience, luxury and an easy life.

Thus, it is not the cult of perceived convenience itself that drives abortion. Rather, it is the pursuit of earthly comfort that drives abortion, all in the name of convenience. Such people are under the spirit of mammon, the spirit of greed and materialism. The desire for a life that is easy for oneself is the hallmark that one is under the spirit of mammon. Such a person only seeks earthly comfort and advancements rather than treasure in Heaven, the Kingdom of God. As Jesus said, “no one can serve God and mammon. You will hate one and love the other.” (Matthew 6:24)

Obviously, these God-hating, evil, perverse witches would be only too glad to serve mammon because they are slaves to sin. So, they are only too happy to kill their own baby for their own earthly comfort.

Image: Modified from

tb chaamomileThe Beautiful Chamomile is a university student from Australia. She blogs at Her interests are in history, economics, law and philosophy. She loves God, family and community. TB Chamomile believes that only true wisdom comes from God and seeks to lead the way in getting rid of the “cloud of repression” formed by false doctrines of the modern world. She loves fighting the feminists and other false prophets.



U.S. dollars flow to fund jihad

U.S. dollars flow to fund jihad:


Some of Africa’s most notorious jihad groups, such as Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, are benefiting from an elaborate, international funding network, including large sums of money flowing from the United States. founder, Terror Finance Blog analyst and writer A. D. Kendall says Somalis residing in the United States, for example, are a major source of al-Shabaab’s financing.

“First and foremost, the Somalis contribute through remittances and hawala. Somalis wire money home, which is often processed by Dahabshiil, a business that routinely pays off al-Shabaab,” Kendall told WND. “Dahabshiil’s involvement in financing terrorism is the reason why Barclays attempted to end its business relationship with Dahabshiil.”

Barclay’s moved to shut down its connections with Dahabshiil because of numerous reports of money transfers from Somalis in the U.S., Canada and Europe to al-Shabaab through the Dubai-based company.

Kendall adds that American Somalis also support jihad through direct fundraising.

“Tere’s international zakat for the mujahideen,” Kendall said. “Somali activists like Amina Farah Ali in Minnesota or Basaaly Moalin in California raise money from their communities for jihad and send it to al-Shabaab.”

Amina Farah Ali, in fact, was convicted in federal court for funneling money to al-Shabaab.

Moalin was also sentenced to 18 years in prison for “providing material support to al-Shabaab.”

Kendall further points to Somali media that openly report direct contributions from American Somalis to al-Shabaab.

“Western readers should be aware of separate, independent reports by the Somali diaspora news media that Dahabshiil finances terrorism. According to reports by Waagacusub, Kalshaale and Suna Times, Dahabshiil pays one-half million dollars twice a year to al-Shabaab,” Kendall said.

One such report was posted this week in Waagacusub.

“Sometimes these fundraisers expressly mention jihad to donors, sometimes they don’t, and often they don’t have to mention it, because it’s commonly understood that the purposes aren’t truly charitable,” Kendall said.

Dave Gaubatz, a former Air Force intelligence officer, Family Security Matters contributing editor and co-author of “Muslim Mafia”, says a large amount of the money flowing to Africa’s jihadist groups originates in the U.S., some from legally incorporated businesses.

“There are many companies operated by people supportive of the jihad groups,” Gaubatz told WND. “One is the gas station and convenience store. The real money, however, does not come from sales at their store. They buy truck loads of tobacco products from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. The taxes on tobacco are so low in these states. They then transport (and sell the cigarettes) in states with very high taxes on tobacco, like Michigan and New York.

“The money is clean because they own a legitimate store,” he continued. “The profits in turn go to jihad-supporting groups to distribute and also directly to jihad groups operating in America.”

When asked if some of the money raised through these operations goes to Boko Haram, al-Shabaab or other groups operating in sub-Saharan Africa, Gaubatz answered, “Yes it does.”

Kendall confirms Gaubatz’s allegation of cigarette re-sales: “Hezbollah launders money through West Africa. It’s not just drug money from Latin America, but from fraudulent activities in North America, such as used car dealer schemes and cigarette-smuggling rings.”

Both men’s comments are confirmed by the story of Bassam Kiriaki, a Pawtucket, Rhode Island, accountant who pleaded guilty this year of bringing $1.2 million of cigarettes to Rhode Island from Virginia.

“Kiriaki admitted to the court that he made false representations to law enforcement and created a false tax document in order to conceal the conspiracy,” The Providence Journal reported. “According to court records, on March 30 the Virginia State Police stopped an alleged co-conspirator and seized $30,000 from his vehicle.

“After the stop and seizure, the FBI intercepted calls made by Kiriaki during which he agreed to call Virginia State Police and to tell them that the money was to buy merchandise for a new store in Virginia, Bad Boys Tobacco Stop, Inc.,” the Journal report said.

Kiriaki’s conviction is the latest in a series of arrests for illegal cigarette trafficking.

Yahoo News reported in March of this year 56 percent of the cigarettes sold in New York City were brought illegally from out of state sources.

It’s reported that 15 Palestinians and a South Carolina imam were arrested for participating in the New York City cigarette-smuggling operation. In one case, the Palestinian ringleader was also charged with a plot to kill the witnesses in one of the operations.

Kendall adds that other Islamic groups filter their funding through both North and sub-Saharan Africa.

“As far as North Africa is concerned, Libya has been a destination for U.S.-Islamic charities to do work in, and I suspect money from Islamic Relief USA or the Zakat Foundation has wound up in the hands of groups like that. Islamic Relief, USA and Zakat Foundation have a tendency to partner with local groups to administer projects on the ground without scrutinizing how militant they are,” Kendall said.

Kendall adds that Eritrea exploits consular services to fund jihad: “Eritreans living throughout the world, including the U.S. and Canada, are often forced to pay a diaspora tax, collected by Eritrean embassies and consulates (which is a violation of international consular law). This money is used to fund Eritrea’s despotic regime, which uses the proceeds partly to buy weapons and to fund jihadist groups against its neighboring African enemies.”

Consultancy Africa Intelligence analyst Maha Hamdan confirms that American Muslims contribute literally thousands of dollars to jihadist groups operating in Africa. She says that after American Muslims donate the money, the cash filters through a labyrinth of organizations.

“African terrorist organizations may raise funds through abuse of charitable entities or legitimate businesses and self-financing, criminal activity, state sponsors and activities in failed states and other safe havens,” Hamdan told WND. “These sources of terrorist financing can be divided into two general types: There are those that operate top-down, in which large-scale financial support is aggregated centrally by states, companies, charities or permissive financial institutions.

“Then there are those that operate bottom-up, in which terrorist fundraising is small-scale and dispersed, for example, based on self-financing by the terrorists themselves using employment or welfare payments. A single terrorist organization may use a number of different financing methods,” Hamdan said.

Hamdan says a Boko Haram member openly boasted the group gets money from illicit business operations.

“In September 2012, a confirmed member of Boko Haram revealed during interrogations that one of the ways through which Boko Haram funds its activities is by purchasing and sending items to its members in other locations. These items are sold at inflated prices, and the proceeds are used to finance the activities of the terrorist organization, including renting apartments and procuring improvised explosive devices, [or I.E.D.s] for their operations,” Hamdan said.

Hamdan says terrorism financing has developed into a variety of sophisticated operational layers.

“Terrorist organizations vary widely, ranging from large, state-like organizations to small, decentralized and self-directed networks. Terrorists have shown adaptability and opportunism in meeting their funding requirements,” Hamdan told WND. “The nature of funding for both operational and broader support activities varies by the type of terrorist organization, with traditional, hierarchical quasi state-like terrorist organizations on one side of the spectrum and small, decentralized, independently supported organizations on the other.

“At its extreme, this second category has involved small, ostensibly self-directed networks seeking to meet their own funding requirements through means that differ little from their everyday activity. Purchases, even when used to procure the operational items, are not conspicuous,” Hamdan said.

Hamdan says that terrorist networks have devised sophisticated means to move money from the source to the operating terror networks.

“There are three main methods by which terrorists move money or transfer value,” Hamdan told WND. “The first is through the use of the financial system. Analyses of a number of terrorism cases has revealed that radical groups as well as persons related to terrorist organizations have used the network of the registered and world-wide operating money transfer companies to send or receive money.

“The second involves the physical movement of money (for example, through the use of cash couriers),” she continued. “The physical movement of cash is one way terrorists can move funds without encountering any financial security safeguards established in financial institutions. It has been suggested that some groups have converted cash into high-value and hard-to-locate commodities.

“Analysis of a number of terrorism cases has shown that money couriers are active even within Europe and between countries with a well-functioning financial system. In most cases couriers are involved in moving funds generated outside the financial system and kept out of the financial system to avoid detection,” Hamdan said.

“The third method is through the international trade system, or the use of alternative remittance systems,” she explained. “Alternative remittance systems are used by terrorist organizations for convenience and access. ARS have the additional attraction of weaker and/or less opaque record keeping and in many locations may be subject to generally less stringent regulatory oversight.

“Often, terrorist organizations abuse alternative remittance systems, charities or other captive entities to disguise their use of these three methods to transfer value,” Hamdan said.

She adds that no terrorist group, from Boko Haram to al-Shabaab, consistently uses just one money-moving system.

“Terrorist organizations use all three methods to maintain ongoing operation of the terrorist organization and undertake specific terrorist activities,” Hamdan said. “The multiplicity of organizational structures employed by terror networks, the continuing evolution of techniques in response to international measures and the opportunistic nature of terror financing all make it difficult to identify a favored or most common method of transmission.

“Regular funding to maintain a group’s capacity is best facilitated via the conventional banking system – as money sent from one country to another can be disguised behind false name accounts, charities or businesses to disguise the ultimate recipient; but other ways to move money are used for specific purposes, or to disguise terrorist financial trails,” Hamdan said.

In a recent story on Boko Haram and al-Shabaab’s networking strategies, WND reported on an alleged al-Shabaab money-laundering operation.

In one case, a Canadian citizen of Somali origin residing in Dakar, Senegal, established a real estate company in conjunction with a Senegalese national. An account was opened for the company at a bank in Senegal. Shortly afterward, this account received a wire transfer of approximately $106,000 from a Somali national living in the United States. A financial institution based in Dubai executed the transfer.

Hamdan explained, based on the suspicious circumstances of the transaction – including the country of origin of the funds, lack of adequate information documenting the identity of the new customer and the destination of the funds – the Senegalese bank filed a report with the Senegalese government.

“During the subsequent FIU investigation, it was revealed that the company had no legal status in Senegal and was established specifically for laundering illicit funds through the sale of imported goods. All three parties were found to be in contact with extremist groups involved in terrorist activities in East Africa, North America, Europe and in Mauritania,” she said.

“The three established a related company together with other Senegalese nationals to import used goods. Some of the goods were sold locally and the remainder exported to a third country for re-sale. The proceeds of these sales were sent to a number of terrorist groups,” Hamdan said.

“The bottom line,” she added, “is that trading tactics will involve better networking that will help them raise more funds.”

WND also reported in September 2011 that Shia mosques in the United States were allegedly involved in raising money for Hezbollah. The allegations come from Sam Bazzi, director of the Islamic Counterterrorism Institute.

He reported he’s been in mosques and has seen how the fundraising works.

“They are contributing to Hezbollah indirectly because every Shi’a Muslim has to pay a 20 percent yearly tax on their savings. This goes basically to the clerics as a donation,” he said. “Hezbollah supporters in the U.S. mosques send money to their bank accounts in Lebanon. When they go to Lebanon for vacation in the summer, they go to the clerics in the mosques in Lebanon and pay the Khums (offering) to the mosque in Lebanon. When they do that, they’re giving it to Hezbollah.”

‘How Liberalism Became an Intolerant Dogma’

‘How Liberalism Became an Intolerant Dogma’:

“Liberals are increasingly religious about their own liberalism, treating it like a comprehensive view of reality and the human good,” Damon Linker writes at The Week:

From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning.

Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things.

With traditional faith in rapid retreat over the past decade, liberals have begun to grow increasingly religious about their own liberalism, which they are treating as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good.

But liberalism’s leading theoreticians (Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Mill) never intended it to serve as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good. On the contrary, liberalism was supposed to act as a narrowly political strategy for living peacefully in a world of inexorably clashing comprehensive views of reality and the human good.

The key to the strategy was the promulgation of the pluralistic principle of toleration.

Which is why the proper response to the distinctive dogmatism of our time is to urge liberals to return to their tolerant roots. That’s what I’ve been trying to do in my own writing, and my efforts will continue until more liberals come to their senses and begin recalling their comrades to a robust defense of their own pluralistic principles.
Two comments: First, this is all old news to anyone who read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism six year ago. And second, a return to liberalism’s “tolerant roots?” Good luck with that, champ.

(Photo at top of page of the Joe Louis fist memorial in Detroit, placed there in 1986, during the disastrous and racist 20 year reign of Democrat Mayor Coleman Young. Photo by James Marvin Phelps,

The farce continues in the latest Iran nuke talks

The farce continues in the latest Iran nuke talks: The latest round of talks in Vienna on Iran’s nuclear program has ended with, guess what, tacit agreement to hold further talks for four more months. Both Iran and the...

Original enclosures:
file_iran_nuclear_power_plant.jpg?w=150 ()
170b62d3dae5ed3c8e94b7f78d75b60b?s=96&d=identicon&r=G ()

Black fatherless homes and left creating cop killers

Black fatherless homes and left creating cop killers:

Fatherless homes – combined with the left’s policies and attacks on free speech – are creating thugs and cop killers.

The murder of 23-year-old Jersey City Police Officer Melvin Santiago and the death of 43-year-old Eric Garner, who died while resisting arrest by NYPD officers, have put the national spotlight on police and black relations.

The cop killer’s wife inflamed the situation by saying that her black thug husband – who was shot and killed after executing officer Santiago – should have shot more cops. News 12 New Jersey reporter Sean Bergin explained on camera the decision to air her comments:

“It’s important to shine a light on this anti-cop mentality that has so contaminated America’s inner cities. … The underlying cause of all this of course? Young black men growing up without fathers. …” The reporter was suspended from his job, and subsequently quit.

Progressives of all colors have intimidated most white Americans with the “R” word (racist), and now whites rarely comment on black criminality. These same progressives are perpetuating the fatherlessness and anti-police attitude that is wreaking havoc on America’s inner cities.

Many blacks today have a serious issue with authority figures. This problem starts in the home and manifests itself as early as preschool.

A Department of Education study found that blacks make up 18 percent of all preschool children, but they account for 42 percent of suspensions.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan blamed the problem on “racial disparities,” and was “stunned that we were suspending and expelling 4 years olds.” Duncan is more “stunned” by the disciplinary action of the schools than he is by the rotten behavior of the kids. No surprise. Rotten kids are anti-authority – so are progressives.

Attorney General Eric Holder said a “zero-tolerance” approach eventually leads many students into the criminal justice system and promised to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.” In other words, according to Holder, disciplining bad kids is creating a path to prison! This is progressive “wisdom.”

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and other leftist black “leaders” have been excusing black criminals and stoking hatred toward police for decades.

The 1992 Los Angeles riots, sparked by the police beating of Rodney King, resulted in the deaths of 60 people. But Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., didn’t call it a riot; she called it a “rebellion.”

The rap music industry has long promoted violence toward cops. The most notorious perpetrators include: N.W.A. (Niggaz with Attitudes) with their “F— tha Police” lyrics, rapper ICE-T’s “Cop Killer” album, and Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg’s “187″ (about murdering cops). Video games like “Grand Theft Auto” also reinforce anti-police attitudes.

Progressive mayors are allowing thugs and cop haters to flourish in our cities.

Leftist NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio ended previous Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s successful “stop, question, and frisk” program after complaints that it unfairly targeted minorities, and now violent crime has skyrocketed.

According to CompStat figures, 129 people were shot last month – a 43 percent increase over the same period last year.

In “Chicagoland,” progressive policies and fatherlessness have created “killing fields.” The recent Independence Day massacre, where 82 shootings resulted in 15 people killed, doesn’t help the city’s image.

Instead of aggressively going after Chicago’s gangs, Obama former Chief of Staff and now Mayor Rahm Emanuel is focused on the guns, even though Chicago has some of the nation’s toughest gun-control laws.

Progressives have created an environment that rewards irresponsibility and dependency. Sending welfare payments to single women with children has resulted in the decline of black marriages. Today, 73 percent of black kids are born out of wedlock.

Since most black fathers are not around, these children never develop respect for authority. In fact, they grow to hate the impatience and pressure their mothers put on them.

Recently I interviewed Paul Raeburn, author of “Do Fathers Matter?” Here are just a few of his findings:

  • When fathers are absent during mother’s pregnancy, the baby is more likely to be born prematurely. The baby is four times as likely to die in the first year.
  •  If the man is depressed, the child is eight times as likely to have behavior problems and 36 times as likely to have difficulty getting along with peers.
  •  Kids with dads around are less likely to become “bullies”: Oxford researchers said when fathers were absent, children had higher rates of aggressive behavior.
Obviously the missing link to end the cycle of violence and the anti-police attitude in the black community is to rebuild black families. Progressive policies of providing financial incentives for single mothers who have kids out of wedlock must end.

Progressives also bully people into not speaking truth about moral cause and effect. They’re not just immoral – they are “anti-moral.”

Yet, Americans – especially white Americans – have to start speaking out about the anti-authority mindset destroying our inner cities. If whites and blacks allow the lawlessness to continue, the chaos and anti-cop violence will spread everywhere. And when police are not safe – no one is safe.

Media wishing to interview Jesse Lee Peterson, please contact

Receive Jesse Lee Peterson's commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Jesse Lee Peterson's alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Name*

  • Email*
    Where we will email your daily updates
  • Postal code*
    A valid zip code or postal code is required

Never Again is Becoming Once Again – the Horrific Persecution of the Jews

Never Again is Becoming Once Again – the Horrific Persecution of the Jews: Netanyahu: Heart of nation with families of our fallen soldiers BLOODY SUNDAY: DEATH TOLL MOUNTS IN GAZA Anti-Israel protests all over the world as Israel invades Gaza Large crowd of pro-Palestinian THUGS ATTACK Jews during demonstation in Calgary Paris police clash with Pro-Palestinian protesters Even BILL MAHER defends Israel on Gaza: ‘Do you really expect […]

Climate Hustle

Climate Hustle:

This looks promising:

An upcoming documentary aims to debunk global warming.

The documentary is called “Climate Hustle” and comes from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a non-profit public policy group and parent organization of Climate Depot.
Due out this fall, the movie will profile numerous scientists who have shown enough integrity to abandon the global warming hoax, despite the strong incentives for playing ball with the liberal establishment, and even stronger disincentives for failing to conform.

Here’s the trailer:

Of course, global warming has been debunked before. The Great Global Warming Swindle tore the hoax to shreds years ago:

But as George Orwell says,

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
Not that Climate Hustle will necessarily consist of restatements. Plenty more scientists have jumped ship over the past few years, for good reasons that will be interesting to hear.

On a tip from Stormfax.

Let the lessons of Obama sink in.

Let the lessons of Obama sink in.: America has been in a low estate before; it is in a low estate now.

Let the Democrats bear the blame for what they have created. Do nothing to distract Americans from contemplating the wreckage Obama will leave behind. I am not disappointed in Obama because, for some accident of personal disposition and education, I have never had the slightest belief he was anything but an over-promoted semi-intellectual academic parading as an African-American version of black man. I have always considered him 100% fatuous. A near nullity. More people are slowly coming to this view, as they abandon false hopes.
Impeach Obama? - Barrel Strength

For the Sake of the People of Gaza, Support the IDF

For the Sake of the People of Gaza, Support the IDF: Regular readers of this blog know my view on how to deal with the self-proclaimed jihadis of the Muslim world who seek victory or martyrdom. Give them option "b."

I hope that this time, at long last, the Israelis will not listen to the voices of "caution," of "moderation," of "reasonableness," of "humaneness," etc. For the refugees in Gaza, who, in fact, overwhelmingly are not, the greatest weapon on their side is the IDF. It is the IDF which can liberate Gaza and the "refugees" from Hamas and the other jihadi lunatics and authoritarian corruptocrats who have turned Gaza into the widely recognized model for corruption and chaos that it is, and, of course, into a vast killing field.

Generations of bureaucrats around the world, including at State, have made careers and very nice salaries, working on the Arab-Israeli peace process. They seek to make it sound complex and beyond the understanding of ordinary mortals. It is not. There will be peace when Muslim leaders accept the existence of Israel. Period. The rest is nonsense.

It is probably impossible to count the billions of dollars the international community, including the USA under both Democrats and Republicans, has poured into Gaza and the coffers of its evil rulers. It is that same international community which conveniently has erased the history of how Gaza and the "refugee" camps came into existence and on repeated occasions has saved the rulers of Gaza from the retribution they so richly deserve.

It is Hamas which insists on civilians remaining in place when combat looms; on placing military stockpiles, including missiles, in civilian areas such as housing complexes, schools, and hospitals.  It is Hamas which wants bodies of "Palestinians" strewn about the streets.

The only way to put an end to Hamas' war on civilization, it to put an end to Hamas. I have written too many times to cite that the lunatics now leading the Muslim world must suffer defeat after defeat. Only that long and painful process will bring the rotten Muslim house down and let its miserable residents build something new, something not insane. Let that begin in Gaza.

For the sake of the people of Gaza, destroy Hamas. Support the IDF.

Does Obama Realize the Stakes in Gaza?

Does Obama Realize the Stakes in Gaza?:

Does Obama Realize the Stakes in Gaza? Commentary Magazine, July 20, 2014

(Unless it penetrates his echo chamber, which it rarely does, President Obama seems to have little comprehension of what’s happening or how it affects U.S. citizens or the few remaining U.S. allies. If he did understand, would he care? — DM)

After weeks of waiting patiently for the rockets to stop before ordering troops into Gaza in what is still a limited campaign, Netanyahu may be waking up to the fact that the stakes have been altered in the conflict. There are signs, albeit tentative ones, that his government is realizing that nothing short of ending the Hamas’s control of Gaza will end the current nightmare in which much of the Israeli population is being forced to take shelter from rocket fire.

The best thing the U.S. could do to both stop the fighting and help the Palestinians trapped in Hamas’s deadly game would be to signal to the Islamists and their foreign allies that it is prepared to support an Israeli campaign that will oust them from Gaza and replace them with Fatah. Perhaps if they understood that their survival is at stake, the euphoria among the Hamas leadership about their “victories” will abate and quiet will follow. But unless that happens, it will soon be time for Israel and the U.S. to realize that they must adjust their strategies to account for their new, higher stakes in Gaza.

After two weeks of fighting along the border with Gaza, there is a growing sense that the Israeli government is starting to realize that its assumptions about how to obtain Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goal of “sustainable quiet” may have been all wrong. But if the Israelis are being forced reluctantly to reassess their beliefs about how Hamas could be forced to stop shooting, the question remains whether the Obama administration is up to speed about the changing rules in the conflict.

Up until now both Israel and the U.S. have thought Hamas would eventually stop firing rockets at cities or sending terrorists across the borders if Israel struck back hard enough. That is not to say that the two allies saw eye-to-eye about every aspect of the conflict, since the Obama administration clearly believed that Israel should respond to rocket attacks or other forms of terrorism with limited counter-attacks that would do nothing to significantly impair Hamas’s arsenal or its ability to re-ignite the border if it wished. But both governments were prepared to leave Hamas in place in Gaza since the cost of removing it was considered prohibitively high and there didn’t appear to be a viable alternative. Israel’s standing offer of “quiet for quiet” was usually enough for the Islamists once they had fired enough rockets to show Palestinians that they were still the address for “resistance” to the Israelis.

But now it appears that Hamas is prepared to bank on the assumption that nothing they do–no matter how bloody or unreasonable, such as a continuous shooting of rockets at Israeli cities and cross-border infiltration attempts–would be enough to convince the Israelis that they were not better off allowing the Islamist terror group to remain in power. Though Hamas’s long-range goals remain the overthrow of their erstwhile Fatah partners in the Palestinian Authority and to gain control of the West Bank and to destroy Israel, their immediate objectives in the current outbreak are different. They want to force Egypt to open its borders and the smuggling tunnels to Gaza as well as to get the Israelis to release more terrorist prisoners.

As Avi Isacharoff writes in the Times of Israel, though the Israelis are winning in a tactical sense because its Iron Dome missile defense has frustrated the rocket attacks and their army is making progress in eliminating some of Hamas terrorist infrastructure, Hamas thinks it is winning the war. Their confidence rests in a belief that sooner or later the Israelis will be forced to stop by international pressure that will build as a result of the deaths of Palestinian civilians that are being deliberately jeopardized by Hamas tactics. At the same time, they think the pressure from the Arab world will also eventually force Egypt to give them what they want. As Isacharoff notes, the real battle lines are not so much between the Israel Defense Forces and the terrorists but between Hamas and its foreign allies Qatar and Turkey and the loose coalition of Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. Hamas thinks Egypt will fold and end their isolation if the pile of the compatriots is piled high enough:

In a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo on Wednesday, Moussa Abu Marzouk, the deputy head of Hamas’s political bureau, dismissed Abbas’s pleas regarding a ceasefire, explaining that “what are 200 martyrs compared with lifting the siege [on the Gaza Strip?]” Abu Marzouk later tweeted that there will be no truce that does not acknowledge the demands of the “resistance,” and that it is “better that Israel occupy the Gaza Strip than for the siege to continue.” Abu Marzouk, needless to say, resides in Cairo, far from the threat of Israeli air strikes.
Seen from that perspective, there is virtually nothing Israel can do to quiet the border. So long as Hamas thinks it can count on Israeli caution and pressure from the U.S. and the international community to ensure that it remains in control of the strip, the fighting will continue until the terrorists get what they want. After weeks of waiting patiently for the rockets to stop before ordering troops into Gaza in what is still a limited campaign, Netanyahu may be waking up to the fact that the stakes have been altered in the conflict. There are signs, albeit tentative ones, that his government is realizing that nothing short of ending the Hamas’s control of Gaza will end the current nightmare in which much of the Israeli population is being forced to take shelter from rocket fire.

Israel would be forced to pay a terrible price if it chose to re-occupy the strip, oust Hamas, capture its rocket arsenal, and destroy the vast network of tunnels and bunkers that have turned it into a terrorist Gibraltar. That price would be paid in the blood of Israeli soldiers and the Palestinians that are being used as human shields. Hamas’s assumption is that the Israeli people would not be willing to endure such casualties and the world wouldn’t tolerate such a military operation.

Writing from Jerusalem, it’s difficult to judge whether their assumptions about Israeli opinion still hold. There is no doubt that if the death toll rises, the number of left-wing demonstrators against Netanyahu will increase as will public unease about the conflict. But Hamas’s great “victory”–the fact that so many Israelis have been forced into shelters–also works against their belief that they have impunity. If air strikes and a limited ground operation don’t end the threat to their security, Netanyahu would probably not be wrong in thinking that he will have sufficient support to sustain a counter-attack that will finish Hamas once and for all.

Thus rather than continuing to carp from the sidelines at Israeli efforts or wasting more time in pointless diplomacy that does nothing to shake Hamas’s assumptions about the strength of its position, it is time for the United States to wake up and realize that its interests are also at stake in this battle. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry must understand that what is truly an “unsustainable status quo” is not the Israeli control of the West Bank but Hamas’s hold on Gaza. If there is ever to be any hope for a two-state solution–and admittedly, that hope is so faint these days as to be barely alive–it must begin with Hamas’s complete defeat and its replacement in Gaza by more moderate forces. Nothing short of that will end the bloodshed or begin the process whereby Israelis might be convinced that a withdrawal from the West Bank would not create another, even more lethal Hamasistan on their borders.

The best thing the U.S. could do to both stop the fighting and help the Palestinians trapped in Hamas’s deadly game would be to signal to the Islamists and their foreign allies that it is prepared to support an Israeli campaign that will oust them from Gaza and replace them with Fatah. Perhaps if they understood that their survival is at stake, the euphoria among the Hamas leadership about their “victories” will abate and quiet will follow. But unless that happens, it will soon be time for Israel and the U.S. to realize that they must adjust their strategies to account for their new, higher stakes in Gaza.