Month: December 2017

The Trouble with Conservatism


When FDR stole the name of “liberalism” to disguise the fact that he was a Progressive, he succeeded in doing more than simply confusing America’s voters in his day, many of whom had been made suspicious of Progressivism by Woodrow Wilson’s policies.  Taking for the Progressives the name that once belonged to the American founders was more than a brilliant election-winning tactical masterstroke.  FDR’s plan to sow confusion in the minds of the political opposition to Progressivism has become a war-winning strategy.  We see the results all around us.  While flying the flag of liberalism, the Progressives laid waste to the liberal Republic of the American founders.

The classical liberalism of the American founders focused on reining in the powers of government.  The purpose of the founders’ design of the government was protecting our unalienable rights from encroachment by people in the government.  Taking their cue from the German thinker GWF Hegel by way of Woodrow Wilson, the Progressives instead put their faith in the state.  They rejected the idea of the American Republic root and branch.  But the original Progressives understood the American people well enough to know that overthrowing the Republic by force and violence was out of the question.  So they set out to overthrow it little by little, progressively.

FDR’s capture of the flag of his political opponents made it easier for the Progressives to advance their project.  FDR left without a name the political opposition that wanted America to continue to live according to the Constitution.  What should they call themselves?  As Charles Kesler writes in his book I Am the Change, “FDR suggested, helpfully, that they ought to call themselves conservatives, a designation they were loath to accept because it sounded …vaguely un-American[.] … Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” was still insisting he was a liberal in 1946.” 

They finally gave in and started calling themselves “conservatives.”  Giving in had a bad consequence, because the American idea is not conservative.  It is true that the American miracle includes the prudence of the founders, and prudence is a virtue prized by conservatives.  But the American Republic is the most radical regime of liberty, the most radically liberal regime in human history. By calling themselves conservatives and thinking of themselves as conservatives, Progressivism’s opposition gradually tended to lose sight of the principles that made America.

Conservatism is fundamentally a disposition.  It represents the political expression of caution and the underappreciated virtue of prudence.  It defends the traditional.  Since drastic, hasty change is likely to have unintended consequences, even terrible ones, we must protect our traditions, make change slowly and carefully, and be on the lookout for unintended consequences, says the prudent-minded conservative.

Probably every society and every time has its conservatives, with tenets specific to each society’s traditions.  For example, English conservatives today might want to preserve the monarchy, the Church of England as the established church, and the British aristocracy.  In the same way, those Iranians who opposed the revolution that changed Iran from a monarchy to a radical Islamist theocracy or those Russians who long for the return of the Soviet Union are often referred to as “conservatives.”  However, to call them conservative is not to suggest that they hold similar political principles or that their political principles are similar to those of an American dedicated to the principles of the American Founders.

According to F.A. Hayek, whether British, Iranian, Russian, or American, the trouble with conservatism is this:

It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance.  It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.

Hayek’s description does seem to capture the story of the last century in American politics – the Progressives setting the agenda and their opposition dragged unwillingly along a path not of its own choosing.  During the past century, the classical liberal order of liberty, free markets, and limited government has been in the process of being systematically dismantled by the Progressives.  Change has become the name of the political game, and the direction of change is being set by the Progressives.  The rate of change is not the problem; America’s problem is the direction.

But worse, because the opposition began thinking of themselves as conservatives, they began to look to traditional conservative thinkers for guidance – thinkers like Edmund Burke, the brilliant and eloquent champion of prudence and tradition but not of the American idea.  Burkean conservatism is a far cry from the classical liberalism of the American founding; it cannot light our way home. 

We need to find our way by making the founders’ principles once again our polar star.  If Americans decide to reclaim the limited government and achieve the truly liberal, the classically liberal, society envisioned by the founders, we must be guided by the founders’ wisdom.  It will require a complete change of direction.  Slowing the rate of the Progressive advance won’t save the Republic.

There is much to undo and a bountiful harvest of progress and liberty to be gained. 

Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute and on the Board of Distinguished Advisers of the Ronald Reagan Center for Freedom and Understanding.  He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea from Encounter Books.  You can preview the book here.

When FDR stole the name of “liberalism” to disguise the fact that he was a Progressive, he succeeded in doing more than simply confusing America’s voters in his day, many of whom had been made suspicious of Progressivism by Woodrow Wilson’s policies.  Taking for the Progressives the name that once belonged to the American founders was more than a brilliant election-winning tactical masterstroke.  FDR’s plan to sow confusion in the minds of the political opposition to Progressivism has become a war-winning strategy.  We see the results all around us.  While flying the flag of liberalism, the Progressives laid waste to the liberal Republic of the American founders.

The classical liberalism of the American founders focused on reining in the powers of government.  The purpose of the founders’ design of the government was protecting our unalienable rights from encroachment by people in the government.  Taking their cue from the German thinker GWF Hegel by way of Woodrow Wilson, the Progressives instead put their faith in the state.  They rejected the idea of the American Republic root and branch.  But the original Progressives understood the American people well enough to know that overthrowing the Republic by force and violence was out of the question.  So they set out to overthrow it little by little, progressively.

FDR’s capture of the flag of his political opponents made it easier for the Progressives to advance their project.  FDR left without a name the political opposition that wanted America to continue to live according to the Constitution.  What should they call themselves?  As Charles Kesler writes in his book I Am the Change, “FDR suggested, helpfully, that they ought to call themselves conservatives, a designation they were loath to accept because it sounded …vaguely un-American[.] … Robert Taft, “Mr. Conservative,” was still insisting he was a liberal in 1946.” 

They finally gave in and started calling themselves “conservatives.”  Giving in had a bad consequence, because the American idea is not conservative.  It is true that the American miracle includes the prudence of the founders, and prudence is a virtue prized by conservatives.  But the American Republic is the most radical regime of liberty, the most radically liberal regime in human history. By calling themselves conservatives and thinking of themselves as conservatives, Progressivism’s opposition gradually tended to lose sight of the principles that made America.

Conservatism is fundamentally a disposition.  It represents the political expression of caution and the underappreciated virtue of prudence.  It defends the traditional.  Since drastic, hasty change is likely to have unintended consequences, even terrible ones, we must protect our traditions, make change slowly and carefully, and be on the lookout for unintended consequences, says the prudent-minded conservative.

Probably every society and every time has its conservatives, with tenets specific to each society’s traditions.  For example, English conservatives today might want to preserve the monarchy, the Church of England as the established church, and the British aristocracy.  In the same way, those Iranians who opposed the revolution that changed Iran from a monarchy to a radical Islamist theocracy or those Russians who long for the return of the Soviet Union are often referred to as “conservatives.”  However, to call them conservative is not to suggest that they hold similar political principles or that their political principles are similar to those of an American dedicated to the principles of the American Founders.

According to F.A. Hayek, whether British, Iranian, Russian, or American, the trouble with conservatism is this:

It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance.  It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing.

Hayek’s description does seem to capture the story of the last century in American politics – the Progressives setting the agenda and their opposition dragged unwillingly along a path not of its own choosing.  During the past century, the classical liberal order of liberty, free markets, and limited government has been in the process of being systematically dismantled by the Progressives.  Change has become the name of the political game, and the direction of change is being set by the Progressives.  The rate of change is not the problem; America’s problem is the direction.

But worse, because the opposition began thinking of themselves as conservatives, they began to look to traditional conservative thinkers for guidance – thinkers like Edmund Burke, the brilliant and eloquent champion of prudence and tradition but not of the American idea.  Burkean conservatism is a far cry from the classical liberalism of the American founding; it cannot light our way home. 

We need to find our way by making the founders’ principles once again our polar star.  If Americans decide to reclaim the limited government and achieve the truly liberal, the classically liberal, society envisioned by the founders, we must be guided by the founders’ wisdom.  It will require a complete change of direction.  Slowing the rate of the Progressive advance won’t save the Republic.

There is much to undo and a bountiful harvest of progress and liberty to be gained. 

Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute and on the Board of Distinguished Advisers of the Ronald Reagan Center for Freedom and Understanding.  He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea from Encounter Books.  You can preview the book here.



Source link

Keep Your Family Close: A New Year's Tale on What Might Have Been


Every year at this time, traders at the New York Stock Exchange rededicate themselves to carrying on the 100-plus-year tradition of singing “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Sung on both Christmas and New Year’s Eve, it’s a yearly reminder of another story that originated over 100 years ago.

The story I have to tell begins with a little wagon – handcrafted in 1913 as a gift by John Henry for his young son Lynn, though his son would never see it.  For years it was stowed away, almost hidden, in John Henry’s barn.  When John Henry was much older, he pulled the wagon out from under the hay in the barn loft and told the story of the wagon to the first and only person to hear it.

He told a story of meeting and marrying a beautiful young wife, Nellie, and how she gave birth to their son, Lynn, and then to their daughter, Nellie May, three years later.  Nellie May was a strong, healthy baby.  Her mother, Nellie, as was sadly common in those days, died a few days after childbirth.  John Henry was now a widower, left alone to care for his two small children.

Somehow he managed, and well into the next summer, with increasing eagerness, he began working on a wagon for his son’s third birthday.  As bees buzzed and August grew hotter, a panic began to bubble, trickle, and then roar through town – just as the river split it.

A cholera epidemic was sweeping through the community.  Reports of the dead and dying gripped families in fear.  Suddenly, little Lynn was sick and dead before his father had even grasped what was happening – before he’d even gotten to see his wagon.  Anxiously, the father watched over Nellie May’s crib, hoping she would be spared.  She was not.  Within one week, he had lost both children.  This meant he had lost his entire family within the space of one year.

A newspaper article told of John Henry’s “extreme bereavement,” and the story spread to newspapers around the region.

How did the grief-stricken man find the faith to survive?  Surely it was his faith in God…and eventually the comfort of a widowed woman with whom he formed a special bond that turned into a lifelong love.

His marriage to Mina was a happy one that would produce five children.  Sometimes, though, when John Henry was especially happy, he would forget himself and sing the song he used to sing to the bride of his youth: “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Then he would catch himself and stop.

Though Mina knew she shouldn’t, she couldn’t help but feel almost hurt when she’d hear him singing it.  Since she and the children knew of his first family and the tragedy that had befallen them, the song inevitably formed an unspoken cloud of sadness as they were reminded of their father’s loss so many years before.

Besides the song that he’d sung to Nellie in happy times, John Henry never spoke of his first family – that is, until one day when he was in the barn with his youngest child, Benjamin, now a young man.  Perhaps it was because he was particularly close to Benjamin that he did it, but John Henry went to the loft and pulled out the little wagon – and talked about Lynn for the first and last time.  Benjamin would be the only one to hear the story of the ungiven gift and the only one to see the fine handiwork his father had created for a half-brother he’d never known.

One day, while still a child myself, I saw a news clip of the New York Stock Exchange and the traders singing “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Just beginning my lifelong love of old music, I decided to learn it and sing it for my parents.

As I began to sing, my parents looked shocked, stopped me, and wondered where on Earth I learned such an old song.  I told them about the stock exchange…but they simply suggested that it was best I didn’t sing it.

Finally, sometime in my teens, I asked why the “Nellie” song wasn’t to be sung in our house.  It was then that my mother told me the story of John Henry – my grandfather – and his first family.  Then she told me of the little wagon he had shown my father, Benjamin.  Now I understood why it was best that I not add the song to my repertoire.

My grandfather was born in 1887, and since he lived to a ripe old age, I was blessed to know him.  He visited us regularly.

Still, it seemed strange to me that an event that happened over sixty years before still carried any weight in my family.  Perhaps it was because of the disturbing reality that if that first family had lived, my father would have never been born.  My family would have never existed!

Due to a wide span of time, my grandfather and I did not share the Earth long enough for me to ask him all the questions I would have liked.  Even my father admitted that due to joining the Navy so young, then raising his own family, he’d also never thought to ask his father questions until it was too late.

For instance, my grandfather had made only one mention (that anyone could remember) of his second cousin, Clara, who attended the theater with President Lincoln when he was assassinated.  After all, it was a hot day, and we were all going for ice cream…so the conversation ended short, and the subject was never broached again.  It was only just before he died – when he gave us the book of our family genealogy – that we realized how little Grandpa ever mentioned and how little we’d ever asked.

(Maybe, as this new year begins, we should add a resolution to ask our older family members questions like “Where were you when…?”  We might just find out how we got where we are now.)

After my grandfather’s talk with my father in the barn, the little wagon from 1913 was never seen again.  Perhaps, like the small sled “Rosebud” in the movie Citizen Kane, it sizzled into obscurity in a furnace where no one knew its history – and where no one had ever heard the song “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”

Susan D. Harris can be reached at www.susandharris.com.

Every year at this time, traders at the New York Stock Exchange rededicate themselves to carrying on the 100-plus-year tradition of singing “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Sung on both Christmas and New Year’s Eve, it’s a yearly reminder of another story that originated over 100 years ago.

The story I have to tell begins with a little wagon – handcrafted in 1913 as a gift by John Henry for his young son Lynn, though his son would never see it.  For years it was stowed away, almost hidden, in John Henry’s barn.  When John Henry was much older, he pulled the wagon out from under the hay in the barn loft and told the story of the wagon to the first and only person to hear it.

He told a story of meeting and marrying a beautiful young wife, Nellie, and how she gave birth to their son, Lynn, and then to their daughter, Nellie May, three years later.  Nellie May was a strong, healthy baby.  Her mother, Nellie, as was sadly common in those days, died a few days after childbirth.  John Henry was now a widower, left alone to care for his two small children.

Somehow he managed, and well into the next summer, with increasing eagerness, he began working on a wagon for his son’s third birthday.  As bees buzzed and August grew hotter, a panic began to bubble, trickle, and then roar through town – just as the river split it.

A cholera epidemic was sweeping through the community.  Reports of the dead and dying gripped families in fear.  Suddenly, little Lynn was sick and dead before his father had even grasped what was happening – before he’d even gotten to see his wagon.  Anxiously, the father watched over Nellie May’s crib, hoping she would be spared.  She was not.  Within one week, he had lost both children.  This meant he had lost his entire family within the space of one year.

A newspaper article told of John Henry’s “extreme bereavement,” and the story spread to newspapers around the region.

How did the grief-stricken man find the faith to survive?  Surely it was his faith in God…and eventually the comfort of a widowed woman with whom he formed a special bond that turned into a lifelong love.

His marriage to Mina was a happy one that would produce five children.  Sometimes, though, when John Henry was especially happy, he would forget himself and sing the song he used to sing to the bride of his youth: “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Then he would catch himself and stop.

Though Mina knew she shouldn’t, she couldn’t help but feel almost hurt when she’d hear him singing it.  Since she and the children knew of his first family and the tragedy that had befallen them, the song inevitably formed an unspoken cloud of sadness as they were reminded of their father’s loss so many years before.

Besides the song that he’d sung to Nellie in happy times, John Henry never spoke of his first family – that is, until one day when he was in the barn with his youngest child, Benjamin, now a young man.  Perhaps it was because he was particularly close to Benjamin that he did it, but John Henry went to the loft and pulled out the little wagon – and talked about Lynn for the first and last time.  Benjamin would be the only one to hear the story of the ungiven gift and the only one to see the fine handiwork his father had created for a half-brother he’d never known.

One day, while still a child myself, I saw a news clip of the New York Stock Exchange and the traders singing “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”  Just beginning my lifelong love of old music, I decided to learn it and sing it for my parents.

As I began to sing, my parents looked shocked, stopped me, and wondered where on Earth I learned such an old song.  I told them about the stock exchange…but they simply suggested that it was best I didn’t sing it.

Finally, sometime in my teens, I asked why the “Nellie” song wasn’t to be sung in our house.  It was then that my mother told me the story of John Henry – my grandfather – and his first family.  Then she told me of the little wagon he had shown my father, Benjamin.  Now I understood why it was best that I not add the song to my repertoire.

My grandfather was born in 1887, and since he lived to a ripe old age, I was blessed to know him.  He visited us regularly.

Still, it seemed strange to me that an event that happened over sixty years before still carried any weight in my family.  Perhaps it was because of the disturbing reality that if that first family had lived, my father would have never been born.  My family would have never existed!

Due to a wide span of time, my grandfather and I did not share the Earth long enough for me to ask him all the questions I would have liked.  Even my father admitted that due to joining the Navy so young, then raising his own family, he’d also never thought to ask his father questions until it was too late.

For instance, my grandfather had made only one mention (that anyone could remember) of his second cousin, Clara, who attended the theater with President Lincoln when he was assassinated.  After all, it was a hot day, and we were all going for ice cream…so the conversation ended short, and the subject was never broached again.  It was only just before he died – when he gave us the book of our family genealogy – that we realized how little Grandpa ever mentioned and how little we’d ever asked.

(Maybe, as this new year begins, we should add a resolution to ask our older family members questions like “Where were you when…?”  We might just find out how we got where we are now.)

After my grandfather’s talk with my father in the barn, the little wagon from 1913 was never seen again.  Perhaps, like the small sled “Rosebud” in the movie Citizen Kane, it sizzled into obscurity in a furnace where no one knew its history – and where no one had ever heard the song “Wait Till the Sun Shines Nellie.”

Susan D. Harris can be reached at www.susandharris.com.



Source link

The DOJ and FBI rot from the head down. So who's the head?


There is an old expression, “a fish rots from the head down,” meaning that in any organization, leadership sets the tone.  For better or for worse.  Where does the DOJ-FBI rot begin?

The Trump-Russia collusion investigation is on life support.  After months of investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his army of highly partisan investigators, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, all Mueller has to show for his efforts is a handful of process crimes that have nothing to do with the original allegations that the Trump campaign worked with Putin to influence the 2016 election.

With 90 percent of media coverage negative toward President Trump, you can be certain that if Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election, these same media would have long ago found evidence of collusion.  But they haven’t, have they?  Instead, they hyperventilate over nonsense, such as a truck blocking their view of Trump’s golf course, now a three-day story for CNN.

In reality, the only collusion was a bunch of Obama imbeds, scheming and conspiring to drag their coughing and collapsing candidate across the finish line by interfering with the right of Americans to choose their next president.  Then there was a bogus dossier, created as opposition research, used by the FBI and DOJ as a “national security matter” to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on candidate Trump and his family and associates.

The conspiracy was legion, with many agency heads and upper managers working together to undermine an election.  After failing to undermine the election, they then concocted the collusion story to justify a special counsel, staffed with the same Obama administration imbeds, to cover their illegal tracks.  Gateway Pundit compiled a long list of bad actors and actresses participating in this melodrama.

Who’s the head of the rotten fish?  Former attorney general Loretta Lynch?  She met with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac ahead of the election, directing FBI director James Comey to exonerate candidate Hillary Clinton over “gross negligence” in her handling of classified emails.

Or is Comey the head of the fish, as FBI director, tying himself and the law into a pretzel to excuse Mrs. Clinton’s criminal behavior?  What about Mueller when he was FBI director, giving a pass to Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, and the Uranium One deal?

How about former A.G. Eric Holder, directing his energies to another bogus narrative, “hands up, don’t shoot,” rather than voter fraud and the same illegalities that Mueller ignored as FBI director?

Is Hillary Clinton the head of the fish?  Close, but no cigar.  She had her share of scandals with her Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and her overall “pay to play” approach to public service as secretary of state.  But during her ramp up to running for president, she was not a government employee, despite her family tentacles reaching into many dark recesses of the Deep State.

Her campaign did commission and pay for the phony dossier, but it was beyond her power and influence to convince the DOJ and FBI to dress up the dossier as legitimate intelligence worthy of a major counterintelligence effort, including domestic surveillance.

These players could not have behaved as they did without the approval of the head of the fish, the occupant of the Oval Office – none other than President Barack Obama.  Whether explicit or implicit, his directions were crystal-clear to his underlings – his attorney general, his FBI director, his IRS commissioner, and all the other agency heads serving at his pleasure.

No one working in the Obama administration would take on such chicanery and corruption on his own.  This all had the blessing of the boss.  Don’t expect a smoking gun – a videotape of Obama directing his underlings to buy a salacious dossier, gussy it up as an intelligence report, convince a FISA court to permit wiretapping of American citizens, all in an effort to thwart an election.  Maybe there are some incriminating emails floating around, assuming they haven’t been wiped from someone’s server or hidden from congressional investigators.

But make no mistake that none of this would have happened without the approval of the boss man in the Oval Office.  If his standard were to respect law and electoral tradition, none of this would have happened.  Yet his name is conspicuously absent from lists and photo montages of Deep-Staters working for Mueller or recently “reassigned” to less visible positions within the swamp.

Will a former president ever be held accountable for such misdeeds?  Fat chance.  Bill Clinton, despite the wave of sexual harassment and abuse stories of the past few months, is still a darling of the Democratic Party.

The DOJ OIG report is due in mid-January.  Will this report be a reckoning for President Trump against the swamp?  Will lower-tier players squeal on their superiors to stay out of prison?  Will the thousands of sealed indictments see the light of day, served against the guilty?  Or will it be another whitewash, typical of the swamp protecting its serpents?

I believe the former but fear the latter.  And I am under no illusions that the former president will be held to account, despite serving as the captain of this corrupt ship for eight years.

It’s easy to blame Lynch, Comey, Mueller, and their underlings, but they are only the body of the rotting fish.  Not the head.  It’s fine to look at the rotting fish body, but answers and accountability come only when the focus is on the rotting head.  Maybe next month, we start dissecting the rotting fish.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter

There is an old expression, “a fish rots from the head down,” meaning that in any organization, leadership sets the tone.  For better or for worse.  Where does the DOJ-FBI rot begin?

The Trump-Russia collusion investigation is on life support.  After months of investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his army of highly partisan investigators, spending millions of taxpayer dollars, all Mueller has to show for his efforts is a handful of process crimes that have nothing to do with the original allegations that the Trump campaign worked with Putin to influence the 2016 election.

With 90 percent of media coverage negative toward President Trump, you can be certain that if Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election, these same media would have long ago found evidence of collusion.  But they haven’t, have they?  Instead, they hyperventilate over nonsense, such as a truck blocking their view of Trump’s golf course, now a three-day story for CNN.

In reality, the only collusion was a bunch of Obama imbeds, scheming and conspiring to drag their coughing and collapsing candidate across the finish line by interfering with the right of Americans to choose their next president.  Then there was a bogus dossier, created as opposition research, used by the FBI and DOJ as a “national security matter” to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on candidate Trump and his family and associates.

The conspiracy was legion, with many agency heads and upper managers working together to undermine an election.  After failing to undermine the election, they then concocted the collusion story to justify a special counsel, staffed with the same Obama administration imbeds, to cover their illegal tracks.  Gateway Pundit compiled a long list of bad actors and actresses participating in this melodrama.

Who’s the head of the rotten fish?  Former attorney general Loretta Lynch?  She met with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac ahead of the election, directing FBI director James Comey to exonerate candidate Hillary Clinton over “gross negligence” in her handling of classified emails.

Or is Comey the head of the fish, as FBI director, tying himself and the law into a pretzel to excuse Mrs. Clinton’s criminal behavior?  What about Mueller when he was FBI director, giving a pass to Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, and the Uranium One deal?

How about former A.G. Eric Holder, directing his energies to another bogus narrative, “hands up, don’t shoot,” rather than voter fraud and the same illegalities that Mueller ignored as FBI director?

Is Hillary Clinton the head of the fish?  Close, but no cigar.  She had her share of scandals with her Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and her overall “pay to play” approach to public service as secretary of state.  But during her ramp up to running for president, she was not a government employee, despite her family tentacles reaching into many dark recesses of the Deep State.

Her campaign did commission and pay for the phony dossier, but it was beyond her power and influence to convince the DOJ and FBI to dress up the dossier as legitimate intelligence worthy of a major counterintelligence effort, including domestic surveillance.

These players could not have behaved as they did without the approval of the head of the fish, the occupant of the Oval Office – none other than President Barack Obama.  Whether explicit or implicit, his directions were crystal-clear to his underlings – his attorney general, his FBI director, his IRS commissioner, and all the other agency heads serving at his pleasure.

No one working in the Obama administration would take on such chicanery and corruption on his own.  This all had the blessing of the boss.  Don’t expect a smoking gun – a videotape of Obama directing his underlings to buy a salacious dossier, gussy it up as an intelligence report, convince a FISA court to permit wiretapping of American citizens, all in an effort to thwart an election.  Maybe there are some incriminating emails floating around, assuming they haven’t been wiped from someone’s server or hidden from congressional investigators.

But make no mistake that none of this would have happened without the approval of the boss man in the Oval Office.  If his standard were to respect law and electoral tradition, none of this would have happened.  Yet his name is conspicuously absent from lists and photo montages of Deep-Staters working for Mueller or recently “reassigned” to less visible positions within the swamp.

Will a former president ever be held accountable for such misdeeds?  Fat chance.  Bill Clinton, despite the wave of sexual harassment and abuse stories of the past few months, is still a darling of the Democratic Party.

The DOJ OIG report is due in mid-January.  Will this report be a reckoning for President Trump against the swamp?  Will lower-tier players squeal on their superiors to stay out of prison?  Will the thousands of sealed indictments see the light of day, served against the guilty?  Or will it be another whitewash, typical of the swamp protecting its serpents?

I believe the former but fear the latter.  And I am under no illusions that the former president will be held to account, despite serving as the captain of this corrupt ship for eight years.

It’s easy to blame Lynch, Comey, Mueller, and their underlings, but they are only the body of the rotting fish.  Not the head.  It’s fine to look at the rotting fish body, but answers and accountability come only when the focus is on the rotting head.  Maybe next month, we start dissecting the rotting fish.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter



Source link

The Real Reason White Americans Voted for Trump


Roughly a month ago, Atlantic senior editor Adam Serwer authored an article that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell soon hailed as “mandatory reading.”  Titled ‘The Nationalist’s Delusion,” the piece challenges the popular narrative that Trump’s electoral triumph was propelled by the economic estrangement of white working- and middle-class voters.  Rejecting this account, Serwer holds pervasive and deep-seated, if implicit, animosity toward non-white minorities as the ultimate fillip of the Trump phenomenon.  To borrow from MSNBC’s Van Jones, the 2016 election outcome was, in Serwer’s telling, just one big case of “whitelash.”  Concerns over lax immigration policies, the flight of blue-collar jobs, Islamic terrorism (and obscurantism thereof), and an expressively stifling culture of political correctness were all a pretext for the maintenance of white supremacy and racial inequality.

A key data point Serwer draws on to advance this claim is Trump’s “sweeping victory” across all income categories of white voters:

Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making between $30,000 and $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000.  In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income.  He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons.  This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.

Incidentally, in a veritable “white male privilege coming out party,” neo-conservative writer Max Boot recently credited both Serwer and these figures, more specifically, in helping him finally “see the light” of America’s endemic racism and xenophobia.

There’s just one problem: these data, by all indications, are spurious.  And, as a doctoral student who’s been studying the reputable American National Election Studies (ANES) 2016 election survey for almost a year, the author found the data relatively easy to fact-check.

Below is a tabulated output of the ANES results.  For ease of interpretation, the winning vote margin is in boldface.

ANES 2016 Election Results: White Votes x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$174,999

$175,000-$249,999

$250,000 +

Total

Voted Other

10.27%

(± 3.1%)

6.18%

(± 2.5%)

7.58%

(± 1.9%)

7.55%

(± 2.5%)

9.68%

(± 6.2%)

7.14%

(± 5.9%)

7.9%

(± 3.7%)

Voted Clinton

35.41%

(± 4.8%)

38.48%

(± 5.0%)

37.34%

(± 3.5%)

45.77%

(± 4.6%)

50.54%

(± 10.0%)

52.38%

(± 10.5%)

40.22%

(± 6.4%)

Voted Trump

54.32%

(± 5.0%)

55.34%

(± 5.1%)

55.08%

(± 3.6%)

46.68%

(± 4.6%)

39.78%

(± 9.8%)

40.48%

(± 10.4%)

51.89%

(± 6.4%)

N

370

356

699

437

93

84

2,039

Note: ± margin of error listed in parentheses.  Each was calculated using 95% confidence intervals.

As shown, Serwer’s claim begins to unravel as we surpass the middle-income bracket.  From $175,000 and onward, it’s not even close: non-Hispanic whites voted for Clinton by sizeable margins (10.76% and 11.9%).  Including Hispanic whites (40.4% of whom voted Trump), the spreads are even wider (13.87%, 12.76%).  Such is consistent with the working- and middle-class “revenge against the elites” thesis but incompatible with that of an across-the-economic-board “whitelash.”

Three objections might be made here.  First, the upper-income sample sizes are comparatively small (hence the wide margins of error).  Although ANES employs random sampling that, in theory, should ensure representativeness, a larger sample size is always preferable.  Second, one might argue that ANES’s breakdown of the income groups does not exactly correspond with those mentioned in Serwer’s article (for example, there is no $200K category).  While true, such hardly supports Serwer’s claim that Trump bested Clinton among whites of every income category.  One need only point to the $250K+ bracket, which was included in Serwer’s figures and which shows Clinton winning pretty handily.  Finally, how can I be so sure it’s not the ANES data that are biased?

Addressing these concerns required that I first determine the source of Serwer’s data.  For whatever reason, Serwer does not provide this information in the article.  I thus went ahead and emailed him.  To my delight, he responded fairly promptly and – after some pushback (because nobody likes being told they’re wrong) – indicated that the data came from the Edison Research national exit poll, which he kindly attached.  Given their noted biases (e.g., self-selection, incomplete demographic data, exclusion of early voters) and the fact that roughly a year has passed since the 2016 election and more complete datasets are thus now available, it’s puzzling that he opted for real-time election day polling.  Still, I couldn’t assume a priori that the Edison data got it wrong.  Cross-replication, preferably on a larger sample, was needed to get at this.  I thus turned to Harvard’s massive (N=64,600; roughly half of which voted) Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) for a closer look.  In the end, my suspicions were confirmed:

CCES 2016 Election Results: White Votes x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$199,999

$200,000-$249,999

$250,000+

Total

Voted Other

9.67%

(± 0.7%)

9.85%

(± 0.7%)

9.22%

(± 0.5%)

8.98%

(± 0.7%)

8.46%

(± 2.4%)

8.71%

(± 2.5%)

9.37%

(± 1.3%)

Voted Clinton

42.92%

(± 1.3%)

41.22%

(± 1.2%)

43.26%

(± 0.9%)

47.5%

(± 1.3%)

53.27%

(± 4.3%)

54.56%

(± 4.4%)

43.92%

(± 2.2%)

Voted Trump

47.4%

(± 1.3%)

48.93%

(± 1.2%)

47.52%

(± 0.9%)

43.52%

(± 1.3%)

38.27%

(± 4.2%)

36.72%

(± 4.3%)

46.71%

(± 2.2%)

N

5,717

6,518

11,827

5,926

520

482

30,990

Note: ± margin of error listed in parentheses.  Each was calculated using 95% confidence intervals.

As in the ANES, we once again find that white support for Trump trends markedly downward as we leave the lower- to middle-income brackets.  Beyond the $100,000 mark, white voters increasingly turn out for Clinton.  At $200K and onward, Clinton beats Trump in a landslide – by 15% and 17.84%, respectively. For some perspective, I’ve tabulated the exit poll figures cited by Serwer:

Edison Research Exit Poll Results: Whites x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$199,999

$200,000-$249,999

$250,000+

Total

Voted Other

6%

6%

5%

4%

2%

4%

5%

Voted Clinton

34%

37%

33%

39%

45%

43%

37%

Voted Trump

57%

56%

61%

56%

50%

48%

57%

Percent of interviewedvoters (N=17,234)

15%

18%

30%

25%

5%

7%

100%

As you can see, whereas the results of the ANES and CCES are substantively similar, the Edison exit poll Serwer cites hardly comes close.  Given how far they fall from the CCES’s margins of error, the statistical probability that the Edison figures are accurate is exceedingly low (1).

So how do we explain this glaring discrepancy?  My best guess is that the Edison data – gathered in real time from those who agreed to be interviewed after exiting the voting precincts (hence the risk of self-selection bias) – oversampled white Trump voters.  Again, given the availability of alternative data sources, it’s perplexing that Serwer relied on an exit poll.  But what’s even more bemusing is that Serwer didn’t bother to crosscheck it with other datasets.  While I won’t go as far as to accuse him of cherry-picking what fits his narrative, such – at the very minimum – smacks of journalistic laziness with a hint of confirmation bias.

To be sure, there are many other issues with Serwer’s assumptions that, for brevity’s sake, I’ll have to mostly leave for subsequent writing.  But very briefly, in foregrounding racial resentment, Serwer downplays the importance of many other variables that account for Trump’s election.  For example, my own research – which I’ll soon be submitting for publication – finds that even after controlling for various measures of prejudice (e.g. sexism, hatred of minorities, racial resentment), issue attitudes (economic discontent, immigration, refugees, etc.), and ideological orientations (authoritarianism, social dominance orientation), opposition to political correctness significantly positively predicts voting for Trump.

In other words, the hypothesis that such sentiment is all but a guise for white bigotry finds no support in the data.  Thus, while Serwer argues that Trump’s presidency was made possible by racial resentment (2) and white ethno-nationalism, one could just as easily point the finger at “PC fatigue.”  Instead, Serwer’s explanatory model conveniently includes only those variables that absolve the left of culpability.

Why does any of this matter?  It matters insofar as Serwer is promulgating an inherently polarizing depiction of reality that rests on (in all likelihood) erroneous data and gross simplification.  Worse, this depiction is now being billed as “mandatory reading” to millions of Americans.

Genuine racial hostility undoubtedly motivated a minority subset of Trump voters.  But as a liberal alienated by the toxic identitarian political direction of our country, I worry that these broad-brush “whitelash” portrayals allows the left to demonize and dismiss the real concerns of millions of Americans.  Should this continue, the appeal of the Democratic Party will forever be confined to cosmopolitan bubble-land.

Zach Goldberg is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Georgia State University.

(1) In fact, they even fall outside a wider margin of error, derived from a 99% confidence interval.  This means that the odds that the Edison figures accurately reflect the true distribution are less than 1 in 100.

(2) Incidentally, the degree of anti-minority sentiment among Trump voters also appears to be overstated.  According to the ANES out-group feeling thermometer data (scored along a 0-100 scale), Trump voters, on average, evaluated blacks (mean = 63.8) and Hispanics (mean = 64.4) in the “warm” direction.  By comparison, the mean ratings for both of these groups among Clinton voters were 75 and 73.9, respectively – warmer, but not as much as one might expect.

Roughly a month ago, Atlantic senior editor Adam Serwer authored an article that MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell soon hailed as “mandatory reading.”  Titled ‘The Nationalist’s Delusion,” the piece challenges the popular narrative that Trump’s electoral triumph was propelled by the economic estrangement of white working- and middle-class voters.  Rejecting this account, Serwer holds pervasive and deep-seated, if implicit, animosity toward non-white minorities as the ultimate fillip of the Trump phenomenon.  To borrow from MSNBC’s Van Jones, the 2016 election outcome was, in Serwer’s telling, just one big case of “whitelash.”  Concerns over lax immigration policies, the flight of blue-collar jobs, Islamic terrorism (and obscurantism thereof), and an expressively stifling culture of political correctness were all a pretext for the maintenance of white supremacy and racial inequality.

A key data point Serwer draws on to advance this claim is Trump’s “sweeping victory” across all income categories of white voters:

Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making between $30,000 and $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000.  In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income.  He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons.  This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.

Incidentally, in a veritable “white male privilege coming out party,” neo-conservative writer Max Boot recently credited both Serwer and these figures, more specifically, in helping him finally “see the light” of America’s endemic racism and xenophobia.

There’s just one problem: these data, by all indications, are spurious.  And, as a doctoral student who’s been studying the reputable American National Election Studies (ANES) 2016 election survey for almost a year, the author found the data relatively easy to fact-check.

Below is a tabulated output of the ANES results.  For ease of interpretation, the winning vote margin is in boldface.

ANES 2016 Election Results: White Votes x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$174,999

$175,000-$249,999

$250,000 +

Total

Voted Other

10.27%

(± 3.1%)

6.18%

(± 2.5%)

7.58%

(± 1.9%)

7.55%

(± 2.5%)

9.68%

(± 6.2%)

7.14%

(± 5.9%)

7.9%

(± 3.7%)

Voted Clinton

35.41%

(± 4.8%)

38.48%

(± 5.0%)

37.34%

(± 3.5%)

45.77%

(± 4.6%)

50.54%

(± 10.0%)

52.38%

(± 10.5%)

40.22%

(± 6.4%)

Voted Trump

54.32%

(± 5.0%)

55.34%

(± 5.1%)

55.08%

(± 3.6%)

46.68%

(± 4.6%)

39.78%

(± 9.8%)

40.48%

(± 10.4%)

51.89%

(± 6.4%)

N

370

356

699

437

93

84

2,039

Note: ± margin of error listed in parentheses.  Each was calculated using 95% confidence intervals.

As shown, Serwer’s claim begins to unravel as we surpass the middle-income bracket.  From $175,000 and onward, it’s not even close: non-Hispanic whites voted for Clinton by sizeable margins (10.76% and 11.9%).  Including Hispanic whites (40.4% of whom voted Trump), the spreads are even wider (13.87%, 12.76%).  Such is consistent with the working- and middle-class “revenge against the elites” thesis but incompatible with that of an across-the-economic-board “whitelash.”

Three objections might be made here.  First, the upper-income sample sizes are comparatively small (hence the wide margins of error).  Although ANES employs random sampling that, in theory, should ensure representativeness, a larger sample size is always preferable.  Second, one might argue that ANES’s breakdown of the income groups does not exactly correspond with those mentioned in Serwer’s article (for example, there is no $200K category).  While true, such hardly supports Serwer’s claim that Trump bested Clinton among whites of every income category.  One need only point to the $250K+ bracket, which was included in Serwer’s figures and which shows Clinton winning pretty handily.  Finally, how can I be so sure it’s not the ANES data that are biased?

Addressing these concerns required that I first determine the source of Serwer’s data.  For whatever reason, Serwer does not provide this information in the article.  I thus went ahead and emailed him.  To my delight, he responded fairly promptly and – after some pushback (because nobody likes being told they’re wrong) – indicated that the data came from the Edison Research national exit poll, which he kindly attached.  Given their noted biases (e.g., self-selection, incomplete demographic data, exclusion of early voters) and the fact that roughly a year has passed since the 2016 election and more complete datasets are thus now available, it’s puzzling that he opted for real-time election day polling.  Still, I couldn’t assume a priori that the Edison data got it wrong.  Cross-replication, preferably on a larger sample, was needed to get at this.  I thus turned to Harvard’s massive (N=64,600; roughly half of which voted) Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) for a closer look.  In the end, my suspicions were confirmed:

CCES 2016 Election Results: White Votes x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$199,999

$200,000-$249,999

$250,000+

Total

Voted Other

9.67%

(± 0.7%)

9.85%

(± 0.7%)

9.22%

(± 0.5%)

8.98%

(± 0.7%)

8.46%

(± 2.4%)

8.71%

(± 2.5%)

9.37%

(± 1.3%)

Voted Clinton

42.92%

(± 1.3%)

41.22%

(± 1.2%)

43.26%

(± 0.9%)

47.5%

(± 1.3%)

53.27%

(± 4.3%)

54.56%

(± 4.4%)

43.92%

(± 2.2%)

Voted Trump

47.4%

(± 1.3%)

48.93%

(± 1.2%)

47.52%

(± 0.9%)

43.52%

(± 1.3%)

38.27%

(± 4.2%)

36.72%

(± 4.3%)

46.71%

(± 2.2%)

N

5,717

6,518

11,827

5,926

520

482

30,990

Note: ± margin of error listed in parentheses.  Each was calculated using 95% confidence intervals.

As in the ANES, we once again find that white support for Trump trends markedly downward as we leave the lower- to middle-income brackets.  Beyond the $100,000 mark, white voters increasingly turn out for Clinton.  At $200K and onward, Clinton beats Trump in a landslide – by 15% and 17.84%, respectively. For some perspective, I’ve tabulated the exit poll figures cited by Serwer:

Edison Research Exit Poll Results: Whites x Income Group






Income Group

< $30,000

$30,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000-$199,999

$200,000-$249,999

$250,000+

Total

Voted Other

6%

6%

5%

4%

2%

4%

5%

Voted Clinton

34%

37%

33%

39%

45%

43%

37%

Voted Trump

57%

56%

61%

56%

50%

48%

57%

Percent of interviewedvoters (N=17,234)

15%

18%

30%

25%

5%

7%

100%

As you can see, whereas the results of the ANES and CCES are substantively similar, the Edison exit poll Serwer cites hardly comes close.  Given how far they fall from the CCES’s margins of error, the statistical probability that the Edison figures are accurate is exceedingly low (1).

So how do we explain this glaring discrepancy?  My best guess is that the Edison data – gathered in real time from those who agreed to be interviewed after exiting the voting precincts (hence the risk of self-selection bias) – oversampled white Trump voters.  Again, given the availability of alternative data sources, it’s perplexing that Serwer relied on an exit poll.  But what’s even more bemusing is that Serwer didn’t bother to crosscheck it with other datasets.  While I won’t go as far as to accuse him of cherry-picking what fits his narrative, such – at the very minimum – smacks of journalistic laziness with a hint of confirmation bias.

To be sure, there are many other issues with Serwer’s assumptions that, for brevity’s sake, I’ll have to mostly leave for subsequent writing.  But very briefly, in foregrounding racial resentment, Serwer downplays the importance of many other variables that account for Trump’s election.  For example, my own research – which I’ll soon be submitting for publication – finds that even after controlling for various measures of prejudice (e.g. sexism, hatred of minorities, racial resentment), issue attitudes (economic discontent, immigration, refugees, etc.), and ideological orientations (authoritarianism, social dominance orientation), opposition to political correctness significantly positively predicts voting for Trump.

In other words, the hypothesis that such sentiment is all but a guise for white bigotry finds no support in the data.  Thus, while Serwer argues that Trump’s presidency was made possible by racial resentment (2) and white ethno-nationalism, one could just as easily point the finger at “PC fatigue.”  Instead, Serwer’s explanatory model conveniently includes only those variables that absolve the left of culpability.

Why does any of this matter?  It matters insofar as Serwer is promulgating an inherently polarizing depiction of reality that rests on (in all likelihood) erroneous data and gross simplification.  Worse, this depiction is now being billed as “mandatory reading” to millions of Americans.

Genuine racial hostility undoubtedly motivated a minority subset of Trump voters.  But as a liberal alienated by the toxic identitarian political direction of our country, I worry that these broad-brush “whitelash” portrayals allows the left to demonize and dismiss the real concerns of millions of Americans.  Should this continue, the appeal of the Democratic Party will forever be confined to cosmopolitan bubble-land.

Zach Goldberg is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Georgia State University.

(1) In fact, they even fall outside a wider margin of error, derived from a 99% confidence interval.  This means that the odds that the Edison figures accurately reflect the true distribution are less than 1 in 100.

(2) Incidentally, the degree of anti-minority sentiment among Trump voters also appears to be overstated.  According to the ANES out-group feeling thermometer data (scored along a 0-100 scale), Trump voters, on average, evaluated blacks (mean = 63.8) and Hispanics (mean = 64.4) in the “warm” direction.  By comparison, the mean ratings for both of these groups among Clinton voters were 75 and 73.9, respectively – warmer, but not as much as one might expect.



Source link

How to Fight Terrorism the Russian Way


Some are aware of the terrorist bombing in a St. Petersburg, Russia shopping center December 27.  The subsequent comment by Russian president Vladimir Putin, that terrorists should be “liquidated on the spot” if they pose “an immediate danger to others,” underscores the different attitude with which Russians pursue their “war on terror,” at least until Donald Trump took office.  Trump has followed through with his promise to “bomb the [s—] out of ISIS,” leaving ISIS with only 2 percent of the territory it once held in its so-called “caliphate,” and its fighters left in Syria and Iraq number now only about 1,000.  Trump effected this set of circumstances by changing “rules of engagement,” saving American lives and costing more enemy lives.  While American forces can now engage the enemy with greater latitude, not having to wait for approval from Washington bureaucrats, the United States can still learn from the ruthless ways in which Russia conducts war.

A case in point is the September 2004 hostage-taking at a school in Beslan, Republic of South Ossetia, located in the long troubled north Caucasus region.  The attack, by 32 armed terrorists linked to separatists in the nearby republic of Chechnya, resulted in the taking of over 1,000 hostages, including family members attending a celebration of the opening day at the primary and secondary school.  The attack resulted in the deaths of more than 330 people, mostly children.  Following reports of explosions within the explosives-rigged gymnasium, Russian forces responded with heavy machine guns, antitank rockets, and T-72 main battle tanks, as well as flame throwers and small arms.

The Beslan attack was one of many terrorist activities by a Chechen liberation group led by a notorious warlord, Shamil Basayev, that included the takeover of a Moscow theater in 2002 that ended in the deaths of 130 hostages; the 2004 assassination of Akhmad Kadyrov, the pro-Russian president of Chechnya; two suicide bombings on Russian airliners; and countless other acts of terrorism.

Besides the seemingly heavy-handed immediate response to the Beslan school hostage-taking, a number of political changes were made as measures of counterterrorism.  Most importantly, regional governors were to no longer be popularly elected, but appointed by the Russian president.  Ramzan Kadyrov, the son of the assassinated Akhmad Kadyrov, was appointed president of the Chechen republic in February 2007, a post he still holds.  That Kadyrov has ruled Chechnya ruthlessly would be an understatement, but he has popularized himself on social media, posing with kittens small and large, with nearly one million followers on Instagram.  Abductions and killings have been routine, even of relatives of known terrorists.  At minimum, relatives have their property destroyed or are banned from Chechnya. 

In a January 2015 video, Kadyrov describes an anti-terror operation on December 4, 2014 in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, in which he delayed the operation for three hours so he could personally lead it, as well as his thoughts on terrorism, the terrorists as individuals, the role of families in watching their children, and what the families can expect if they do not turn in their children as terrorism suspects (beginning at the six-minute mark).

This is to recommend not such tactics in the United States, but a revaluation of current policy.  Perhaps debate should commence on the internment and mass deportation of selected Muslims, as had been conducted by France since 2012 and Norway since 2014.  Crime in Norway dropped 31 percent in less than a year after deportations began.  Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have restricted immigration so completely that the E.U. has opened legal cases against them, as reported June 12, 2017 by Reuters.

In the United States and most of the rest of Europe, immigration continues, unabated in Europe and slowed by evolving legal requirements in the United States.  No action has been taken against the families of terrorists, however, even in the case where the June 26, 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooter’s wife admitted to the FBI prior knowledge of the impending attack, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel on December 21, 2017.  Noor Salman was not arrested for seven months after the shooting, despite admitting prior knowledge of the planned attack to the FBI the day after the killing of 49 people at the gay nightclub.  She does now face charges of aiding a foreign terrorist organization and obstruction of justice.  Her attorneys argue that her admission should not be admitted as evidence.  In Russia, she would already most likely have been convicted and in Chechnya probably killed, as would be members of her family, and their property destroyed.  That kind of policy makes would-be terrorists think twice and their families more likely to alert authorities of suspicions regarding their children.

Trump’s policies are a good first start in realism in the war against what amounts to a Muslim invasion, with a few violent and the majority passive supporters or enablers in their silence.  More thinking and debate appear needed, however.

Some are aware of the terrorist bombing in a St. Petersburg, Russia shopping center December 27.  The subsequent comment by Russian president Vladimir Putin, that terrorists should be “liquidated on the spot” if they pose “an immediate danger to others,” underscores the different attitude with which Russians pursue their “war on terror,” at least until Donald Trump took office.  Trump has followed through with his promise to “bomb the [s—] out of ISIS,” leaving ISIS with only 2 percent of the territory it once held in its so-called “caliphate,” and its fighters left in Syria and Iraq number now only about 1,000.  Trump effected this set of circumstances by changing “rules of engagement,” saving American lives and costing more enemy lives.  While American forces can now engage the enemy with greater latitude, not having to wait for approval from Washington bureaucrats, the United States can still learn from the ruthless ways in which Russia conducts war.

A case in point is the September 2004 hostage-taking at a school in Beslan, Republic of South Ossetia, located in the long troubled north Caucasus region.  The attack, by 32 armed terrorists linked to separatists in the nearby republic of Chechnya, resulted in the taking of over 1,000 hostages, including family members attending a celebration of the opening day at the primary and secondary school.  The attack resulted in the deaths of more than 330 people, mostly children.  Following reports of explosions within the explosives-rigged gymnasium, Russian forces responded with heavy machine guns, antitank rockets, and T-72 main battle tanks, as well as flame throwers and small arms.

The Beslan attack was one of many terrorist activities by a Chechen liberation group led by a notorious warlord, Shamil Basayev, that included the takeover of a Moscow theater in 2002 that ended in the deaths of 130 hostages; the 2004 assassination of Akhmad Kadyrov, the pro-Russian president of Chechnya; two suicide bombings on Russian airliners; and countless other acts of terrorism.

Besides the seemingly heavy-handed immediate response to the Beslan school hostage-taking, a number of political changes were made as measures of counterterrorism.  Most importantly, regional governors were to no longer be popularly elected, but appointed by the Russian president.  Ramzan Kadyrov, the son of the assassinated Akhmad Kadyrov, was appointed president of the Chechen republic in February 2007, a post he still holds.  That Kadyrov has ruled Chechnya ruthlessly would be an understatement, but he has popularized himself on social media, posing with kittens small and large, with nearly one million followers on Instagram.  Abductions and killings have been routine, even of relatives of known terrorists.  At minimum, relatives have their property destroyed or are banned from Chechnya. 

In a January 2015 video, Kadyrov describes an anti-terror operation on December 4, 2014 in Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, in which he delayed the operation for three hours so he could personally lead it, as well as his thoughts on terrorism, the terrorists as individuals, the role of families in watching their children, and what the families can expect if they do not turn in their children as terrorism suspects (beginning at the six-minute mark).

This is to recommend not such tactics in the United States, but a revaluation of current policy.  Perhaps debate should commence on the internment and mass deportation of selected Muslims, as had been conducted by France since 2012 and Norway since 2014.  Crime in Norway dropped 31 percent in less than a year after deportations began.  Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have restricted immigration so completely that the E.U. has opened legal cases against them, as reported June 12, 2017 by Reuters.

In the United States and most of the rest of Europe, immigration continues, unabated in Europe and slowed by evolving legal requirements in the United States.  No action has been taken against the families of terrorists, however, even in the case where the June 26, 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooter’s wife admitted to the FBI prior knowledge of the impending attack, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel on December 21, 2017.  Noor Salman was not arrested for seven months after the shooting, despite admitting prior knowledge of the planned attack to the FBI the day after the killing of 49 people at the gay nightclub.  She does now face charges of aiding a foreign terrorist organization and obstruction of justice.  Her attorneys argue that her admission should not be admitted as evidence.  In Russia, she would already most likely have been convicted and in Chechnya probably killed, as would be members of her family, and their property destroyed.  That kind of policy makes would-be terrorists think twice and their families more likely to alert authorities of suspicions regarding their children.

Trump’s policies are a good first start in realism in the war against what amounts to a Muslim invasion, with a few violent and the majority passive supporters or enablers in their silence.  More thinking and debate appear needed, however.



Source link

Entering 2018 with Gratitude to God and Donald Trump


I remember that painful election night in 2012.  Against reason, Americans chose to give Obama four more years in the White House.

As a Christian, all I knew to do was trust God.  Little did I know that Obama’s re-election was setting the stage for long-shot dark-horse presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Over eight years, the shine wore off electing the first black president.  Americans knew that Obama was driving our country in the wrong direction.  We subconsciously felt the tyranny of political correctness.  Obama led leftists’ war on Christianity.  Obama’s agenda was founded upon punishing America first.  Thus, Americans were ready for real change.  Enough with empty promises from fancy-talkin’ professional politicians.

When businessman extraordinaire, regular-guy candidate Trump said he wanted to “make America great again,” We, the People immediately connected with Trump’s clear and simple decree.

Political elites thought Trump running for president was hilarious.  It amazes me that political so-called experts are still puzzled as to why Trump won the White House.  Establishment elites are finally backing away from the narrative that Trump stole the election via collusion with Russia or other dirty tricks.

This tells me that these people (establishment elites) in their Washington, D.C. towers of power are sheltered from everyday Americans.  It is only common sense that a majority of Americans would desire a leader who loves his homeland and wants to make it the best it can be.  Only liberalism-indoctrinated anti-American zealots have a problem with Trump’s positive agenda for America.

Purposely unreported by fake news media, Trump has used his will and true grit to amass a substantial list of wins for America in his first year.  Trump has been rolling back Obama’s messes in spite of NeverTrumps and Congress.

I remember presidential candidate Ted Cruz promising to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  To the shock and horror of haters of Israel in America and around the world, Trump picked up Cruz’s baton, deciding to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  God said He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel (Genesis 12:3).  Thank you, President Trump.

Remarkably, Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises, despite fake news media dominating the airwaves with distortions, negative spin, and actual lies about everything Trump says and does.

Trump successfully getting his tax cuts through Congress has sparked an economic boom for We, the People.  Do you see the pattern, folks?  Thankfully, unlike most pro politicians, Trump presses forward, not giving a rat’s derrière about what fake news media, Democrats, the American left, and establishment elites think or say about him.

By the way, I wish to thank the American left for pushing Trump farther to conservatism.  Trump is not ideological, not viewing himself as liberal or conservative.  But when Trump saw leftists’ vitriolic response to him doing anything good for America, it opened his eyes, pushing him farther to our side.

Despicably, evil leftists have sought to falsely brand Trump-supporters as hateful white supremacists.  We Trump-supporters are decent, hardworking Americans who love our country and desire the best for all Americans regardless of race, color, or creed.  I am a black guy, proud and grateful to be an American.  I even wrote and recorded the “Trump Train” song.

Despite the American left daily launching every weapon in its arsenal at Trump, he remains laser-focused on dismantling Obama’s Punish America legacy.  Thank you, fellow Christians for your prayers.

I do not believe that any other 2016 Republican presidential candidate would have been able to endure or match Trump’s remarkable list of restored freedoms in his first year. 

Entering 2018, I am most grateful to God that Donald J. Trump is in the White House.  Folks, last November, we dodged a bullet big-time.  Hillary Clinton would have marked the end of America as we know it for Lord knows how long.

The same way the American left exploited Obama’s skin color, using it as a bludgeon against anyone who opposed Obama behaving as our dictatorial king, leftists would have used Hillary’s gender.

Queen Hillary supported mass murdering of the unborn.  Hillary defended the horrifically evil practice of partial-birth abortion.  Partial-birth abortion is the abortionist delivering the entire baby’s body except for the head.  The abortionist then shoves scissors into the full-term baby’s head to kill him. 

Hillary would triple down on Obama’s persecution of Christians.  Hillary would dictatorially use government to cram various forms of sexual deviancy down mainstream Americans’ throats.  Hillary would celebrate trifling, lazy dependency on big government as the new American normal.  As I said, anyone daring to oppose Hillary infecting Americans with leftists’ socialist-progressive virus would be taken out – high-tech gang-lynched or thrown into jail.

In essence, Obama regarded the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper, overruling many of our constitutional and God-given freedoms and liberty.  Trump has dramatically put the brakes on Obama transforming America into a socialist, progressive, and anti-Christian nation.  And for that, I am extremely grateful to God and Trump.

Mary and I will spend much of 2018 traveling America, fighting to keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate, which will help Trump reverse Obama’s crimes against us.  If we stay firm in our support of Trump, together we will make our country great again.  Quoting the Pointer Sisters’ hit song, “I’m so excited!”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk
http://LloydMarcus.com

I remember that painful election night in 2012.  Against reason, Americans chose to give Obama four more years in the White House.

As a Christian, all I knew to do was trust God.  Little did I know that Obama’s re-election was setting the stage for long-shot dark-horse presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Over eight years, the shine wore off electing the first black president.  Americans knew that Obama was driving our country in the wrong direction.  We subconsciously felt the tyranny of political correctness.  Obama led leftists’ war on Christianity.  Obama’s agenda was founded upon punishing America first.  Thus, Americans were ready for real change.  Enough with empty promises from fancy-talkin’ professional politicians.

When businessman extraordinaire, regular-guy candidate Trump said he wanted to “make America great again,” We, the People immediately connected with Trump’s clear and simple decree.

Political elites thought Trump running for president was hilarious.  It amazes me that political so-called experts are still puzzled as to why Trump won the White House.  Establishment elites are finally backing away from the narrative that Trump stole the election via collusion with Russia or other dirty tricks.

This tells me that these people (establishment elites) in their Washington, D.C. towers of power are sheltered from everyday Americans.  It is only common sense that a majority of Americans would desire a leader who loves his homeland and wants to make it the best it can be.  Only liberalism-indoctrinated anti-American zealots have a problem with Trump’s positive agenda for America.

Purposely unreported by fake news media, Trump has used his will and true grit to amass a substantial list of wins for America in his first year.  Trump has been rolling back Obama’s messes in spite of NeverTrumps and Congress.

I remember presidential candidate Ted Cruz promising to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  To the shock and horror of haters of Israel in America and around the world, Trump picked up Cruz’s baton, deciding to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  God said He will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel (Genesis 12:3).  Thank you, President Trump.

Remarkably, Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises, despite fake news media dominating the airwaves with distortions, negative spin, and actual lies about everything Trump says and does.

Trump successfully getting his tax cuts through Congress has sparked an economic boom for We, the People.  Do you see the pattern, folks?  Thankfully, unlike most pro politicians, Trump presses forward, not giving a rat’s derrière about what fake news media, Democrats, the American left, and establishment elites think or say about him.

By the way, I wish to thank the American left for pushing Trump farther to conservatism.  Trump is not ideological, not viewing himself as liberal or conservative.  But when Trump saw leftists’ vitriolic response to him doing anything good for America, it opened his eyes, pushing him farther to our side.

Despicably, evil leftists have sought to falsely brand Trump-supporters as hateful white supremacists.  We Trump-supporters are decent, hardworking Americans who love our country and desire the best for all Americans regardless of race, color, or creed.  I am a black guy, proud and grateful to be an American.  I even wrote and recorded the “Trump Train” song.

Despite the American left daily launching every weapon in its arsenal at Trump, he remains laser-focused on dismantling Obama’s Punish America legacy.  Thank you, fellow Christians for your prayers.

I do not believe that any other 2016 Republican presidential candidate would have been able to endure or match Trump’s remarkable list of restored freedoms in his first year. 

Entering 2018, I am most grateful to God that Donald J. Trump is in the White House.  Folks, last November, we dodged a bullet big-time.  Hillary Clinton would have marked the end of America as we know it for Lord knows how long.

The same way the American left exploited Obama’s skin color, using it as a bludgeon against anyone who opposed Obama behaving as our dictatorial king, leftists would have used Hillary’s gender.

Queen Hillary supported mass murdering of the unborn.  Hillary defended the horrifically evil practice of partial-birth abortion.  Partial-birth abortion is the abortionist delivering the entire baby’s body except for the head.  The abortionist then shoves scissors into the full-term baby’s head to kill him. 

Hillary would triple down on Obama’s persecution of Christians.  Hillary would dictatorially use government to cram various forms of sexual deviancy down mainstream Americans’ throats.  Hillary would celebrate trifling, lazy dependency on big government as the new American normal.  As I said, anyone daring to oppose Hillary infecting Americans with leftists’ socialist-progressive virus would be taken out – high-tech gang-lynched or thrown into jail.

In essence, Obama regarded the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper, overruling many of our constitutional and God-given freedoms and liberty.  Trump has dramatically put the brakes on Obama transforming America into a socialist, progressive, and anti-Christian nation.  And for that, I am extremely grateful to God and Trump.

Mary and I will spend much of 2018 traveling America, fighting to keep Republicans in control of the House and Senate, which will help Trump reverse Obama’s crimes against us.  If we stay firm in our support of Trump, together we will make our country great again.  Quoting the Pointer Sisters’ hit song, “I’m so excited!”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk
http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

White Privilege: An Article of Left-Wing Faith


In Yiddish, the term dreck means excrement, dung, crap, or worthless junk.  It is an apt term for the deliberate psychological damage being inflicted upon young Americans as they navigate the leftist swamp of higher education.

White privilege, or whiteness studies, is now an entrenched part of far too many -ology and humanities classes.  This notion of white skin privilege has become an “article of faith among progressives,” who assert that “whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.”

Peggy McIntosh, associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, describes “white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets[.] White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (McIntosh, 1989).  She distributes the following, and students are asked to mark those that apply.  A few of the items include:

  • I can arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
  • I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
  • I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
  • When I am told about our national heritage or about civilization, I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
  • I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
  • I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the food I grew up with, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can deal with my hair.
  • Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial responsibility.
  • I can take a job or enroll in a college with an affirmative action policy without having my co-workers or peers assume I got it because of my race.
  • I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated.
  • I am never asked to speak for all of the people of my racial group.
  • I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk with the person in charge[,] I will be facing a person of my race.
  • If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.
  • I can easily see posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.
  • I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin.
  • I can walk into a classroom and know I will not be the only member of my race.
  • I can enroll in a class at college and be sure that the majority of my professors will be of my race.

Other instructors use a system of privilege points with a scoring result.  In addition, there are items such as “[a]dd one point if your ancestors were forced to come to the U.S. or forced to relocate from their historical lands in the U.S., and add three points if that did not happen to your ancestors,” or “[a]dd one point if English is not your first language[;] add three points if it is.”  Thus, depending on the score, the results will indicate whether some obstacles or some resources or many obstacles or many resources will either interfere or support an individual “simply because of race.”

I wonder what food McIntosh is talking about.  Is it kosher corned beef, Italian meatballs, collard greens, grits, garri (a popular West African food made from cassava tubers), fried chicken, McDonald’s, Hoppin Jon, the Ethiopian dish known as wat, or turkey with all the trimmings?

And that music thing – is this supposed to include black classical musicians such as Frank Johnson (1792-1844), who was the first black American to have his works published as sheet music, or does she mean Blind Tom Wiggins (1849-1908), who performed Bach and Beethoven as well as his own compositions?  Perhaps she is referring to Guadeloupe-born and Paris-based Chevalier De Saint-George (1739-1799), who was called the “black Mozart”?  Or is it jazz, boogie-woogie, blues, gospel, samba, or ragtime?

As Lloyd Billingsley writes, “[t]alent has no color, and in the late [‘]50s on ‘American Bandstand,’ teens were astonished to discover that groups they thought were black, such as the Tokens, were all white and groups they thought were white, such as the Silhouettes, were all black.  Other groups were black and white: The Crests, The Marcels, The Del-Vikings, Booker T. and the M.G.s[,] and others but that was not a new thing.”

And would the Jewish diaspora count as being displaced from historical lands?  Unlikely, since, according to left-wing ideologues, Jews are all white – guess they never met the Black Jews of Harlem, or Ethiopian Jews, or other dark-skinned Middle Eastern Jews from the Arab world!

And affirmative action – now, there’s an interesting twist.  You mean where different racial groups are awarded SAT bonus points – e.g., 230 bonus points for blacks, 185 extra points for Hispanics?

And so the stage is set.  From its inception, this so-called whiteness discipline “bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group[] identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies.”  These fields celebrated their respective groups, but Whiteness Studies consistently depicts whites as “malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions.”

In essence, the left has turned American universities into “havens for race hatred.”  Peter Christopher Pappas in his book Fanning the Flames recalls how once liberal Tammy Bruce writes about the Saul Alinksy “tactic of fanning the flames of resentment.”

Twist any and every event under the rubric of human relations into an assault on women, blacks, gays…and exploit it.  If [the event doesn’t fit,] then an appropriate incident must be invented to remind your constituents of their victimhood.

Examples abound of what students face when they innocently walk into a classroom.

  • Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, has said, “There is plenty to blame whiteness for.  There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color.”
  • “White privilege is a hidden and transparent preference that is often difficult to address.  Only on closer inspection do we see how it creates a sense of entitlement, generates perks and advantages for white people[,] and elevates our status in the world.”  The quotation is excerpted from White Anti-Racist Activism: A Personal Roadmap by Jennifer R. Holladay, M.S. (Crandall, Dostie & Douglass Books, Inc., 2000), as used by the site Teaching Tolerance.
  • White privilege means you never have to explain why cultural appropriation is a bad thing.

Does this mean that if black people straighten their hair, that is white hair appropriation?

Is it wrongful appropriation, as journalist Zipporah Gene maintains, when she asks black Americans to stop wearing African clothing and tribal marks since it indicates “ignorance and cultural insensitivity.”  Yikes – what level of censure will the fashionistas be held to as they appropriate the hijab?

By the way, if I were to go to Africa and study in a university, is it black privilege that most of my professors will be black and that I might even be one of only a few dozen light-skinned individuals and that I would have to learn Yoruba or Fulani to navigate my way and show respect to the citizens of the country in which I reside?

Until thinking Americans who vote for much needed school budgets or fork over thousands of dollars of college tuition money start demanding an end to “this imposition of white guilt and universal black innocence,” the left will continue to pit “various groups of people against one another simply because of the melanin level of their skin.”

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

 

In Yiddish, the term dreck means excrement, dung, crap, or worthless junk.  It is an apt term for the deliberate psychological damage being inflicted upon young Americans as they navigate the leftist swamp of higher education.

White privilege, or whiteness studies, is now an entrenched part of far too many -ology and humanities classes.  This notion of white skin privilege has become an “article of faith among progressives,” who assert that “whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.”

Peggy McIntosh, associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, describes “white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets[.] White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks” (McIntosh, 1989).  She distributes the following, and students are asked to mark those that apply.  A few of the items include:

  • I can arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
  • I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
  • I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
  • When I am told about our national heritage or about civilization, I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
  • I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
  • I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the food I grew up with, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can deal with my hair.
  • Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial responsibility.
  • I can take a job or enroll in a college with an affirmative action policy without having my co-workers or peers assume I got it because of my race.
  • I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated.
  • I am never asked to speak for all of the people of my racial group.
  • I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk with the person in charge[,] I will be facing a person of my race.
  • If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.
  • I can easily see posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.
  • I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin.
  • I can walk into a classroom and know I will not be the only member of my race.
  • I can enroll in a class at college and be sure that the majority of my professors will be of my race.

Other instructors use a system of privilege points with a scoring result.  In addition, there are items such as “[a]dd one point if your ancestors were forced to come to the U.S. or forced to relocate from their historical lands in the U.S., and add three points if that did not happen to your ancestors,” or “[a]dd one point if English is not your first language[;] add three points if it is.”  Thus, depending on the score, the results will indicate whether some obstacles or some resources or many obstacles or many resources will either interfere or support an individual “simply because of race.”

I wonder what food McIntosh is talking about.  Is it kosher corned beef, Italian meatballs, collard greens, grits, garri (a popular West African food made from cassava tubers), fried chicken, McDonald’s, Hoppin Jon, the Ethiopian dish known as wat, or turkey with all the trimmings?

And that music thing – is this supposed to include black classical musicians such as Frank Johnson (1792-1844), who was the first black American to have his works published as sheet music, or does she mean Blind Tom Wiggins (1849-1908), who performed Bach and Beethoven as well as his own compositions?  Perhaps she is referring to Guadeloupe-born and Paris-based Chevalier De Saint-George (1739-1799), who was called the “black Mozart”?  Or is it jazz, boogie-woogie, blues, gospel, samba, or ragtime?

As Lloyd Billingsley writes, “[t]alent has no color, and in the late [‘]50s on ‘American Bandstand,’ teens were astonished to discover that groups they thought were black, such as the Tokens, were all white and groups they thought were white, such as the Silhouettes, were all black.  Other groups were black and white: The Crests, The Marcels, The Del-Vikings, Booker T. and the M.G.s[,] and others but that was not a new thing.”

And would the Jewish diaspora count as being displaced from historical lands?  Unlikely, since, according to left-wing ideologues, Jews are all white – guess they never met the Black Jews of Harlem, or Ethiopian Jews, or other dark-skinned Middle Eastern Jews from the Arab world!

And affirmative action – now, there’s an interesting twist.  You mean where different racial groups are awarded SAT bonus points – e.g., 230 bonus points for blacks, 185 extra points for Hispanics?

And so the stage is set.  From its inception, this so-called whiteness discipline “bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group[] identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies.”  These fields celebrated their respective groups, but Whiteness Studies consistently depicts whites as “malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions.”

In essence, the left has turned American universities into “havens for race hatred.”  Peter Christopher Pappas in his book Fanning the Flames recalls how once liberal Tammy Bruce writes about the Saul Alinksy “tactic of fanning the flames of resentment.”

Twist any and every event under the rubric of human relations into an assault on women, blacks, gays…and exploit it.  If [the event doesn’t fit,] then an appropriate incident must be invented to remind your constituents of their victimhood.

Examples abound of what students face when they innocently walk into a classroom.

  • Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, has said, “There is plenty to blame whiteness for.  There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color.”
  • “White privilege is a hidden and transparent preference that is often difficult to address.  Only on closer inspection do we see how it creates a sense of entitlement, generates perks and advantages for white people[,] and elevates our status in the world.”  The quotation is excerpted from White Anti-Racist Activism: A Personal Roadmap by Jennifer R. Holladay, M.S. (Crandall, Dostie & Douglass Books, Inc., 2000), as used by the site Teaching Tolerance.
  • White privilege means you never have to explain why cultural appropriation is a bad thing.

Does this mean that if black people straighten their hair, that is white hair appropriation?

Is it wrongful appropriation, as journalist Zipporah Gene maintains, when she asks black Americans to stop wearing African clothing and tribal marks since it indicates “ignorance and cultural insensitivity.”  Yikes – what level of censure will the fashionistas be held to as they appropriate the hijab?

By the way, if I were to go to Africa and study in a university, is it black privilege that most of my professors will be black and that I might even be one of only a few dozen light-skinned individuals and that I would have to learn Yoruba or Fulani to navigate my way and show respect to the citizens of the country in which I reside?

Until thinking Americans who vote for much needed school budgets or fork over thousands of dollars of college tuition money start demanding an end to “this imposition of white guilt and universal black innocence,” the left will continue to pit “various groups of people against one another simply because of the melanin level of their skin.”

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

 



Source link

Trump's Energy Success


Just six months ago, the Trump administration was attacked for its “slow start.”  It was said to be “in disarray,” in “chaos,” “at war” with itself, and incapable of governing.  Now the list of successes has piled up, making it clear that, if the trend continues, President Trump will become one of our more important presidents.  Far from being a do-nothing administration, the Trump team is a White House on steroids.

One of the president’s major successes is in the area of energy policy.  Along with energy secretary Rick Perry, the president is overseeing the recovery of the American energy sector from the low point it hit under the Obama administration.  By a combination of executive orders totally restrictiong drilling on federal lands and EPA assaults on fracking and coal-mining, including a total ban on mountaintop-mining, Obama prosecuted a “war” not just on coal, but on fossil fuels generally.

Now America has become the largest producer of oil and gas and a major exporter of natural gas.  The U.S. now produces significantly more hydrocarbons than second-place Russia and twice as much as Saudi Arabia.  As coal-mining is restored, pipelines are laid, and new wells are drilled, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created across the economy, not just in drilling and mining, but in support services.

The effect on the economy is already being felt.  According to Monster.com, a leading employment recruitment site, oil jobs are making a “huge comeback,” with “100,000 new jobs by 2018.”  And these are high paying jobs: “the average pay of the oil and gas industry is 85% higher than the national average.”  Each new job in the energy field creates others in areas like steel production, rig technology, transportation, and general services.  And the money earned in these high paying fields circulates through the economy.

With the passage of a provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowing oil exploration in ANWR, the president has another success.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains vast reserves of recoverable oil currently estimated at 10.4 billion barrels.  Development has been blocked by misguided and ill informed opposition from environmental groups.  Now, with great care for the environment, oil companies will have the opportunity to produce vast amounts of energy while drilling only 3% of ANWR.

According to a report from the House Committee on Natural Resources, “total governmental revenue” from ANWR drilling will run $440 billion.  ANWR alone will create between 55,000 and 130,000 new high paying jobs.

It is not just ANWR.  By removing unnecessary restrictions on fracking and by opening other federal lands to drilling, President Trump is promoting energy independence rather than standing in its way.  He has opened federal lands for drilling, including land in two national monuments in southern Utah.  Vast federal lands in the Western U.S. offer other opportunities.

In April, the president signed an executive order reversing Obama’s ban on new offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic.  Current estimates show that almost 90 billion barrels of oil and 327 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie under the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.  Those estimates have a way of being revised upward, especially for regions such as these that have not been explored with modern technology due to past restrictions.  Offshore drilling has the potential to produce ten times the number of jobs and government revenue projected for ANWR.  At the high end, that would be 1,300,000 high paying jobs and $4.4 trillion in state and federal revenue.

Under President Obama, American coal-mining suffered a near-death experience.  Now, under EPA director Scott Pruitt, the Trump administration is taking steps to restore coal to its rightful place in America’s energy supply mix.  Though it will take years to complete, the reversal of Obama’s Clean Power Plan that began back in October will take government out of the frame of “picking winners and losers.”  Coal will still have to compete with natural gas, but at least it will be allowed to compete.

The president’s accomplishments in the field of energy policy are not limited to fossil fuels.  His Energy Department recently committed $100 million to promoting Transformative Energy Projects intended to spur early-stage innovators.  The department continues to promote alternative energy sources and energy conservation, important contributors to energy independence.  Energy conservation in particular can go a long way toward making America energy-independent.

With the opening of new lands to fracking and conventional drilling and the restoration of mining in the Appalachian region, the energy sector has gone from moribund to robust practically overnight.  One of the president’s first actions was the elimination of the Steam Protection Rule, which imposed crippling burdens of regulation on the industry.  As a result, production has begun to increase.  

As the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s annual “Outlook” makes clear, the future for American energy production is bright.  The Outlook models future production across a wide range of different scenarios, and it concludes that the U.S. “is projected to become a net energy exporter by 2026” in its Reference Case projections but that it may do so earlier under three side cases.  After 2026, the scale of exports expands rapidly in all cases.

Perhaps the most consequential of the president’s actions in the field of energy is his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.  While withdrawal from the accord does not have significant immediate consequences, its long-term effect is great.  Its most important effect will be to reduce the possibility of a deluge of environmental lawsuits based largely on the agreement signed by President Obama.  These lawsuits would have blocked American energy production to gratify a self-appointed global environmental elite – at the expense of the American people.    

The president’s accomplishments are many, but energy stands out.  America is now the world’s premiere producer of fossil fuels.  In just one year, we have gone from a dismal future, in which the government planned to shut down fossil fuels almost entirely by mid-century, to a nation on the cusp of total energy independence.  “Make America Great Again” was not just a clever campaign slogan; it is a reality in the field of energy production, as in so many other areas under President Trump.        

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

Just six months ago, the Trump administration was attacked for its “slow start.”  It was said to be “in disarray,” in “chaos,” “at war” with itself, and incapable of governing.  Now the list of successes has piled up, making it clear that, if the trend continues, President Trump will become one of our more important presidents.  Far from being a do-nothing administration, the Trump team is a White House on steroids.

One of the president’s major successes is in the area of energy policy.  Along with energy secretary Rick Perry, the president is overseeing the recovery of the American energy sector from the low point it hit under the Obama administration.  By a combination of executive orders totally restrictiong drilling on federal lands and EPA assaults on fracking and coal-mining, including a total ban on mountaintop-mining, Obama prosecuted a “war” not just on coal, but on fossil fuels generally.

Now America has become the largest producer of oil and gas and a major exporter of natural gas.  The U.S. now produces significantly more hydrocarbons than second-place Russia and twice as much as Saudi Arabia.  As coal-mining is restored, pipelines are laid, and new wells are drilled, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being created across the economy, not just in drilling and mining, but in support services.

The effect on the economy is already being felt.  According to Monster.com, a leading employment recruitment site, oil jobs are making a “huge comeback,” with “100,000 new jobs by 2018.”  And these are high paying jobs: “the average pay of the oil and gas industry is 85% higher than the national average.”  Each new job in the energy field creates others in areas like steel production, rig technology, transportation, and general services.  And the money earned in these high paying fields circulates through the economy.

With the passage of a provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowing oil exploration in ANWR, the president has another success.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains vast reserves of recoverable oil currently estimated at 10.4 billion barrels.  Development has been blocked by misguided and ill informed opposition from environmental groups.  Now, with great care for the environment, oil companies will have the opportunity to produce vast amounts of energy while drilling only 3% of ANWR.

According to a report from the House Committee on Natural Resources, “total governmental revenue” from ANWR drilling will run $440 billion.  ANWR alone will create between 55,000 and 130,000 new high paying jobs.

It is not just ANWR.  By removing unnecessary restrictions on fracking and by opening other federal lands to drilling, President Trump is promoting energy independence rather than standing in its way.  He has opened federal lands for drilling, including land in two national monuments in southern Utah.  Vast federal lands in the Western U.S. offer other opportunities.

In April, the president signed an executive order reversing Obama’s ban on new offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic.  Current estimates show that almost 90 billion barrels of oil and 327 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie under the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.  Those estimates have a way of being revised upward, especially for regions such as these that have not been explored with modern technology due to past restrictions.  Offshore drilling has the potential to produce ten times the number of jobs and government revenue projected for ANWR.  At the high end, that would be 1,300,000 high paying jobs and $4.4 trillion in state and federal revenue.

Under President Obama, American coal-mining suffered a near-death experience.  Now, under EPA director Scott Pruitt, the Trump administration is taking steps to restore coal to its rightful place in America’s energy supply mix.  Though it will take years to complete, the reversal of Obama’s Clean Power Plan that began back in October will take government out of the frame of “picking winners and losers.”  Coal will still have to compete with natural gas, but at least it will be allowed to compete.

The president’s accomplishments in the field of energy policy are not limited to fossil fuels.  His Energy Department recently committed $100 million to promoting Transformative Energy Projects intended to spur early-stage innovators.  The department continues to promote alternative energy sources and energy conservation, important contributors to energy independence.  Energy conservation in particular can go a long way toward making America energy-independent.

With the opening of new lands to fracking and conventional drilling and the restoration of mining in the Appalachian region, the energy sector has gone from moribund to robust practically overnight.  One of the president’s first actions was the elimination of the Steam Protection Rule, which imposed crippling burdens of regulation on the industry.  As a result, production has begun to increase.  

As the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s annual “Outlook” makes clear, the future for American energy production is bright.  The Outlook models future production across a wide range of different scenarios, and it concludes that the U.S. “is projected to become a net energy exporter by 2026” in its Reference Case projections but that it may do so earlier under three side cases.  After 2026, the scale of exports expands rapidly in all cases.

Perhaps the most consequential of the president’s actions in the field of energy is his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.  While withdrawal from the accord does not have significant immediate consequences, its long-term effect is great.  Its most important effect will be to reduce the possibility of a deluge of environmental lawsuits based largely on the agreement signed by President Obama.  These lawsuits would have blocked American energy production to gratify a self-appointed global environmental elite – at the expense of the American people.    

The president’s accomplishments are many, but energy stands out.  America is now the world’s premiere producer of fossil fuels.  In just one year, we have gone from a dismal future, in which the government planned to shut down fossil fuels almost entirely by mid-century, to a nation on the cusp of total energy independence.  “Make America Great Again” was not just a clever campaign slogan; it is a reality in the field of energy production, as in so many other areas under President Trump.        

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).



Source link

The Republican Red State Is Dead


In the days following Moore’s loss, the predictable excuses from the right were resurrected:

“Voter fraud!”

“The media!”

“Mitch McConnell!” 

Jones is a NeverTrump ally

Unlike a good bourbon, these rationalizations haven’t aged well.  Perhaps they played some part, and yes, Moore was a terrible candidate.  At least Republicans didn’t attribute Jones’s victory to Vlad Putin or libelous dossiers chock-full of details akin more to pornography than to politics.

However, you can make excuses, or you can win elections – you just can’t do both.  Alabama was the reddest of red states, and a Democrat got elected.  Loath as I am to admit it, the win was big for the Democrats; even if he’s a two-year rental, Jones could be a hindrance to the America First brand of politics ushered in by President Trump’s stunning victory last year.  Exacerbating the situation is the constant opposition to the president from a handful of fellow Republicans in the Senate, where the GOP majority is razor-thin.  (I call these resistance RINOs Et Tu, Brute Republicans.)

Blue and pur-blue states, including Texas

There are no more reliably red states.  I believed this before Alabama; if the red state wasn’t dead before Alabama, it was on life support.  There are only blue and pur-blue states.  The mostly coastal blue states are unequivocally majority-Democrat.

What, then, turns a pur-blue state red?  The answer is so simple that it’s often overlooked: turnout, turnout, turnout.  Showing up and turning out is all that ultimately matters in politics.  Sure, a formidable campaign operation, comprising effective and targeted messaging, staffers, and volunteers who canvass door to door, belly button to belly button, is non-negotiable.  All that counts in the end, however, is the final count.  Moral victories are cute and make for feel-good film, but candidates are elected based on the result, not their effort.

Alabama’s tally confirms that the red state is dead.  Two million registered voters stayed home, and Jones won by almost 21,000 votes.  For argument’s sake, let’s say all of Jones’s margin of victory was voter fraud (good luck proving that).  Twenty-one thousand of 2 million is 1.5 percent.  This tiny percentage makes the excuses for losing look particularly lame.

President Trump received 1.3 million votes last year, and Moore received 650,000 at a time when the GOP has its largest state and federal majority in party history – a majority not even Presidents Lincoln and Reagan had.  Yuck.

The Democrats want low turnout and want voter ID laws.  They publicly oppose ID laws because it keeps the embers of the “GOP as white supremacists and wannabe slaveholders” Democratic Party and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) narrative white-hot.  This isn’t conspiracy theory, but rather a covert gerrymander that’s favorable to Democrats virtually everywhere across the country – the urban, heavily populated cities versus the suburbs and rural areas.

Throw a dart at a map of the U.S., and wherever it lands, staying home on Election Day helps elect Democrats 90% of the time.

In a previously published piece, I proved that Democrat policies are guaranteed to fail and identified hopelessly Democrat municipal empires that almost always tilt a state blue.  I say “almost always” because something extraordinary occurred in the 2016 presidential election: President Trump was the only national GOP candidate who attacked these futile Democrat policies, and even though he didn’t win cities such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis, he won their respective states.

I know what you’re thinking: what about Texas, that allegedly reliable red state?  Those who believe that fallacy affirm the premise of this article.  If only Texas’s four largest cities (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin) voted, the Lone Star State would be as blue as California and New York.  As recently as 1995 [not 2006 –ed.], Texas had a Democrat governor, and its big cities are only getting bluer.

Here’s a red pill for you: Mitt Romney and President Trump both won Texas, in 2012 and 2016, respectively, but Romney received a higher percentage of votes cast than did President Trump.

To use some Texas slang, y’all know that the Democrats’ endgame (which, unfortunately, would have been fulfilled had Clinton won last year) is Texas, right?  Texas going blue guarantees Democrat presidents and Supreme Courts forever.  Had Clinton been elected in 2016, it would have ushered in a Democrat hegemony over the entire nation, thanks to the five Supreme Court justices who would have fast-tracked for illegal aliens the right to vote.

Texas is a pur-blue state.  If it goes blue, checkmate.  The game is over.

Still think elections and not voting don’t matter and don’t have consequences?  There is no such thing as neutrality; everyone is on a side, whether he likes it or not.

Democrats taste blood

Though the GOP, to its credit, has had some big wins this year, with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, net neutrality repeal, and historic tax reform, the party’s default stance is always to play defense.  When on defense, the GOP, working families, and small business owners all lose.  The best defense is a great and prolific offense.  To paraphrase the venerable General Patton, no one ever successfully defended anything; there’s only attack, attack, and attack some more.

Even though the Democrats have lost over 1,000 state and federal seats since 2008, they never rest and always come out to vote.  President Trump’s America First politics are raw, bloody red-meat motivation for Democrats.  Humans make decisions based on fear and greed; the president and his supporters are the ultimate fear-motivator.

The Democratic Party is morphing into a full-scale, capital-L leftist European Union-style socialist party, which is precisely what its voters want.  Republicans and right-leaning independents must counter with greed.  Low margins of victory cannot be the goal; that’s playing not to lose.  Playing to win means playing scared and running up the score.  If a football team’s offense can’t consistently convert fourth and centimeters, then it doesn’t have much of an offense, does it? 

When the GOP stood unified last week to announce tax reform, it finally looked like a governing, majority party on the attack rather than a kowtowing, acquiescent party.  The Democrats lost, and we won.  We don’t need to work with them; they need to work with us.  Let’s remind Democrats of what President Obama said in 2009: elections have consequences.

The good news is that the death of the red state doesn’t mean we can’t keep the map predominantly red.  The mantra must be urgency with a sense of urgency, especially in 2018 and 2020.  Otherwise, the GOP runs the risk of being the Atlanta Falcons of American politics.

Rich Logis is the CEO of Logis Productions, Inc. and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat. Follow him on Twitter at @RichLogis.

The most important lesson from Judge Roy Moore’s U.S. Senate loss to Doug Jones in Alabama is that the reliable red state is dead.

It died a slow, bloody death.  And its murderers were Republicans.

In the days following Moore’s loss, the predictable excuses from the right were resurrected:

“Voter fraud!”

“The media!”

“Mitch McConnell!” 

Jones is a NeverTrump ally

Unlike a good bourbon, these rationalizations haven’t aged well.  Perhaps they played some part, and yes, Moore was a terrible candidate.  At least Republicans didn’t attribute Jones’s victory to Vlad Putin or libelous dossiers chock-full of details akin more to pornography than to politics.

However, you can make excuses, or you can win elections – you just can’t do both.  Alabama was the reddest of red states, and a Democrat got elected.  Loath as I am to admit it, the win was big for the Democrats; even if he’s a two-year rental, Jones could be a hindrance to the America First brand of politics ushered in by President Trump’s stunning victory last year.  Exacerbating the situation is the constant opposition to the president from a handful of fellow Republicans in the Senate, where the GOP majority is razor-thin.  (I call these resistance RINOs Et Tu, Brute Republicans.)

Blue and pur-blue states, including Texas

There are no more reliably red states.  I believed this before Alabama; if the red state wasn’t dead before Alabama, it was on life support.  There are only blue and pur-blue states.  The mostly coastal blue states are unequivocally majority-Democrat.

What, then, turns a pur-blue state red?  The answer is so simple that it’s often overlooked: turnout, turnout, turnout.  Showing up and turning out is all that ultimately matters in politics.  Sure, a formidable campaign operation, comprising effective and targeted messaging, staffers, and volunteers who canvass door to door, belly button to belly button, is non-negotiable.  All that counts in the end, however, is the final count.  Moral victories are cute and make for feel-good film, but candidates are elected based on the result, not their effort.

Alabama’s tally confirms that the red state is dead.  Two million registered voters stayed home, and Jones won by almost 21,000 votes.  For argument’s sake, let’s say all of Jones’s margin of victory was voter fraud (good luck proving that).  Twenty-one thousand of 2 million is 1.5 percent.  This tiny percentage makes the excuses for losing look particularly lame.

President Trump received 1.3 million votes last year, and Moore received 650,000 at a time when the GOP has its largest state and federal majority in party history – a majority not even Presidents Lincoln and Reagan had.  Yuck.

The Democrats want low turnout and want voter ID laws.  They publicly oppose ID laws because it keeps the embers of the “GOP as white supremacists and wannabe slaveholders” Democratic Party and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) narrative white-hot.  This isn’t conspiracy theory, but rather a covert gerrymander that’s favorable to Democrats virtually everywhere across the country – the urban, heavily populated cities versus the suburbs and rural areas.

Throw a dart at a map of the U.S., and wherever it lands, staying home on Election Day helps elect Democrats 90% of the time.

In a previously published piece, I proved that Democrat policies are guaranteed to fail and identified hopelessly Democrat municipal empires that almost always tilt a state blue.  I say “almost always” because something extraordinary occurred in the 2016 presidential election: President Trump was the only national GOP candidate who attacked these futile Democrat policies, and even though he didn’t win cities such as Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis, he won their respective states.

I know what you’re thinking: what about Texas, that allegedly reliable red state?  Those who believe that fallacy affirm the premise of this article.  If only Texas’s four largest cities (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin) voted, the Lone Star State would be as blue as California and New York.  As recently as 1995 [not 2006 –ed.], Texas had a Democrat governor, and its big cities are only getting bluer.

Here’s a red pill for you: Mitt Romney and President Trump both won Texas, in 2012 and 2016, respectively, but Romney received a higher percentage of votes cast than did President Trump.

To use some Texas slang, y’all know that the Democrats’ endgame (which, unfortunately, would have been fulfilled had Clinton won last year) is Texas, right?  Texas going blue guarantees Democrat presidents and Supreme Courts forever.  Had Clinton been elected in 2016, it would have ushered in a Democrat hegemony over the entire nation, thanks to the five Supreme Court justices who would have fast-tracked for illegal aliens the right to vote.

Texas is a pur-blue state.  If it goes blue, checkmate.  The game is over.

Still think elections and not voting don’t matter and don’t have consequences?  There is no such thing as neutrality; everyone is on a side, whether he likes it or not.

Democrats taste blood

Though the GOP, to its credit, has had some big wins this year, with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, net neutrality repeal, and historic tax reform, the party’s default stance is always to play defense.  When on defense, the GOP, working families, and small business owners all lose.  The best defense is a great and prolific offense.  To paraphrase the venerable General Patton, no one ever successfully defended anything; there’s only attack, attack, and attack some more.

Even though the Democrats have lost over 1,000 state and federal seats since 2008, they never rest and always come out to vote.  President Trump’s America First politics are raw, bloody red-meat motivation for Democrats.  Humans make decisions based on fear and greed; the president and his supporters are the ultimate fear-motivator.

The Democratic Party is morphing into a full-scale, capital-L leftist European Union-style socialist party, which is precisely what its voters want.  Republicans and right-leaning independents must counter with greed.  Low margins of victory cannot be the goal; that’s playing not to lose.  Playing to win means playing scared and running up the score.  If a football team’s offense can’t consistently convert fourth and centimeters, then it doesn’t have much of an offense, does it? 

When the GOP stood unified last week to announce tax reform, it finally looked like a governing, majority party on the attack rather than a kowtowing, acquiescent party.  The Democrats lost, and we won.  We don’t need to work with them; they need to work with us.  Let’s remind Democrats of what President Obama said in 2009: elections have consequences.

The good news is that the death of the red state doesn’t mean we can’t keep the map predominantly red.  The mantra must be urgency with a sense of urgency, especially in 2018 and 2020.  Otherwise, the GOP runs the risk of being the Atlanta Falcons of American politics.

Rich Logis is the CEO of Logis Productions, Inc. and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat. Follow him on Twitter at @RichLogis.



Source link

The Islamic Brew of Racism, Apartheid, and Slavery


While the world is in a dither about America recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it is, predictably, totally unconcerned about the constant and ongoing practice of “legally or culturally enforced discrimination and/or persecution based on a person’s race or national identity” – to wit, apartheid – in the Muslim world.  Consider that:

  • Arab League states discriminate against and exclude Palestinians because of their national identity.
  • Palestinian refugees have been denied citizenship for two generations or more in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
  • Palestinians have been expelled from many Middle Eastern countries – e.g., Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq.
  • In Lebanon, Palestinians must live in designated areas, cannot own homes, and are barred from 70 occupations.

And yet, every year, universities across America host Israel Apartheid Week despite the fact that “Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest.”

Contrast this with the fact that Muslim religiously based apartheid continues, since “Muslims historically view themselves as superior to all others and consider non-Muslims or kuffars as dhimmis.”  Thus, Christians, Jews, and Bahá’í remain second-class citizens throughout the Muslim world.  Racism is rampant in the Arab world, and “Africans of sub-Saharan descent are held in deep contempt, a vestige of the region’s historical role as epicenter of the international slave trade.”

And while Palestinian refugees are championed by the Arab world, they are treated like outcasts.  Khaled Abu Toameh writes, “[I]t was revealed that the Iraqi government has approved a new law that effectively abolishes the rights given to Palestinians living there. The new law changes the status of Palestinians from nationals to foreigners.”  In sum, “[t]he hypocrisy of the Arab countries is in full swing.  While they pretend to show solidarity with their Palestinian brothers, Arab governments work tirelessly to ethnically cleanse them.  Palestinian leaders, meanwhile[,] care nothing about the plight of their own people in Arab countries.  They are much too busy inciting Palestinians against Israel and Trump[.]”

Aside from the ongoing discrimination, gender apartheid is widespread in the Arab world.  Rape is blamed on women.  Rapists can escape legal punishment by marrying their victims, and women’s court testimony is worth less than men’s.  Moreover, women can be forced into arranged marriages.  Honor killings continue throughout the globe.  In Pakistan, an “estimated 1,000 cases a year occur.  Honor killings happen when family members murder a daughter, sister, mother[,] or wife because they believe she has brought shame to the family.  The reasons range from refusing an arranged marriage to owning a cell phone or even being a victim of rape.”

“‘It’s all just related to the idea that women are property, and you can do what you like with your property,’ says Heather Barr, senior researcher for women’s rights at Human Rights Watch[.]”  Moreover, “support for honor killing is far more likely among adolescent boys who have not spent much time in school.  And in a 2009 survey from the United Nations Population Fund, … 68 percent of young Iraqi men believed that killing a girl for dishonoring the family was justifiable.”  These are the very ideas now coming into Europe, where vetting of so-called refugees is basically nonexistent.

Notwithstanding that a recent decree in Saudi Arabia “permits women to drive for the first time in the country’s history, local authorities consistently refuse to issue women with a driving license, resulting in a de facto ban.”  And “although guardianship is not enshrined in written law, government officials, courts, businesses[,] and individual Saudis generally act in accordance with it, meaning that, in practice, women need their guardian’s consent for any major activity, including traveling, obtaining a passport, getting married or divorced[,] and signing contracts.” 

In Saudi Arabia, “public transportation, parks, beaches[,] and amusement parks are also segregated in most parts of the country.  Unlawful mixing will lead to criminal charges being brought against both parties, but women typically face harsher punishment.”  Women cannot compete freely in sports or use public swimming pools available to men.

In Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, gay Muslim men can be stoned to death.  Why?  Sharia law dictates this. 

Religious apartheid is alive and well in the Muslim world.  Nonie Darwish in Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values writes how the “Bible revolutionized her life when she read about the joy of loving people.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible describes what love looks like[.]”  On the other hand, the “Koran has plenty of verses about those whom Allah does not love – especially the kafirs.”  In fact, “even the love of Muslims for their prophet Muhammad is conditional upon hating Jews.”  In addition, “neither Allah nor Muhammad tells Muslims to love people of other religions.”  “Islam teaches Muslims to despise life on Earth and shames those who want to flee from jihad for the sake of Allah in order to live.”

The difference between the Bible and Islam is clear, particularly when it comes to violence.  With “164 verses in the Koran dealing strictly with jihad and violence against non-Muslims, how can Islamic education teach peace” when Muslims find at least one verse per page teaching animosity, hatred, or violence?  Is it any wonder that a Palestinian Muslim intifada flag portrayed the following?  “It’s Saturday, so Massacre the Jews; on Sunday, Massacre the Christians.”

And then there is the issue of slavery.  According to the Clarion Project:

Slavery … ended [only] comparatively recently in the Arab world.  In Saudi Arabia, it was abolished in 1962.  Yet despite the formal abolition of slavery in the kingdom, the attitudes of superiority persist and are used to justify appalling treatment of overseas guest workers from countries such as the Philippines.


In Yemen, most slaves were freed in the 1960s, but researchers confirmed cases of slavery as recently as 2010.  [Al Jazeera] covered slavery in Yemen in a documentary feature exposing the brutal realities of the continued practice.


Mauritania was the last country in the world to abolish slavery, which it did only in 1981.  Slavery, however, still exists in Mauritania, where an estimated 10 to 20 percent of the population still live in slavery.  In 2007[,] the government passed a law saying that slave owners would be prosecuted.  But in 2014, the Global Slavery Index estimated there are 140,000 slaves still in Mauritania, out of a population of 3.8 million.

In his searing account of ten years as a slave, Francis Bok in his 1986 book Escape from Slavery exposes the horrifying raid on his Sudanese village when Arab raiders annihilated members of  his Dinka tribe.  He writes how northern Sudanese Muslims would swoop down and shoot Dinka men, “slashing with their swords, chopping off heads with a single swipe.”  Seven-year-old Bok was kidnapped and brought to an Arab family, where the children chanted abeed, abeed, (a derogatory term in Arabic meaning “slave”), all the while beating him with sticks.  “Never in [his] life had he been surrounded by people who did not care if someone was hurting [him].”  Finally, after two failed attempts to escape, Bok, age 17, fled his Arab captors.  It was not until 1999 that he finally was a completely free man.

In a 2017 report titled “Trafficking Terror: How Modern Slavery and Sexual Violence Fund Terrorism,” Nikita Malik examines “how terrorists use sexual violence, including rape, sexual slavery, and forced marriage, to bolster recruits[;] galvanize fighters[;] and, in the case of Islamist groups, punish kuffars or disbelievers.”  Furthermore, “there is a fixation on the part of Islamic State fighters with the concept of kuffar … so that barbaric acts can be condoned.”  In addition, “religious elements are infused into sexual violence practices to skirt … the moral wrongdoing of rape.”  Since “national laws on sexual violence within countries where extremist groups are present [–] i.e., Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria [–] allow rapists to marry their victims to avoid prosecution and punishment[,]” it is the survivors who carry the burden of shame and stigma, rather than their perpetrators.

Robert Spencer writes that “in the past, as today, most slaves in Islam were non-Muslims who had been captured during jihad warfare.”  In “The Persistence of Islamic Slavery,” Spencer writes that “while the European and American slave trade get stern treatment … from historians, the Islamic slave trade, which actually lasted longer and brought suffering to a larger number of people, is virtually ignored.”  And when pressure came to end slavery, the Muslim world was “incredulous,” since the “words of the Qur’an and Muhammad were decisive in stifling abolitionist movements within the Islamic world.”

Nonie Darwish writes that “Islam is very useful for totalitarian regimes.  Islam provides weak governments with a  legal and religious formula that enables totalitarian control and forces the submission of citizens.”  She emphasizes that “the appeal of Islam to Western leftist politicians, who should know better, defies logic.”  Darwish asserts that “one and a half billion Muslims are living under the slavery of Islam, and they will never truly rebel as long as they can simply leave for the West – where they will work to impose sharia on the rest of us.” 

We have been warned.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

While the world is in a dither about America recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it is, predictably, totally unconcerned about the constant and ongoing practice of “legally or culturally enforced discrimination and/or persecution based on a person’s race or national identity” – to wit, apartheid – in the Muslim world.  Consider that:

  • Arab League states discriminate against and exclude Palestinians because of their national identity.
  • Palestinian refugees have been denied citizenship for two generations or more in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
  • Palestinians have been expelled from many Middle Eastern countries – e.g., Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq.
  • In Lebanon, Palestinians must live in designated areas, cannot own homes, and are barred from 70 occupations.

And yet, every year, universities across America host Israel Apartheid Week despite the fact that “Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest.”

Contrast this with the fact that Muslim religiously based apartheid continues, since “Muslims historically view themselves as superior to all others and consider non-Muslims or kuffars as dhimmis.”  Thus, Christians, Jews, and Bahá’í remain second-class citizens throughout the Muslim world.  Racism is rampant in the Arab world, and “Africans of sub-Saharan descent are held in deep contempt, a vestige of the region’s historical role as epicenter of the international slave trade.”

And while Palestinian refugees are championed by the Arab world, they are treated like outcasts.  Khaled Abu Toameh writes, “[I]t was revealed that the Iraqi government has approved a new law that effectively abolishes the rights given to Palestinians living there. The new law changes the status of Palestinians from nationals to foreigners.”  In sum, “[t]he hypocrisy of the Arab countries is in full swing.  While they pretend to show solidarity with their Palestinian brothers, Arab governments work tirelessly to ethnically cleanse them.  Palestinian leaders, meanwhile[,] care nothing about the plight of their own people in Arab countries.  They are much too busy inciting Palestinians against Israel and Trump[.]”

Aside from the ongoing discrimination, gender apartheid is widespread in the Arab world.  Rape is blamed on women.  Rapists can escape legal punishment by marrying their victims, and women’s court testimony is worth less than men’s.  Moreover, women can be forced into arranged marriages.  Honor killings continue throughout the globe.  In Pakistan, an “estimated 1,000 cases a year occur.  Honor killings happen when family members murder a daughter, sister, mother[,] or wife because they believe she has brought shame to the family.  The reasons range from refusing an arranged marriage to owning a cell phone or even being a victim of rape.”

“‘It’s all just related to the idea that women are property, and you can do what you like with your property,’ says Heather Barr, senior researcher for women’s rights at Human Rights Watch[.]”  Moreover, “support for honor killing is far more likely among adolescent boys who have not spent much time in school.  And in a 2009 survey from the United Nations Population Fund, … 68 percent of young Iraqi men believed that killing a girl for dishonoring the family was justifiable.”  These are the very ideas now coming into Europe, where vetting of so-called refugees is basically nonexistent.

Notwithstanding that a recent decree in Saudi Arabia “permits women to drive for the first time in the country’s history, local authorities consistently refuse to issue women with a driving license, resulting in a de facto ban.”  And “although guardianship is not enshrined in written law, government officials, courts, businesses[,] and individual Saudis generally act in accordance with it, meaning that, in practice, women need their guardian’s consent for any major activity, including traveling, obtaining a passport, getting married or divorced[,] and signing contracts.” 

In Saudi Arabia, “public transportation, parks, beaches[,] and amusement parks are also segregated in most parts of the country.  Unlawful mixing will lead to criminal charges being brought against both parties, but women typically face harsher punishment.”  Women cannot compete freely in sports or use public swimming pools available to men.

In Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, gay Muslim men can be stoned to death.  Why?  Sharia law dictates this. 

Religious apartheid is alive and well in the Muslim world.  Nonie Darwish in Wholly Different: Why I Chose Biblical Values Over Islamic Values writes how the “Bible revolutionized her life when she read about the joy of loving people.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible describes what love looks like[.]”  On the other hand, the “Koran has plenty of verses about those whom Allah does not love – especially the kafirs.”  In fact, “even the love of Muslims for their prophet Muhammad is conditional upon hating Jews.”  In addition, “neither Allah nor Muhammad tells Muslims to love people of other religions.”  “Islam teaches Muslims to despise life on Earth and shames those who want to flee from jihad for the sake of Allah in order to live.”

The difference between the Bible and Islam is clear, particularly when it comes to violence.  With “164 verses in the Koran dealing strictly with jihad and violence against non-Muslims, how can Islamic education teach peace” when Muslims find at least one verse per page teaching animosity, hatred, or violence?  Is it any wonder that a Palestinian Muslim intifada flag portrayed the following?  “It’s Saturday, so Massacre the Jews; on Sunday, Massacre the Christians.”

And then there is the issue of slavery.  According to the Clarion Project:

Slavery … ended [only] comparatively recently in the Arab world.  In Saudi Arabia, it was abolished in 1962.  Yet despite the formal abolition of slavery in the kingdom, the attitudes of superiority persist and are used to justify appalling treatment of overseas guest workers from countries such as the Philippines.


In Yemen, most slaves were freed in the 1960s, but researchers confirmed cases of slavery as recently as 2010.  [Al Jazeera] covered slavery in Yemen in a documentary feature exposing the brutal realities of the continued practice.


Mauritania was the last country in the world to abolish slavery, which it did only in 1981.  Slavery, however, still exists in Mauritania, where an estimated 10 to 20 percent of the population still live in slavery.  In 2007[,] the government passed a law saying that slave owners would be prosecuted.  But in 2014, the Global Slavery Index estimated there are 140,000 slaves still in Mauritania, out of a population of 3.8 million.

In his searing account of ten years as a slave, Francis Bok in his 1986 book Escape from Slavery exposes the horrifying raid on his Sudanese village when Arab raiders annihilated members of  his Dinka tribe.  He writes how northern Sudanese Muslims would swoop down and shoot Dinka men, “slashing with their swords, chopping off heads with a single swipe.”  Seven-year-old Bok was kidnapped and brought to an Arab family, where the children chanted abeed, abeed, (a derogatory term in Arabic meaning “slave”), all the while beating him with sticks.  “Never in [his] life had he been surrounded by people who did not care if someone was hurting [him].”  Finally, after two failed attempts to escape, Bok, age 17, fled his Arab captors.  It was not until 1999 that he finally was a completely free man.

In a 2017 report titled “Trafficking Terror: How Modern Slavery and Sexual Violence Fund Terrorism,” Nikita Malik examines “how terrorists use sexual violence, including rape, sexual slavery, and forced marriage, to bolster recruits[;] galvanize fighters[;] and, in the case of Islamist groups, punish kuffars or disbelievers.”  Furthermore, “there is a fixation on the part of Islamic State fighters with the concept of kuffar … so that barbaric acts can be condoned.”  In addition, “religious elements are infused into sexual violence practices to skirt … the moral wrongdoing of rape.”  Since “national laws on sexual violence within countries where extremist groups are present [–] i.e., Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria [–] allow rapists to marry their victims to avoid prosecution and punishment[,]” it is the survivors who carry the burden of shame and stigma, rather than their perpetrators.

Robert Spencer writes that “in the past, as today, most slaves in Islam were non-Muslims who had been captured during jihad warfare.”  In “The Persistence of Islamic Slavery,” Spencer writes that “while the European and American slave trade get stern treatment … from historians, the Islamic slave trade, which actually lasted longer and brought suffering to a larger number of people, is virtually ignored.”  And when pressure came to end slavery, the Muslim world was “incredulous,” since the “words of the Qur’an and Muhammad were decisive in stifling abolitionist movements within the Islamic world.”

Nonie Darwish writes that “Islam is very useful for totalitarian regimes.  Islam provides weak governments with a  legal and religious formula that enables totalitarian control and forces the submission of citizens.”  She emphasizes that “the appeal of Islam to Western leftist politicians, who should know better, defies logic.”  Darwish asserts that “one and a half billion Muslims are living under the slavery of Islam, and they will never truly rebel as long as they can simply leave for the West – where they will work to impose sharia on the rest of us.” 

We have been warned.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.



Source link