Living with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan

A discussion about race is one of those subjects that frighten most people. Yet, the facts of social and ethnic differences are a major cause of our idiotic public policy in a society that is rooted in denial. Of course, ethnic groups are different, but it does not follow that they cannot have common ground. A comparison of David Duke and Louis Farrakhan might seem to the casual observer to be a study in dissimilarities, but for the scholarly practitioner of the “real world”, the commonalities of – Just What’s in those Genes? – illustrates a universal nature.

The reason why both Duke and Farrakhan are vilified in the popular culture stems from their shared pattern of taking on the establishment sacred cow of multiculturalism. Add to this dangerous trait of defending your own people, targeting the Zionist cult that seeks global superiority, is the ultimate transgression.

If people of color view themselves as victims of discrimination, how is that any different from European descendants being singled out as bigots for resisting social integration? The power struggle for supremacy fails to understand that separatism is achievable and preferable. Both Duke and Farrakhan exemplify the validity of this principle.

Carving out a multiculturalism society has been a miserable failure by any objective standard. Examine their respective reports on housing and the mortgage debacle.

David Duke quotes Ian Mosley about the experience in the US and lesson from Ireland,

“While people may surrender their homes to the new agencies, they will still owe any shortfall between the current value and their mortgage to their lender. This will remain the case until the introduction of personal insolvency legislation which is to be fast-tracked by the Department of Justice. The report stressed that reform of the bankruptcy and personal insolvency law was fundamental and stated that without it the mortgage problem would not be resolved.”

Renting out foreclosed homes is a logical next step to limit further financial losses. Banks can do this in Ireland since they’ll be renting to White people, who will take good care of the homes. In the US however, banks haven’t been renting out their foreclosed homes because the federal government will force them to rent out a large percentage to blacks and Latinos, who will likely destroy the homes. Considering that there are more than 19 million foreclosed homes in the US, political correctness and federal interference is costing society hundreds of billions of dollars in losses —again.”

Minister Farrakhan draws from – Foreclosures mount, mediation fails, wealthiest Black suburb suffers.

“For communities of color around the country, a “lagging collapse” may be ahead, said Alan Mallach, a nationally known housing expert who has done extensive on-the-ground research into the foreclosure crisis. Prince George’s county is a case in point. The nation’s wealthiest majority-Black county, it has been devastated by the foreclosure crisis. Heavily targeted by subprime lenders in the boom years, the county is now staggering under the weight of abandoned homes and plummeting prices. The county received more than 7,100 notices of intent to foreclose in March.”

Housing foreclosures have devastated everyone who overbought and leveraged their purchase. Targeting blacks for subprime loans or reluctance to rent out foreclosed homes to blacks and Latinos are understandable statements coming from the respective viewpoints of their own ethnic identity. Clearly, the banking laws that drove the irrational notion that anyone is responsible enough to own a home has caused much pain and loss of capital. However, the theme that different groups naturally gravitate to reside in neighborhoods of their own kind is apparent. So why not respect that inherent trait and abolish the social engineering experiments that force unnatural behavior?

When it comes to the international arena, both Farrakhan and Duke are not shy in voicing their shared disgust for the global integration into a perverse New World Order.

Now that the mendacious media message is rejoicing over the demise of Gaddafi the Farrakhan video is even more relevant. Watch Minister Farrakhan’s message in “” and you will see a much different person than the one the media manipulators wants you to believe.

Farrakhan’s support for Colonel Gaddafi is well known. But, his warnings went unnoticed by most readers in the press and globalists in the government. Back in March of this year, he stated:

“Well, today our dear brother (Obama) has to be very, very careful in this decision that he and his Secretary of State, and [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [British] Prime Minister [David] Cameron and others are planning. They would love to go into Libya and kill Brother Gadhafi, and kill his children as they did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, Qusay and Uday. You must remember, dear people of America, that whenever government wants you to think and act in a certain way that would bring justification to an action that they are already planning to make, they must make the person that they hate a ‘boogey man,’ ” he said.

Note the sharp contrast between the way Minister Farrakhan addresses President Obama and the way he calls him out in the video. Now that the war against Libya is shifting into a new stage of regime change, the path to the next target comes into the cross hairs.

David Duke is most vocal about the coming strike upon Iran. In his 2010 video –  he points the finger at Zionism. The NeoCons drive the foreign policy of the US Empire, bent on expanding a greater Israel, is a basic part of the New World Order arrangement. Obama is just a continuation of the Bush foreign policy.

Farrakhan knows the wrath from the Jewish Lobby. Nevertheless, at the recent 16th anniversary and commemoration of the historic Million Man March, he said:

“I would respectfully submit to you that we all should conscientiously object to the wars going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan Somalia, Yemen and Libya and we must not let our government send our babies to die on the basis of a lie!” Minister Farrakhan stated emphatically. “The media is stoking the fire for war with Pakistan and war with Iran. As a Muslim, never will we fight against our Muslim brothers for the Zionists of America that have locked down the government of America. Never will we die for the state of Israel!”

Duke and Farrakhan may differ in the particular emphasis of exploration endured by their respected identity groups, but both are unequivocal in their understanding that there is a pervasive link, to a different tribe, that adversely affects their mutual interests. This linkage traverses both foreign and domestic policy. Moreover, when it comes to the institutions that benefited from the housing and mortgage fiasco, they are in total agreement.

The significance of this mutual awareness is that both racial populations are casualties of the same manipulation. The dense middle class, of any race, has a hard time accepting that the real cause of the disintegration of society is a designed process, intended to play one group against another. The solution is not a homogenous forfeiture of your cultural legacy, but a restoration of a separation from the absurdity of the multicultural model that destroys individual identity.

Appreciate the offense from the Chutzpah that claims a false legitimacy for a Chosen People, when the practice of racial suicide is fostered at every turn upon the gentile and Islamic communities. Exempting the perpetrators of global Totalitarian Collectivism from scrutiny, much less accountability is irrational. All along, the race baiters continue their promotion of intermingling, which is a guaranteed formula for cultural demise.

Both Farrakhan and Duke are champions of the human race, because they know the natural boundaries required for every ethnic group to maintain their own unique identity.

Libya destroyed and Iran is on deck. The similarity with the predictable collapse of the mortgage scam and the methodical elimination of dissenting political regimes is not a stretch. It is part of the plan to impoverish humanity in confined prisons of beggary and dependency. Living in the same locality with David Duke and Louis Farrakhan is a step up in personal integrity and self-fulfillment from being neighbors with NeoCon, Christian-Zionists or NeoLib multiculturalists.

Isn’t it time to grown up as a society and have the guts to converse in a serious discussion about the true causes that are destroying America? Let people live their own lives in the way and manner that strengthen their own heritage and aspirations. Lines between and among cultures is entirely natural. Globalists want to deceive you into thinking that everyone should be accepting of the New World Order.

Those who challenge and combat the decaying and decadent system are the real heroes. Those who parrot the politically correct jargon facilitate the race divide by playing into the myth that compatibility is the noble goal. Finally, those who continue to pour out the poison of regime change are the same elites who set up the walls and barriers that protect them and keep the rest of us in a slum of government design. The choice is yours. Whom do you want for a neighbor?

Freedom Lost

Many times I hear the ostriches among us exclaim, “What freedoms have we lost? America is the freest country on earth.” We have all heard that, right? Of course, part of the problem is that, thanks to our education system, media, and churches, many Americans do not even know how to define liberty and freedom. The truth is, America’s Founding Fathers were willing to pledge their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” and fight a bloody revolutionary war for far fewer abridgments of liberty than we Americans endure every day of our lives today. FAR FEWER!

To answer the second part of the ostrich argument first: no, America is not the freest nation on earth. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, which is produced by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, the United States just barely makes it in the top ten, ranked at number nine in the world.

According to Deroy Murdock, “Among the 179 countries examined in the Index, Hong Kong is ranked first, followed by Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland, and Denmark. These nations all outscored the U.S. across ten categories, including taxes, free trade, regulation, monetary policy, and corruption.

“America barely made the top ten. Bahrain was tenth, with 77.7 points, one decimal point behind America’s 77.8 score. Chile reached No. 11 with 77.4, just 0.4 points behind the United States.

“Even worse, with a score below 80, the U.S. is spending its second year as a ‘mostly free’ economy. As it departed the family of ‘free’ nations in 2010, it led the ‘mostly free’ category. Even within this less-than-illustrious group, America now lags behind Ireland and Denmark.”

See Murdock’s report at:

http://tinyurl.com/66caegw

Just ask any small businessman how free the United States is! The regulations, restrictions, prohibitions, assessments, fees, taxes, surcharges, permits, licenses, etc., are worse than almost any industrialized nation in the world. Remember the CEO of Coca Cola recently saying that it was easier doing business in China than in America? Well, he was telling the truth!

Thanks to political correctness, environmental wackoism, and socialistic/fascist ideology running rampant in Washington, D.C., and even many State capitols, “the land of the free” has become “the land of the oppressed.” Being able to drive a car, have a job, shop at a mall, watch sports on television, or even vote, is NOT the mark of a free people. Folks in China and other oppressed nations routinely do all of the above.

Virtually every activity once considered a “right” is now regulated or prohibited by either the federal or State and local government. Few states (thankfully, my home State of Montana is one of them) recognize the right of people to marry without getting a State marriage license. And can anyone imagine Paul Revere riding throughout Boston with a license plate and registration on his horse? And can anyone further imagine Sam Adams or those militiamen at Lexington and Concord registering a gun or being asked to get a concealed carry permit? Yeah, right!

In most urban settings, one cannot build a shed on their own property, add a room on their house, or even pour a driveway without asking a variety of government bureaucrats for permission–and paying them hundreds of dollars in fees, of course. And did you know that the federal government even tells your local plumbing contractor how many gallons of water your toilet can flush? Well, they do! You call this freedom? Our Founding Fathers wouldn’t have!

To answer the first part of the ostrich question, the freedoms we Americans have lost are literally too numerous to count. A recent report at the American Dream web site makes a very salient argument as to just how many freedoms have been lost in the good old U.S. of A.

The report states, “Once upon a time, our founders thought that they were guaranteeing our freedoms by adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

“But today there are a lot of freedoms that we simply do not have any longer.

“In America today, you do not have the right to say whatever you want. If you say the wrong thing on a blog or a website it can have dramatic consequences.

“In America today, you do not have the right to do raise your own children as you see fit.

“In America today, you do not have the right to grow whatever food you want and you do not have the right to eat whatever food you do grow.

“In America today, you do not have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

“In America today, you do not have a right to privacy. In fact, you should expect that everything that you do is watched, tracked, monitored and recorded.”

The report then goes on to list several real-life examples to prove the assessments listed above.

See the American Dream report at:

http://tinyurl.com/6auqza3

And, of course, the ultimate symbol of a free people is the right to keep and bear arms. And while most states theoretically recognize a citizen’s right to own and possess a gun, the vast majority of them only do so–not as a right guaranteed to a free people by their Creator–but as a privilege granted to approved subjects by the limited benevolence of the State. At last count, only four states recognize the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms without any kind of State license: Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming. (For clarification, the State of Montana allows open carry Statewide and concealed carry in unincorporated areas, but people carrying concealed in incorporated cities, must have a CCW permit. We passed legislation this year to expunge the incorporated city CCW requirement, but our Democrat governor vetoed it. But Montana will be the fifth State soon!)

To view a current map of Constitutional Carry states, click here:

http://opencarry.org/constcarry.html

So, the next time you hear someone say, “What freedoms have we lost? We are the freest nation on earth,” why not give them a copy of this column? And then tell the ostrich to get his head out of the sand and his rump off the couch before the little remnant of freedom we have left is also completely eviscerated.

Analysis of Breivik’s Ideas – Part 2

Breivik hated Reds even more than Muslims. The Pakis should be deported, but the Commies ­ shot as traitors, he wrote in his 2083. He fumed against communism like Hitler in Mein Kampf, but Hitler had better reasons. Hitler competed against the Communists for the hearts of German workers, AND Hitler competed against the softies within the national-socialist movement in Germany, who (notably the brothers Strasser) were prepared to deal with communists.

A long time has passed since then. Communism won in the titanic struggle of 1945, but suffered a huge setback in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consequently, anticommunism has lost its meaning since at least 1991, but probably even earlier. Today, it could possibly mobilise a few old-timers in Washington DC, but maybe not even them.

It is with great astonishment we witnesses of Communism’s defeat read in 2083 that Communism was victorious:

“The US but especially W. Europe lost the Cold War due to the fact that we didn’t persecute the Marxists after WW2. If we had executed each and every Marxist and banned Marxist doctrines (not only the economical aspects but the cultural as well ­ internationalism, extreme feminism, extreme egalitarianism, anti-elitism, anti-nationalism) we would not be in the current situation. Instead, our traitorous and weak minded post-WW2 leaders allowed the Marxists to gradually infiltrate many aspects of society after WW2, especially our universities and the media (see the beginning of book 1 for a complete overview of how this happened). The first ML pioneers (Marxist-Leninists) were allowed to indoctrinate the ’68 generation, those who run things today.”

Breivik arrives at the unexpected conclusion that both the EU and the US are, in our present age, “socialist” or even “communist” states, “EUSSR and USSR” organised in accordance with Marx’s teachings. I did not know that Karl Marx envisaged a society with hundreds of billionaires and millions of paupers. One would have to be mad to describe the contemporary US and EU as “communist dictatorships” ­ these societies are extremely inegalitarian — workers are on the bottom, while the super-wealthy have an ostentatious lifestyle unheard of even in Medici’s Florence.

The reason for this unexpected conclusion is that Breivik intentionally confuses Marxism-Leninism as the ruling ideology of the Soviet Union and Maoist China, with the neo-Marxist western ideology of Fromm and Adorno, Marcuse and Lukacs. With all due respect, the Cold War was NOT a war with them, but a war against the USSR and its allies, a war with its geopolitical as well as ideological components. Western neo-Marxists were rather the allies of the Capitalist West in that war, and their contribution to the fall of the Eastern citadel of Communism was enormous, as they successfully undermined the Russian elites’ belief in their own ideology.

Though Breivik quarrels with the Western Marxists, he finds it convenient to connect them with the Gulag and with alleged mass murders in the USSR. This is dishonest: the Western neo-Marxists were against Stalin, and they called their Eastern brethren “Stalinists”, at least since the short-sighted Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956.

Khrushchev, a crypto-Trotskyite, frogmarched the Communists through an unnecessary and unpopular de-Stalinisation instead of letting bygones be bygones. Nowadays President Medvedev is talking again about de-Stalinisation; probably this talk will prevent his re-election. The people of Russia have differing views about Stalin, but the vast majority were and are against de-Stalinisation, for to them it symbolises the breakdown of the national masculine heroic paradigm.

Breivik accuses the Communists of supporting “extreme feminism”. This is odd. Joseph Stalin was the ultimate symbol of masculinity: the great Yugoslav director Dushan Makkaveev depicted him in his Mysteries of the Organism in priapic form. De-Stalinisation can be viewed as an attempt to unman the Father-figure of the Communist world. Again, Breivik’s ridiculous claim can be explained by his desire to gather all the Reds into one big heap: from grim NKVD commissars to California sociologists to the Norwegian teenagers he shot. He learned this nasty trick from his Neocon teachers: they paint every nationalist by the same brush as Adolf Hitler.

We reject it out of hand: not every traditionalist and nationalist is a Breivik or a Hitler; the Communists take differing positions on tradition, with Eastern Stalinists being quite conservative, traditional and mildly nationalist, while Western neo-Marxists rejected the bourgeois nationalism which caused two world wars.

Breivik stresses the Communist origins of the Frankfurt school’s founders, of Theodor Adorno and Georg Lukács ­ but the neocons, too, were red-diaper babies or even active Trots before switching sides. Gramsci indeed dreamed of cultural hegemony as the means of arriving at socialism. He thought that a new “Communist man” might be created before any political revolution. However, Gramsci was mistaken. This theory of Gramsci was used to preach a reformist, non-revolutionary way, avoiding a violent takeover of banks and factories. The idea was played up by the Euro-Communists and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, disappeared with the Euro-Communist parties.

Lenin was right, and Gramsci was wrong: you have to take away from the capitalists both their chequebooks and their factories, their weapons and their newspapers, their parliament and their government, otherwise they will turn every agenda of yours to their benefit. The Frankfurt school and other Western neo-Marxists stood by the West in the Cold War.

The Western neo-Marxists behaved like the proverbial man who searched for a lost coin under the lamppost. Though he knew he had lost the coin elsewhere, there was more light under the lamppost. They did not know how to interact with workers, and so preferred to work with minorities, students, feminists. It was easier, but led nowhere, as we now see. The workers of Spain and Greece rose up last month, but the neo-Marxists were nowhere to be found. They did not lead this real popular revolt, as they were only used to their toy revolutions in the field of semantics.

The neo-Marxists gave up on revolution, gave up on socialism, gave up on the workers, and instead preferred to work “so no future Holocaust would be possible”. Kevin McDonald, from California State University, wrote that they choose to follow their Jewish agenda rather than the Communist one. Breivik had not read McDonald the Terrible, or at least never referred to him, being such a good pupil of Jewish pundits. KMD’s explanation was forbidden to him. He just intoned that what these men did IS communism. Actually, many texts in 2083 are old anti-Jewish screeds with find/replace Jews by Marxists.

Regretfully Breivik was wrong: the communists did not win. We did not move even one step closer to communism by promoting gay marriages and multiculturalism. Fighting against Christianity and family does not help, either. All these steps were appropriated and used by Capital and against workers. Actually, the objectives of socialist revolution and “no more Holocausts at any cost” are mutually exclusive. For the first objective, we need brave and daring men, for the second, all men must be unmanned, for real men are unpredictable.

The proof that Breivik speaks nonsense (even in his own terms) can be found in his 2083, where he rates European states according to their acceptance of what he calls “cultural Marxism”. Not surprisingly, Russia and other countries of the Communist block are the freest from this dogma, while Germany, Sweden and Norway are the most subservient. Indeed, destructive western neo-Marxist theories were never popular in the East, where capitalism was dismantled in the real sense and there was no need for a make-believe pseudo-communist ideology to paper over a capitalist economy.

As for the West, 1968 was not, as Breivik says, V-day for Marxism, but the beginning of a turn towards the Iron Heel. Our freedoms peaked just after the long-gone year of 1968. 1968 was a turning point in America. In 1968, the richest Americans contributed 90% of their income to the state, while now they pay less than 30% (never mind that they do not pay even that much by cleverly exploiting tax shelters, exempt funds and other tricks). It was in 1968 that the American worker’s minimum pay peaked in real terms. Looking back, 1968 was the moment in history when mankind was nearest to the stars.

As children of the defeated ’68 revolution, we were free to love, smoke, think and act. We could travel and fly without being stripped at the airport, and our booze was not confiscated. We could make love and smoke in cafés. Since then, it has been downhill all the way: smoking has been banned, free thought has been incarcerated by Political Correctness, and political action has been reduced to joining a Facebook group.

In the US, as Noam Chomsky has told me, the U-turn coincided with the teachers’ strike in New York which reminded the Jews that their narrow interests are not necessarily best served by progressive and revolutionary tactics. Accordingly, the revolutionary ideologists of ’68 acquiesced in pacifying the masses, and the chances for a new holocaust or even loss of influence were indeed minimised.

The masculinity of the Left receded, too. Support of dubious gender politics and retreat from the class struggle changed the Left. While the Left had always pushed for equality between the sexes, this equality leaned rather towards the masculine pole: whether it was a worker building the barricade, sailors storming the Winter Palace, cigar-smoking barbudos of Castro, they were all manly symbols of the Left. During the epic confrontation of the first half of 20th century, the Red Guards were not more feminine than the Stormtroopers, and Ernst Thaelmann was not less masculine than Ernst Roehm.

The present misbalance of male/female factors in the developed world was caused by technological developments (man’s physical strength is less needed), by ideological shift and by capitalists’ desire to maximise profit by employing women. As a result, men are frustrated. Their old traditional role of providers is over; their jobs went away to China, fighting is done by drones. Breivik’s massacre bears the mark of a frustrated and marginalized Norwegian man.

Breivik felt his manhood threatened by “television, where nearly every major offering has a female ‘power figure’ and the plots and characters emphasize the inferiority of the male and superiority of the female by government-mandated employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use ‘sexual harassment’ charges to keep men in line, [by] colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate and ‘affirmative action’ is applied in admissions and employment.”

Yes, the killer is a psychotic man whose vision is hardly adequate, but his point should be considered. Even his hatred towards Muslim immigrants could be traced to the threat to his manhood presented by virile, unencumbered-by-fear-of-harassment-charges Southerners successfully competing for the charms of the Nordic girls. This massacre and its possible follow-ups might well have been averted if this European man did not feel his manhood threatened in so many ways.

The massacre is a sign that the Yin/Yang balance of Europe is severely biased; it should be restored and this urgent task can’t be delayed ­ this is an important lesson of the Friday 22 massacre.

Analysis of Breivik’s Ideas – Part I

America Is Not A Free Country – 2011 Edition

Independence Day is upon us. This July 4 we will celebrate the 235th anniversary of our independence from Britain and our birth as a free nation. We will watch fireworks, go to barbecues, go camping (at tax-funded state and national parks), go to baseball games (in tax-funded stadiums) and hear endless talk about how goldurned wonderful it is that we live in a free country.

Or do we live in a free country?

Consider the following.

In a free country, taxation would be well-nigh non-existent. You could keep what you earned and you could spend, save, invest and donate as you saw fit. You would have far more money with which to solve your own problems.

In a free country, there would not be 20,000-plus laws on the books infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Crime would plummet as criminals – in both the private and public sectors – would never know who was armed.

In a free country, police brutality would be almost non-existent. The popo – this also means the IRS, TSA, DEA, CPS, yadda, yadda, yadda – would be subject to the same penalties as lowly mundanes when they violated the rights of others.

In a free country, you could educate your children as you saw fit, without asking anyone’s permission. You could home school you kids if you wanted. Catholics could send their kids to the Our Lady of Mercy School; Baptists could send their kids to the Obadiah Baptist School; Mormons could send their kids to the Joseph Smith school; Muslims could send their kids to the Allah Akbar School; believers in Mungabunga could send their kids to Mungabunga school. If you are not spiritual, you could send your kids to the Whitney Houston School — “Where the children are the future” – or to the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young School – “Where we teach your children well”. Prayer, declining academic standards, evolution, creation, condoms, busing, standardized testing, bullying, discipline, dress codes and all the other debates surrounding education today would cease to be social issues.

In a free country, businesses would not be crushed in a regulatory vise grip. Millions of jobs would stay here in America rather than going to Honduras and Bangladesh.

In a free country, the military would be used strictly for national defense. We would not have troops in 135 countries. We would heed the Founders’ advice and steer clear of foreign alliances, which have been nothing but trouble. We would withdraw from the United Nations and all its subsidiary organizations. Terrorism would cease to be a threat. Were we not throwing our weight around so recklessly “over there”, hatred and resentment toward the United States would be far, far less.

In a free country, we would not have the world’s highest incarceration rate.

In a free country, jurors could judge not only the facts pertaining to a given case, but also the law relevant to that case. If Juror Smith thought Defendant Jones was being tried under a bad law, Juror Smith could vote to acquit on that basis and that basis alone.

In a free country, the value of money would be tied to gold and/or silver. The Federal Reserve Bank would be shut down. We would not see our savings and our futures eroded by inflation. And we would not owe bazillions of dollars to folks who already have bazillions of dollars.

In a free country, it would take neither a village nor a police state to raise a child. Government would not act in loco parentis for an absentee Mommy and Daddy. Parents would be responsible for raising their own children. Most of the problems we have with kids today – sex, drugs, violence – would be greatly minimized.

In a free country there would be no war on drugs. Drug profits and street crime would become almost nonexistent. It would not be the government’s job to keep people off of drugs. It would be the job of parents, churches, Mungabunga temples, etc. Back when it was this way, there was almost no “drug problem” at all. (If the Mungabunga people smoke that hoochy hooch in their rituals, they would be free to do so without fear of SWAT raids.)

In a free country, we would not constantly be relinquishing our freedom in exchange for security. People would know that the greatest threat to their security comes from their own government.

In a free country, if a state decided it had had enough of rule by Washington, D.C., it could secede from the union without fear of reprisal.

In a free country, there would be no law forbidding what you could ingest into your body. If a certain remedy worked, your doctor could recommend it and you could take it without fear of punishment.

In a free country, there would be no welfare state, no education state and no medical state. There would not be a permanent underclass, the quality of education would be vastly improved, and medicine would be far less expensive. Moreover, immigrants would know that coming to America would mean either sink or swim. Deadbeats would not come here looking for a handout. And immigrants would, out of social and economic necessity, learn English.

In a free country, there would be no minimum wage. Millions of jobs would be created in the inner cities overnight. Congressmen and senators would be paid what they are worth.

In a free country, there would be no Selective Service System. Young men would not be so many slabs of meat for the military grinder.

In a free country, there would be no Patriot Act. There would be no “sneak and peek” warrants. The authorities would have to obtain a warrant to review your bank accounts and e-mails. Habeas Corpus would be secure.

In a free country, there would be no surrender of sovereignty to entities like the UN, where we can be outvoted 2-1 by such paragons of freedom as Sudan and North Korea. Our troops would not be involved in UN sponsored wars. Moreover, things like NATO and the International Criminal Court would no longer have any relevance.

In a free country, there would be no “promise” of Social Security at age 62 or 65 or 67 or … how far back will they have moved it when you reach your golden years? You could take that same money and put it in the most profitable private sector investments you could find. Furthermore, you would not be constantly tracked by means of your Social Security Number.

In a free country, you would only be punished if you inflicted actual harm on another person or their property. Randy Weaver’s wife and son would still be alive. The Branch Davidians would be living in peace on the outskirts of Waco. Non-violent drug offenders would not waste away in cages, while convicted rapists and murderers went free.

In a free country, churches would truly be exempt from taxation, which would be minimal to begin with. Pastors would not be chilled into political correctness by 501c3 regulations.

In a free country, we would not have adopted nine of the ten “planks” of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. How have we done this?

In a free country, your property rights would not be under attack. (Plank 1) There would be no zoning laws. You could not lose your home or business for failure to pay taxes. There would be no EPA harassment of landowners over “wetlands” and other issues. The FEDGOV would not be the nation’s largest landowner.

In a free country, there would be no progressive income tax. (Plank 2) Again, there would be no IRS. Period.

In a free country, there would be no inheritance tax. (Plank 3)

In a free country, there would be no confiscation of property of those who resisted the powers that be. (Plank 4) There would be no civil asset forfeiture laws.

In a free country, there would not be a central bank. (Plank 5) There would be no Federal Reserve and we would not have an umpteengazillion dollar national debt.

In a free country, there would be no government control of communications and transportation. (Plank 6) There would be no FCC, DOT, ICC, etc. Airports would not be mini-police states. Sexual assault would not be a condition of travel.

In a free country, there would be no government intrusion in manufacturing and agriculture. (Plank 7) There would be no Department of Labor or Department of Agriculture. Your business could not be shut down for OSHA violations. There would be no federal farm subsidies or price supports.

In a free country, there would be no federal control of labor. (Plank 8 ) There would be no National Labor Relations Board, no minimum wage laws, no affirmative action or racial quotas.

The merger of agriculture and industry (Plank 9) is tough to explain in one short paragraph. The centralizers can only be happy that farming is increasingly controlled by conglomerates that are far more likely to kiss up to the FEDGOV than a family that has worked the same piece of land for three generations.

In a free country, the government would not be in control of education. (Plank 10) While neither the Bible nor any of America’s Founding documents say anything about state education, you will find state education as a policy prescription of the Communist Manifesto.

So there you have it.

America is not a free country.

I know, I know, I know: I can vote and I can write this essay without fear of punishment. And no one is being hauled off to death camps in America. At least not yet.

The incineration of 80 innocent people by the FEDGOV at Waco in 1993 was a trial balloon floated before a brainwashed nation. Grotesquely excessive force was used for no good reason, and millions of Americans derisively giggled at “that cult.” When they came for the Davidians, we did not say anything because we were not Davidians.

Today, millions of Americans still buy the lie that America is a free country. Hitler knew the power of the lie: if you lie to people often enough, they will believe anything. And while we are not at the Hitler phase yet, we will arrive there if we keep (a) believing everything our government – or at least our preferred faction of the ruling class – says and (b) believing we are a free nation. You cannot have it both ways.

Sadly, some people will not clue in until the death camp phase. I pray fervently that enough Americans wake up before then.

Scripture tells us to preach the truth without ceasing, for there will come a time when people will not want to hear the truth. Rather, they will surround themselves with ear-ticklers who will tell them whatever they want to hear, regardless of how preposterous. (II Timothy 4:2-4)

People ask me if I get frustrated fighting the freedom fight in a society where so many will gladly relinquish freedom for a false sense of security. Yes I do! However, I must continue to fight this fight and leave the results to God.

Happy Fourth of July.

Time Is Ripe For A Paradigm Shift

It is slightly embarrassing for me to admit that sometimes  Zionists are actually well ahead of our favourite  intellectuals in understanding the depth of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is not that they are more clever, they are just free to explore the conflict without being subject to the tyranny of ‘political correctness’, also being proud  nationalist Jews- they do not need  the approval of the Jewish left thought police.

I have recently come across a short Haaretz article by Israeli writer A.B. Yehoshua*.

Yehoshua is a proud Zionist, He believes in the right of his people to dwell on Palestinian land.  He is also convinced that the Jewish state is the true meaning of contemporary Jewish life. I guess that Yehoshua loves himself almost as much as I despise everything he stands for and yet, I have to confess, he seems to grasp the depth of the Israeli Palestinian conflict’s parameters  slightly better than most  solidarity activists I can think of.

In his Haaretz article Yehoshua stressed that Zionism was “something original and one of its kind  in human history- A folk arrived  at the homeland of another folk attempting to replace the old identity with a new/old  identity”. Yehoshua  also counters the faulty colonial paradigm and practically repeats my own theses almost  word by word. “There was also no (Zionist) attempt to impose a colonial regime, since the Jews had no (mother) state that could have sent them to perform a colonial conquests like in the case of England or France.”

Yehoshua, is certainly correct here, as much as some amongst us are contend to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically. The Colonial paradigm is simply a fantasy that is clumsily imposed on our discourse in a desperate attempt to make the Israeli/Palestinian conflict meaningful within a decaying Marxist discourse.

Yehoshua  continues, the Israeli/Palestinian  conflict will not be resolved because it’s a totally unique conflict  in human history. “There is no historical precedence for a nation that decides to return to its ancient homeland and  establish its sovereignty there.” Whether the conflict will be resolved or not is indeed a crucial question. I am not so sure that Yehoshua knows the answer or even can contemplate a reality in which the Jewish State belongs to the past. However, Yehoshua is obviously correct in his reading of the uniqueness of the Zionist history. We are dealing  here with an exceptional and unprecedented national aspiration driving by racist impetus. But Yehoshua takes it further. “Thus,” he says, If we all accept that the modern return of Jews to Zion is a unique event in human history – then the Palestinian people, unlike any other people, had  to face a totally unique phenomenon.” If we accept that Zionism is an abnormal political ideology and practice, then, Palestinian nationalism  (that is defined by  negation to abnormality) must be also a unique to say the least.

I must admit that Yehoshua’s stand is well argued and totally valid. However, it means that all comparative  models  such as the colonial paradigm are doomed to crash. Jewish nationalism doesn’t fit into any available template, it formulates a model of its own.

According to Yehoshua, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not really about territorial issues. “Territorial issues can be resolved” he says.  “In our conflict, both sides, struggle over national identity of the whole country.” Yehoshua offers here a very interesting insight that cannot be uttered within the boundaries of the Left discourse. For both parties, especially the Palestinians, he says,  “it is unclear what is the size of the people it is up against, is it only the Israelis or is it also the Jewish Diaspora as a whole.” Yehoshua raises here an issue I myself have been stressing for years. It is far from being clear to anyone (including  Israelis and Jews) where Israel ends and the Diaspora starts. It is also far from being clear where the Israeli ends and the Jew starts. I guess that for most contemporary Jews it is even far from being clear anymore where Zionism ends and Judaism starts. In the contemporary Jewish world there are no clear dichotomies. We are dealing with a spineless elastic metamorphic identity that shapes itself to fit every possible circumstances. This may explain how come the Jewish state can dually operate as an oppressor and a victim simultaneously.

The Israelis, according to Yehoshua are also subject to a similar confusion. They also cannot figure out whether it is just the Palestinian people they are up against or is it the whole Arab nation or even the entire Muslim world.  For Yehoshua, the conflict “lacks a clear demographic boundaries. This fact alone creates an initial deep distrust between the two peoples that prevents a possible solution.”

Yeshoua is far from being a brilliant mind, yet, he manages to analyse the conflict correctly just because he is free to think out of the Leftist box. Being a proud Israeli Jew he is free to say what he thinks without the need to appease half a dozen so-called ‘progressive’  Jews.  Yehoshua’s analysis makes a lot of sense to me though we draw the complete opposite conclusions. I believe that ti the Palestinian solidarity discourse  better liberate itself of any form of  dogmatic political thinking. It is about time  and look at the conflict for what it is.  We must engage in a true plural debate and emancipate ourselves of any traces of rigid and anachronistic thinking.

* The article has now disappeared from Haaretz site. You can upload an Hebrew version here.

The English version just appeared here.

No, Beauty is Not in the Eye of the Beholder

The American Thinker’s Rick Moran recently wrote a blog piece about how some Catholics in France destroyed two of Andres Serrano’s creations, excreta that some euphemistically refer to as art.  Moran opened by saying that his topic would make for lively debate among commenters, and he was right.  And it has also provoked a lively response from me.

In his piece, Moran states, “Art, as we learned when growing up, is in the eye of the beholder.”  Yes, most of us did learn this growing up—and we learned wrong.  That is to say, unless “art” doesn’t really exist.

Now, when the eye/beholder proposition is made, let us be clear on what’s being said.  If we accepted that art were simply a physical representation of something—that is, it could be beautiful, ugly, uplifting, degrading or anything at all—the truth would be plain: If it were a physical representation of a thing, it would be art.  And it certainly would not be in the eye of the beholder.

But we argue about art precisely because it is defined by a more elusive quality.  We are talking about a certain, more esoteric value it must have to qualify as art.  And what might that be?  Well, while what I’m about to explain applies to any quality, the most common answer here is “beauty.”  And, of course, Moran’s proposition is a variation on the famous saying, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”  Yet it is an illogical statement and a very, very grave philosophical mistake.  (Mr. Moran shouldn’t take this personally, as it’s a universally made mistake.  It just so happens that his piece inspired me to finally address it.)

If we can rightly use the word “beauty,” a noun, it’s because the quality it describes has an existence unto itself.  It is then a real thing, not simply whatever we feel it is.  It’s as with a person: We wouldn’t say, “Rick Moran is in the eye of the beholder,” that he could be black, female, a turnip or whatever we fancy him to be.  He has an existence unto himself; he is a real, specific entity.

Thus, as with anything, to say that beauty is in the eye—that it is relative—is to say it doesn’t exist.  And if this is the case, we should dispense with the confusing terminology.  We should then just call it what it is: taste.  We furthermore should also accept the implications of our belief.  For example, we could not then rightly label a woman beautiful; all we could really say is that we happen to like her appearance.  If we’re merely talking about our feelings, we should be clear about it.

This is, of course, precisely as with the matter of moral relativism vs. Moral Truth.  To say that morals are relative is to say they don’t exist; once again, we are then just talking about taste, consensus or otherwise.  If “morality” has any meaning, it is only because it has an existence unto itself.  And if we don’t believe this, we ought to stop fooling ourselves with water-muddying terminology such as “values.”  Taste is taste is taste is taste, no matter how you dress it up with what, if the relativists were correct, could only be meaning-lending linguistic Trojan Horses.

And now I’ll take a break from the philosophy and say something about our modern “artists.”  Two other things that aren’t in the eye of the beholder are the statuses “coward” and “jerk.”  That is to say, I have to laugh at all these “brave artists™” who puff up their chicken chests about “tackling tradition.”  Not only is bragging about a stand against tradition in an apostatic, irreverent secular age a bit like bragging about burning churches in Egypt, but also ask whose traditions they’re attacking.  It’s easy to target Christians because it’s all reward and no risk: The media give you lots of attention, and you’ll taste neither the steel of political correctness’ career-rending blade nor that of those who would slowly cut your brave little head off.  Want to really be courageous?  Try mocking the Religion of Peace™.  Come on, Serrano et al., I dare you.

I double dare you.

Cowards.

Really, I don’t know of any brave contemporary artists (alive, anyway).  If they do exist, however, I suppose they’re the ones you don’t hear about because they get arrested for hate speech by the tolerant set.

The acceptance of the relativistic nonsense “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is precisely why we have a proliferation of garbage masquerading as art and public funding for it.  And, as with morality, we ought to think matters through to their logical conclusion.  There was only ever one good reason to fund art: “Good” exists, and society has a vested interest in promoting good.  Thus, since beauty is a real thing that is a good, it behooves man to beautify his surroundings.  As soon as we embrace the notion that beauty doesn’t exist because it’s all a matter of perspective, however, this line of reasoning collapses.  We then are confronted with the proposition that we’re using tax money to promote and fund certain people’s tastes.

This would be no different from having the government promote chocolate ice cream over vanilla.  And there’s a reason why we don’t see people protesting violently for cherry lollipops and against grape ones or why armies don’t face off over which spice shall be used in stew, turmeric or thyme.  When we fight about things, it presupposes that there is something worth fighting for.

And if we fund something, it presupposes that there is something worth funding.

And the reason why the West no longer knows what to fund or fight for—or fear—is that it wallows in a relativistic morass of moral confusion.  This is why we fund deviancy but tear down the Ten Commandments, abort children in the womb but insist they mustn’t drink soda outside of it, and promote Islam while punishing those who speak against it.

If the West wants to survive, relativism has got to go.  This won’t happen any time soon, however.  You see, regrettably, stupidity isn’t in the eye of the beholder, either.

Immigration and the lesson of Troy for America

Many of your know the legendary Achilles the great Greek warrior that died because he suffered an arrow shot into his heel. The metaphor lives to this day.  His men attacked Troy, but could not defeat them until they created a Trojan Horse that so interested the Trojans, that they pulled it into the walled city.  That night, the Greeks jumped out of the belly of the massive horse and opened the gates to Troy’s destruction.

As history repeats itself, the United States of America opens its gates to sworn enemies by immigrating them by the millions into the bowels of America.  No one seems to understand the connection.  But they will at some point in the future.

K.C. McAlpin, director of www.TheSocialContract.com , offers a contemplative tale of America’s dilemma with immigration.

“The newspaper I am reading headlines yet another domestic terrorist plot,” said McAlpin. “This time the plan was to attack several well-known Washington, D.C. subway stations. The news strikes close to home. Until very recently I lived in the Washington suburbs and often transited the subway stations the would-be terrorist targeted.

“Police arrested “a northern Virginia man” in connection with the plot who was charged with conspiring with people he thought were al-Qaeda operatives, but who turned out to be undercover FBI agents. The story eventually reveals the fact that the “Virginia man” is a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan named Farooque Ahmed who also happens to be a naturalized American citizen. His full hijab-clad wife is fromBirmingham, England, and is the founder of a group called “Hip Muslim Moms.” It is telling that I am hardly surprised by the revelation that the would-be terrorist is an American citizen.

“The media will not report it but a sea change has occurred with respect to Muslim terrorists in the last ten years. Before 9/11 almost all Muslim terrorists and terrorist suspects, like the World Trade Center plane hijackers, were residents of Muslim countries. Their usual mode of operation was to exploit our sieve-like borders and feckless immigration law enforcement to travel over here and kill us. Today however, most of the Muslim terrorist suspects arrested or terrorist plots unmasked either here or in Europe involve Muslims who are permanent immigrants or citizens of the countries they intend to attack.

“During the first ten months of 2010 alone no less than sixty U.S. citizens were convicted or charged in cases involving terrorism.² One year ago U.S. citizen and Army Major Nidal Hassan massacred 13 of his fellow soldiers and military comrades at Ft. Hood Texas. The same month police issued arrest warrants for eight Somali men with American passports and charged them with attending al-Shabab terrorist training camps in Somalia. And a few weeks ago a “Connecticut man” named Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to prison for leaving a lethal bomb in Times Square that fortunately failed to detonate. The common thread among these and almost all the other homegrown terrorists is their allegiance to Islam, which takes precedence over all other affiliations.

“Yet police seem baffled in trying to discern their motives. An Associated Press follow-up story the day after the D.C. subway bomber story broke says, “FBI agents who ensnared a suburban father in a terrorism sting involving a fictional subway bomb plot have turned their attention to figuring out what made the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen turn against his adopted country, officials say.”³ I can save the FBI some trouble.”

MEMO TO THE FBI: READ THE KORAN. THE SUBWAY BOMBER’S MOTIVE IS HIS “RELIGION” THAT SANCTIONS WAR AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS.

“For years the Wall Street Journal and other big business journals assured us that the millions of Muslim immigrants and refugees pouring into the U.S. would be no different from previous waves of immigrants,” said McAlpin. “Notwithstanding their prayer rugs and strange-looking dress, once resettled in the U.S. they soon would be transformed into Big Mac-munching Little Leaguers and Girl Scouts, and for all practical purposes be indistinguishable from the rest of American mass consumer society.

“That narrative turned out to be a fantasy propagated by those so divorced from religious conviction or blinded by materialism they cannot believe that Muslims or any other religious believers would risk death or prison to act on their beliefs.

“The reality is that it is rare to open a newspaper or visit an online news site these days without reading about the arrest of a suspect or the discovery of a plot involving Muslims determined to kill Western civilians in the name of Allah. The devilish menace of home-grown Muslim terrorists is not confined to the U.S. but is a growing threat in Europe. Besides the potential frightful loss of life and the fear these plots spread, U.S. and Western European governments are being forced to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to detect, prevent, and guard against them. And we all pay an enormous cost as a civilized society as we wade through security checkpoints, see once-peaceful public places put under police surveillance, and watch our formerly citizen-friendly courts and government offices transformed into virtual fortresses. This cannot continue.

“A creed such as Islam that commands its followers to impose it on the world by force and implement its laws governing every aspect of daily life as the Koran does is not a religion at all. It is a hostile, intolerant, and totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion (see Stella Paul’s article on page 3). The very word “Islam” means submission. And the Koran is clear that this submission is to be achieved by force if necessary. While there is no question that there are millions of Muslims who eschew the use of force, the idea that “peace-loving Muslims” can be distinguished from radical jihadist Muslims is a pipe dream. As Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has said, it is insulting to think there is such a thing as “moderate Islam,” there is only Islam.⁴

“Our domestic elites cannot see past their self-deception that Islamic doctrine has been perverted and misused by a relative handful of radical imams to incite hatred against the U.S. The problem is Islam itself. Muslims as a group are a far more dangerous threat to Western societies than the old Bolshevik and anarchist fanatics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ever dreamed of being. Islam needs to be quarantined in the failed states it has already infected, and not allowed to spread.

“In the 1940s and 1950s, when U.S. leaders still knew how to defend Western culture and democratic institutions from totalitarian ideologies, the U.S. banned Nazis and Communists from immigrating to the U.S. The U.S. must treat Islam the same and impose a total ban on Muslim immigration. If immigration quotas must be filled, there are millions of Christians and members of other oppressed faiths living in Muslim countries who would be happy to replace Muslims. Stories of Muslim persecution of Christians and other religious minorities abound.

“In Egypt there are frequent reports of Muslims rioting, beating and murdering Coptic Christians and torching their homes because ordinary Muslims are enraged over things like the repair of Coptic churches or inter-religious dating. ⁵ From Indonesia to Pakistan, Iraq, and North Africa there are horrific attacks by Muslim militants on Christian churches and their terrified congregations. Do we have to wait until such scenes are commonplace here, by which time it will almost certainly be too late?

“Nobody has the right to immigrate to the U.S. Instead, immigration policy must serve the interests of the American people, foremost among which is the right to peace and security in their own home. If government fails at that, it fails its most fundamental reason for being.

“After a decade of growing domestic terrorist threats it is obvious to anyone not blinded by political correctness that Muslims as a group pose an intolerable risk to the peace and security of the American people. It is time for the U.S. to emulate Israel and ban Muslim immigration on national security grounds.

“There also are those who argue the U.S. should follow Norway’s example and ban the construction of Mosques financed by money from abroad, particularly from countries like Saudi Arabia that refuse to allow churches or other houses of worship to be built on their own soil. But while the U.S. would be justified in imposing such a moratorium on the building of Mosques, such a ban would accomplish little in the long run unless it was accompanied by a ban on Muslim immigration.

“Three millennia ago, according to Homeric legend, there was an epic siege of the city of Troy by Greek warriors. But even after ten years of sustained and furious attack, Troy remained safe thanks to the courage of her defenders and her impregnable walls. Ultimately, however, Troy was captured and destroyed when the Greeks used guile to get inside those walls by hiding soldiers in the famous “Trojan Horse.”

“The Homeric story is an accurate metaphor for the situation the U.S. faces today. Troy is even cited by Islamic leaders themselves who gloat about immigration as their ultimate weapon of conquest. We are fools if we fail to take them at their word and heed the lesson of Troy. For the sake of our national security and the preservation of our freedom, we must ban all Muslim immigration now.”

Immigration and waiting for Superman to save the day

Why has America’s educational system fallen into an abyss?  Why do we suffer 1.2 million teenagers dropping out annually before high school graduation?

The recent movie “Waiting for Superman” attempted to define America’s educational breakdown, but it failed to address the root causes.

I asked Colorado immigration activist and housewife Marty Lich about her take on what  is happening in America.

“I have a great deal to say about  Waiting for “Superman” , but it will go against everything those educated in public schools after 1980  have been taught,” said Lich.  “I am a  product of public schools beginning in the 1960’s, and ending in the early 1980’s. Waiting for “Superman” did not cover the Root Cause of the educational implosion of today.

“I can break it into two  different areas–our country, political correctness and educators and the other side of the equation, which is students, parents and our society in today’s world.

“So let me begin by stepping away from the money, bureaucracy and unions “Waiting for “Superman” addresses, they are a by-product, created in response to the core issues.  In fact, they are a desperate after-thought, trying to correct what is and has gone wrong. The more we add-the worse it gets  . “Waiting for “Superman” did address that part.

“Our country has steadily slipped down in actual education.  The United States was the leaders in the educational world.  Our public education  began in the 1960’s and continues downward  today. so we need to look at why–what has changed in America.  “Waiting for “Superman” covers that.

“We always had poverty, we always had ‘workers’ and we always had immigrants, those are not different.  It is the numbers, the tolerance, the indifference and lack of our values that have changed.   “Waiting for “Superman” ignores this though, focusing instead on costs, bureaucracy and the resultant fallout, i.e., “drop-out factories” and “academic sinkholes“.

“What changed first is immigration policies here, affecting our school population by sheer numbers today, versus four decades ago beginning  in 1965,  then in 1986 and  now today.  In fact, “Waiting for “Superman” could address failed immigration policies and school fallout but chose not to.   We also have this desire to remain Politically Correct and practice tolerance at all costs.

“Countries that are excelling in education are  notably Asian and Indian. “Waiting for “Superman” addresses that, but not this next part. The Chinese have strict immigration policies–they are not politically correct, they are in fact authoritarian, and they not one bit interested in educating others children, they limit children born there but they value their own children’s educations! They also follow this guideline; either you conform to their expectations, and live up to them or you are assigned the worker status, uneducated and among the very poor, even if you are 13 years old.  In India– if you are foreign born you pay for your child’s education or they do not attend  Indian schools. Period.

“What had set the United States of America apart in years past was everyone could live up to their own potential–but it was earned,  it was not given for free to everyone. That  has changed, but can and should be reversed if we want to restore our education to the days we led the world in education.

“In today’s new  Politically Correct educational way here, we have raised a generation that is now raising their children to falsely believe everyone is a winner and can do no wrong!  Yippee!

“The bad news is – everyone is not a winner. If students add 2 plus 2 and say the answer is 5, they get a “A” for effort.  They should be given a “F” for Failing. They failed!

“But in public grade school, there are no “F” grades, because it hurts their little egos to show they failed. So it comes as no surprise to me that “Waiting for “Superman” showed  the American students gave themselves the highest marks as the Most Educated Students, despite the actual  fact that they are among  the lower scorers in education.  It is their egos speaking, which are beyond healthy.

“The result is we have raised/educated a spoiled self-centered generation and they are raising the next generation of very spoiled, self- important student children. They possess a much higher self-worth than their actual value is. They need to learn respect, to work hard, and to be a contributing cog in the wheel of society. They, along with others, should be taught to pull together and lighten the load.  But we do not teach that–we have told them that they are winners no matter how poorly they do their job in school.

“You cannot educate such thinkers  either, for they already know it all and they know they are right all the time, so what’s to learn? They  know they don’t need to learn!

“The reality check–we ALL fail–that’s how one learns to excel!  But as we do not teach that, it is little wonder our teen suicides and escape through drug/alcohol abuse is so high. On the rare occasion they are told they have messed  up–they fall apart.

“When I was in grade school–children were paddled if they misbehaved by the principal. The result was, very few children misbehaved.  We had classrooms of thirty plus students–but we learned, because my friends sat, listened, and did their homework. I am still friends with some of them and I still have my grade school class pictures to prove it! Children were really looked down on if they received Free/Reduced  lunch – -as it should be. That is no Badge of Honor, it is not the ‘norm’, and it is factually a statement that their parents are failing them.  Notice I did not say society failed them–their parents failed them.

“In today’s society the false belief is just as that one mom said in “Waiting for Superman” when she had not paid her child’s tuition. She says why punish my daughter by not allowing her to attend a school event? Why make my daughter lose out? This mom blamed  everyone but herself while the reality is, she is 100% to blame. Good for the school to withhold the fun school event from that child, that school just taught that child a valuable lesson of life– “You get what you earn or work for and when you don’t do your part, you lose out.”  That is  exactly what ails American schools–but “Waiting for “Superman” did not address that.

“If schools want to be successful-and educate, as in teach, as in learn, then focus on this. Math and Reading. Period.

“If one is very proficient in math, one will find science, technology and music comes easy. If one can read, one can self-educate and history, arts, music—come easy.  That is what one needs to know, in order to learn, but we have drifted away from that–we try to teach dual language, we try to teach science, history long before our students are proficient in math, spelling and reading. Big mistake and we are seeing the results now. It reminds me of phonetics –one big mistake with no ‘Do-overs.’

“Do not focus on money, buildings, art, PE, music–they are not important in school. They are bonuses for a job well done. But we, in our PC thinking, of the Happy Hippie Era of the late 1960’s, feel entitled before working. The trouble  with that is, we aren’t entitled. “One must earn one’s bonuses and that is another life lesson that is ignored today.

“Back in the successful public school days- if we, in school, made a bad choice we were held after school as punishment. That meant you missed swimming lessons, music lessons, field trips, Girl Scouts, whatever,  and it was tough toasties too.  It was–PUNISHMENT!  And we then walked home if we were kept after school due to our bad behavior and bad choices as well.

“And speaking of walking-if schools and parents and Michelle Obama are really worried about obesity, and couch potatoes-the solution is simple. No busing closer than 3 miles at any age. I walked, my friends all walked…and I lived in a very wealthy school district,  they could afford buses but we walked. Rain, sun, wind, we walked.  No PE offered in grade school–but we did have recess. And we weren’t obese either.

“This documentary touched on parents in inner cities, parents who had no education themselves but value education for their child or grandchild.

“Who “Waiting for “Superman” deliberately failed to cover (but what represents the majority)  is the parents who expect the schools to do it all for them. These parents/students feel entitled and do not value anything if it requires any effort on their part. I love my children, but I am not their friend, I am not their peer. I am their best adult advocate and their toughest teacher as well. That is my role, for I am the adult parent. I also taught them the “yours, ours and theirs” of life- at a early age.

-There is “your items” –which you own, you can wreck, protect, do whatever, they are yours.
-Then there is “ours”– we in our house share it, furniture, cars, and you will respect it for it is shared and not yours alone to destroy. Then  last, there is  “other’s property” –grandparents, friends, library, and schools.  Those are not just yours, those are not our families–they belong to the people who allow you to  use them. You will abide by their rules even if they differ from our families, you will respectful and I will check up on your behavior.

“Our schools, need to require-not request – parents/students bear full responsibility for what their child does. When our public school students defy schools dress codes–don’t give them spare clothes! Make them sit in the office until their parent arrives with appropriate clothing.  Inconvenience the parents a few times and it won’t happen anymore.

“I heard one grandma worry in Waiting for “Superman” about her grandchild “getting in with the wrong crowd.”   She could escort her grandson to and from school every day, if she took that responsibility upon herself.  She could monitor ‘good choice’ friends but she doesn’t.  There is no mention of that lack of  personal responsibility in this documentary however.

“Right now, there is no accountability, nor personal responsibility and all the unions, administrations and Federal interventions in the nation will not address that- -and that is the Root Problem.  Why do you suppose Waiting for Superman glossed right over that as well?

“Public schools  also do the following and it is far from successful. They put the top achievers in with the bottom, to give the low-performers good examples to follow. The truth is this – these low-achievers entire goal to get the high achievers down to their level.  The ‘ Reason why’ is  simple–“Misery loves miserable company.”

“To conclude- -for whatever ‘good intention but bad outcome’ reason, our schools and our parents feel obligated to supply children with everything their little hearts’ desire. Nothing  is earned–it is bestowed. The result is  there no value attached to anything and no consequences.

“The above is what “Waiting for “Superman” did not cover–and  yet, that is the origins of  the issues  today that Superman did cover. You cannot correct issues until you go back to the cause of them. “Waiting for Superman” skipped right on over that.”

Yes, Violence Can be the Answer

It was the body slam heard around the world.  When some Australian schoolboys decided to videotape themselves bullying 15-year old Casey Heynes, one of them got more than he bargained for.  Casey, who had been pushed around and humiliated for years, responded to a punch in his face and other attempted blows by hoisting his tormentor WWE style and introducing him to the pavement.  The result was a video that went viral in a way the bullies had never imagined and for a reason they certainly had never hoped: Casey has become a hero worldwide.

That is, a hero to everyone except the “experts.”  Ah, the experts, uncommon people you can rely on for all-too-common senselessness.  As The Sydney Morning Herald writes:

[P]olice and bullying experts are concerned by…the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the older boy’s retaliation against his attacker.

“We don’t believe that violence is ever the answer,” Mr Dalgleish [John Dalgleish, head of research at Kids Helpline and Boys Town] says. “We believe there are other ways that children can manage this.”

Yes, Casey could have done a ‘50s-style duck-and-cover.  Hey, kid, don’t you know you should just cower and curl up into a ball?  And, for sure, violence is never the answer…except with the Nazis, Mussolini, and Napoleon; during the American Revolution, the Barbary Wars, and the Battle of Tours; and when stopping the criminals during the North Hollywood Shootout, University of Texas Tower Shooting, and incidents every single day in which someone, somewhere uses physical force to thwart a crime.  It’s never the answer—except, sometimes, when you actually have to deal with reality.

It’s hard to say what is more irritating about the “Violence is never the answer” nonsense, the stupidity or the insincerity of it.  It’s much like the mantra “Our strength lies in our diversity.”  It’s something people say because it’s a repeated big lie that has become “truth” and is politically correct; it’s a reflexive platitude uttered politician-like because that’s what “experts” are expected to say.  But if Mr. Dalgleish’s wife or child is attacked on the street, will he not find violence a very good answer?

Perhaps he’ll take the advice of another expert, child psychologist Susan Bartell, and find some other way to “manage” it.  When analyzing Casey’s response, she said, “A better course of action…would have been for him to walk away.  Would have been for him to immediately take the power away from the bully, who was punching him in the face, and just run away, walk away….”  “Take the power away from the bully….”  Good psychobabble that.  Lady, Casey did take the power away from the bully by making sure the bully couldn’t walk away.

The problem today is that we elevate experts above wise men.  And one of the signs of a decaying civilization is when those in authority prescribe unrealistic rules for the population, rules that they themselves would never, and could never, follow.  As to this, here is the rest of Dr. Bartell’s advice: “…walk away, and go and find the principal, the guidance counselor, teacher and tell them what had just happened to him.  Because those adults are really in a position to stop a child who is a bully….”

Again, this is ideology; it’s what she learned to say in psychology class.  And let’s apply this to the adult world.  If Mr. Dalgleish tried to “manage” an attack on his child by walking away and finding a police officer, the help he’d need might be in the area of forensic medicine.  And even if he were alone, it’s not always possible to walk away.  This is why billions of dollars are made off self-defense classes.

Another bit of obligatory-utterance advice offered by psychologist Bartell is the nonsense that “those adults [school officials] are really in a position to stop a child who is a bully.”  What bunk.  It’s hard to even call these adults authority figures anymore, as handcuffed by the law and their own ideology as they are.  These are people who think that “punishment” is a dirty word and a “time out” is enough to forestall dirty deeds.  And, even insofar as they may possess a hidden firm hand, they’re too shackled by education’s “rules of engagement” and the fear of lawsuits to exercise it.  Why do you think educators have, outrageously, sometimes responded to a bullied pupil by telling him to leave school?  The truth is that the only time punishment doesn’t fail to measure up to the behavior today is when a student violates a code of political correctness, such when a little boy doodles a gun on a piece of paper, gives a willing six-year-old girl a peck on the cheek or politely holds open a school door for an adult.  As far as real transgressions go, however, it’s see, hear and speak no evil; keep your head down; and punch the time clock.

And all you have to do is ask Casey.  A nice, extremely articulate boy, as this interview shows, he had been bullied virtually every day for many years now.  And where were the “adults”?  Perhaps they didn’t know—and for sure they didn’t act.  Either way, they were incompetent and guilty of a grave sin of omission.  And the kicker is that, after failing to secure a safe environment for their students, these educators turn around and tell the kids that they also may not save themselves.  They’ll say that “violence is never the answer” and then punish the victim the same as the victimizer.  But would they want to be subject to the same standard?  If they’re assaulted on the street, perhaps they should go to prison for as long as the assailant.  I mean, it takes two to tango, right?

And understand that this is the gun-control mentality, the mind-set that disempowers the people.  It’s much as during Hurricane Katrina.  Like declawing a cat and then throwing him to the wolves, the New Orleans police confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens while doing nothing about the roving gangs that would prey upon those citizens (hey, gangs might actually shoot back).

As for law enforcement, while I generally defend cops, they’re much the same as school administrators.  They make the same politically correct statements, such as saying they’re “concerned” about the support for Casey’s actions or responding to an obvious anti-white “hate crime” by claiming that they’re unsure of the motive.  They will tell citizens not to take matters into their own hands and instead call the proper authorities, yet, when people do the latter, they find that they sometimes end up like the gun-doodling little boy.  (There recently was a New Jersey case in which a social worker called the police because she was worried that her son might be suicidal, and the man ended up being arrested and going to prison for possession of legally obtained firearms.)

So we’re not supposed to take the law into our own hands even though, increasingly, the law isn’t handling things.  Students have to deal with do-nothing teachers and citizens with do-the-wrong-thing cops, and we’re supposed to lay down our fists and arms and have confidence in the powers-that-be?

And this brings me back to violence never solving anything.  If the Dalgleishes of the world really believed this, they would dissolve the military and trade the police for social workers.  But it’s not surprising that people famous for situational values (i.e., liberals) would also subscribe to situational pacifism.  If a criminal resists arrest, they will expect the cops to use violence to apprehend him; moreover, they will actually relish it, I’m sure, if some miscreant is imperiling them.  And this is fine.  But here is what isn’t fine: saying that what is often valid for people inside government is never valid for people outside government.  Their real message is that violence is never the answer—for the subjects.  It’s just peachy for the state, though.

And this way lies tyranny.  There is a balance to things, and as citizen courage wanes government power inevitably waxes.  G.K. Chesterton spoke of this phenomenon, writing, “[T]he Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble.  The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues.”  And when pondering this, I think of the parents who called the police to deal with an unruly prepubescent child.  Like so many today, perhaps spanking was anathema to them as “violence is never the answer.”  But it was the answer.  All their weakness did is ensure that the government would become the agent of it.

The reality is that, like amputation and many other unpleasant things, physical force has its place.  After all, to paraphrase Chesterton, violence is not the best way to settle differences.  Sometimes, however, it is the only way to prevent them from being settled for you.

Journalist in France Convicted for Anti-Muslim Hate Speech

We’ve heard a lot about Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian whose warnings about Muslim influence in his nation place him in the crosshairs of the powers-that-be.  But while the tow-headed modern-day Templar has thus far dodged the hangman on Truth-speech charges, another intrepid defender of Western civilization has not been so lucky.  And we haven’t heard much about him.

He is French journalist Eric Zemmour, and he was just convicted this week of “inciting racism.”  Writes The New American’s R. Cort Kirkwood:

Zemmour’s “controversial” remarks included his observation that most drug dealers in France were black or Arab, and that employers “have the right” to deny employment to those two groups of people.

Zemmour’s criminal speech occurred on a popular talk show during a discussion of why French police seem to stop minorities more than whites.  Said Zemmour: “But why are they stopped 17 times?  Why?  Because most dealers are blacks and Arabs.  That’s a fact.”

So Zemmour wound up in the French dock, and must now pay $14,000 to five groups that sued him for racism.

According to the New York Times, the French court said Zemmour had “gone beyond the permitted bounds of the right to freedom of speech,” and that “… Zemmour had a particular responsibility to respect those limits as a ‘professional of the media and of expression.'”

If Zemmour doesn’t behave like a “professional of the media,” it is only insofar as he is a patriot and French traditionalist.  While he is the son of Jewish Berbers who immigrated to France from Algeria in the 1950s, he states unabashedly that he believes “France is civilization with a capital ‘C.’”  Moreover, he not only supports the prohibition against wearing the full Islamic facial veil in public, he “advocates a return to authorizing only Christian first names for children born in France, a restriction lifted in 1993,” reports The New York Times.  He also states that late French President Charles de Gaulle was correct when he said that mixing Muslims and Christians is like “blending oil and vinegar.”

Unfortunately, what also blends no better than oil and vinegar are secular Western governments and reality.  After all, as the book How to Win Friends and Influence People may tell us, you may incite others any time you render opinion.  As for the opinion known as commentary, it is mostly and necessarily social criticism, and all criticism could conceivably inspire someone to dislike, demean or even commit violence against its target.  But do we say that Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and their millions of “anti-theist” acolytes should be punished for criticizing Christianity?  And with all the violence of the 2010 campaign cycle, should we prohibit criticism of Republicans, Democrats and the Tea Party?  I mean, we can go way beyond McCain-Feingold and just ban campaign commercials altogether; after all, if they don’t incite people, I don’t know what does.  And would we have had the fire-bombing of fur stores, the torching of SUVs and the actions of the Unabomber had we not been accosted by environmentalist and animal-rights propaganda?

The truth is that all criticism evokes harsh feelings in some, yet no one advocates banning all criticism.  Instead, governments may use “offensiveness” as a guide.  This is completely subjective, however, as most everything offends someone and most everyone is offended by something.  But we can’t ban everything, so the thought police use their own particular emotion-derived values set as a guide.  It’s called political correctness, which is the suppression of Truth for the purposes of advancing lies.  This is why I label so-called hate-speech legislation “Truth-speech laws.”

This brings us to the main point.  Liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”  But today’s liberals have turned this on its head.  Under their regime, we are entitled to neither our own opinions nor any facts.

That is, if they’re politically incorrect.

This is why thought police in places such as Canada have said that the Truth is no defense against “hate speech” charges.  Imagine that…the Truth will set you free – but not from the clutches of the Sultans of Sensitivity.

But the worst kind of insensitivity is numbness to Truth.  The Truth is always a defense, as it originates with a source that transcends courts and human-rights tribunals.  And this should make a person wonder, if an entity suppresses it, whose bidding is it really doing?

Ah, the irony.  A government suppresses Truth on behalf of a group that sometimes may call that government as satanic.  Well, I suppose everyone is right about something.

Doom And Gloom

From: The Economic Collapse…

Have you noticed that most Americans seem to know far more about American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber and their favorite sports teams than they do about world affairs?  Most Americans cannot even find Tunisia and Algeria on a map, and if you told them that food riots are happening in those nations right now most of them would not even care anyway.  We have become a very self-centered, self-involved and self-absorbed nation.  Quite a few people have accused this column of being obsessed with “doom and gloom”, but the truth is that the world really is falling apart out there.  What are we supposed to do?  Are we all supposed to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is going to be okay?  Should we all not try to warn others so that they can prepare for what is coming?  Until people understand that we are facing absolutely massive problems they are not going to be motivated to take significant action, and hopefully those of us that are proclaiming “doom and gloom” are doing a good enough job of describing what is really going on out there that some people are starting to wake up and actually make changes.

Most Americans may not care, but the food riots that are starting to erupt around the globe are actually very serious.

Do you remember what happened back in the summer of 2008?

That summer, the price of oil spiked to an all-time high of $147 a barrel and that caused a substantial increase in the price of food all over the globe.  Suddenly millions of poor people couldn’t afford to feed themselves anymore and food riots erupted all over the world.

Well, here we are in 2011 and the price of oil hasn’t even reached $100 a barrel, and yet the food riots are already beginning.

Violent food riots are being reported in Tunisia, in Algeria, in Chile and in Mozambique.

In Tunisia, the riots have been so intense that the President of Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, has been forced to step down and flee for his life.

Yes, that is how serious things are getting already.

Unfortunately, it looks like the global food situation is only going to get even worse.

Australia is a major food producer and right now they are experiencing flooding of Biblical proportions.  In fact, it has been reported that at one point the flooding covered an area greater than France and Germany combined.

In Brazil, another major food producer, horrific flooding has killed more than 500 people so far.  This flooding is being called the  in the history of Brazil.

Meanwhile, record cold temperatures and record snowfalls are playing havoc with winter crops all over the Northern Hemisphere.

But even before all of these weather disasters struck the price of food had been going up significantly.  The UN recently announced that the global price of food hit an all-time high during the month of December, and world leaders all over the globe are openly expressing concern about what 2011 is going to bring.

Sadly, the truth is that there has been a trend of rising food prices for quite some time. According to Forbes, corn is up 94% since June, soybeans are up 51% since June, and wheat is up 80% since last June.

As one of my readers recently pointed out to me, it usually takes about six months for the prices of agricultural futures to filter down into the supermarkets.  So the very high prices for agricultural commodities that we are seeing right now should really start to be felt around the globe by the middle of 2011.

In addition to everything else, reports continue to come in of thousands of birds and millions of fish suddenly dying all over the globe, and nobody seems to really know what is causing it.

Do you want some more doom and gloom?

*There are reports of “panic buying” of silver and other precious metals right now.

*Investors are bailing out of municipal bonds at an absolutely staggering rate.

*S&P and Moody’s have both warned once again that the United States is in danger of having its credit rating slashed if it does not get government debt under control.

*U.S. housing prices have now fallen further during this economic downturn than they did during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Meanwhile, America’s economic infrastructure continues to be taken apart piece by piece.

The United States is losing more jobs to China.  In fact, the United States is losing more high technology “green jobs” to China.

Evergreen Solar, a company that manufactures solar panels, is closing their factory in Devon, Massachusetts and they are moving their production facilities to China.  This is going to result in the loss of 800 good American jobs.

The following is what the company had to say in a statement about the move….

“Solar manufacturers in China have received considerable government and financial support and, together with their low manufacturing costs, have become price leaders within the industry.”

Is it any wonder that a recent survey found that  of Americans now believe that China is the world’s leading economic power while only 31 percent still believe that the United States is the world’s leading economic power?

As America continues to lose good jobs, millions of Americans find themselves simply unable to pay the bills.  In fact, at this point one out of every six Americans is now enrolled in at least one government-run anti-poverty program.

As things have fallen apart in the United States, many private citizens have tried to step forward and do what they can to help people, but now in many areas of the country the government is actually stepping in and shutting down these private avenues of assistance.

For example, in the city of Houston, Texas a couple named Bobby and Amanda Herring has been feeding homeless people for over a year.  They never left behind any trash and no trouble was ever caused.

But now the city of Houston is shutting them down.

Why?

Because they don’t have a permit.

So will they be able to get a permit?  Well, it turns out that city officials are saying that this “Feed a Friend” effort most likely will be denied one.

Apparently the city “officials” believe that the homeless “are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness” and that therefore the warm meals that the Herrings were providing for them were potentially dangerous.

Can you believe this?

This is what happens when political correctness and bureaucracy get wildly out of control.

Now it is illegal to go out and feed homeless people?

What is American turning into?

As the economy continues to fall part, the iron grip of the government is likely only going to get tighter as it desperately tries to keep order.

But do we really need to be giving tickets to 6-year-olds?

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to one recent report, police in Texas have given “1,000 tickets to elementary school children in 10 school districts” over the past six years.

For more examples of how America is turning into a police state, please see my recent article entitled “Almost Everything Is A Crime In America Now: 14 Of The Most Ridiculous Things That Americans Are Being Arrested For“.

America is rapidly becoming a very dark place.

The truth is that there is a reason why so many websites are now reporting so much “doom and gloom”.  Things really are getting bad out there.

Sadly, most Americans have only known tremendous prosperity all of their lives, so they can’t even conceive of what it would be like to go through difficult times.

Most Americans have been conditioned to believe that while we may have brief “recessions” once in a while, in the end our economy will always get better and the good times will continue to roll.

But the good news is that an increasing number of Americans are waking up and are trying to warn their family and friends about what is coming.

Attacking the Family: Making the Terms “Father” and “Mother” Passé

It seems that our neutered, post-Christian culture just can’t do enough to vindicate Muslims’ accusation of Western decadence.  And the latest affront to common sense and Truth is an attack upon the family: The State Department will remove the terms “father” and “mother” from passport applications and replace them with “gender neutral terminology.”  Reporting on the story, Fox News writes:

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families [emphasis added].”

Improvements?  A real improvement would be eliminating the Brenda Spragues from government.

Yet Sprague insists that political correctness had nothing to do with the decision, explaining, writes Fox, “We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago.”  Ah, what an intellectual girl.

Yes, this is all the result of a deeply cerebral process that draws upon the most serious scholarship.  I’m sure the fact that the homosexual group the Family Equality Council (FEC) had been lobbying for years to get the passport applications altered had nothing to do with this decision whatsoever.

In justifying the change, executive director of the FEC Jennifer Chrisler said that the “government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing.”  This is nonsense.  It’s much like addressing our growing obesity problem, saying that the “government needs to recognize that physiques are changing” and then casting corpulence as normal.  (With this analogy, I’m not implying that Michelle Obamaesque nanny-state intrusion is justified, only that government should not be actively undermining people’s sense of what is normal and healthy.)  Government has no business encouraging bad health.

Likewise, insofar as government is going to be involved in influencing the family, it has a duty to not undermine familial health.  The family is the central building block of civilization, and nations rise and fall with its fortunes.  And as with obesity and other physical problems, familial anomalies will inevitably exist (e.g., single-parent households).  But this doesn’t mean they should be normalized.

So this is where we stand as a society in 2011, Reader One, Reader Two, etc.  We’re so darn inclusive, we’re including the poison pill in the software of civilization.  This is Writer One, signing off.

Ending the TSA Madness

Listen Up, Folks, Here’s How You Win the Profiling Debate…

One thing that saddens me about the TSA security controversy is that we’re missing a great opportunity.  Sure, the insanity of patting down three-year-old, blonde-haired lasses and octogenarian grandmothers with prosthetics has caused a great backlash, as more and more people are realizing that our government’s common-sense-blind approach is born of a deadly allegiance to political correctness.  In fact, I’ve even heard a few usually very careful pundits float the idea that we should think about profiling Muslims.  Unfortunately, though, they invariably drop the ball in the debate.

The problem is that they don’t believe they occupy the moral high ground.  Instilled with the idea that advocating “racial profiling” (a propaganda term) amounts to bigotry, they generally back down as soon as someone looks askance at their suggestion.  This is especially frustrating to me because I’ve long been promulgating an airtight argument that, not only refutes the racial-profiling propaganda, but also illustrates why the moral high ground actually belongs to our side.  So I’ll present the argument again in the hope that it will now receive a better reception.  Here it is:

Actually, what is discriminatory is to not profile Muslims.  Why?  Well, consider that group-specific profiling is nothing unusual; for instance, law enforcement looks more suspiciously upon men and young people because those groups commit an inordinate amount of crime.  Yet do we hear complaints of “sex profiling” or “age profiling”?  Of course not, as we know that such practices are just common sense.  But if this standard can be applied to men and youth, it’s only fair and just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of a given crime.  And when we refuse to do so — when we say that certain groups must receive a special dispensation from life’s realities because they enjoy privileged status — that is where the real discrimination lies.  That is what’s unfair.  That is a travesty of justice.

Now, contrary to popular belief, fellow politics wonks and pundits, no one has to pay me royalties when using the above.  There’s no truth to that rumor whatsoever.  In all seriousness, though, the argument isn’t the greatest thing since Aristotle; it’s just common sense.  And this is why the fact that it’s so uncommon is so distressing.  Because the argument does have one great flaw: It only works when used.

Of course, if we want to deepen understanding of profiling further, we could point out that there’s no such thing as “racial profiling.”  Rather, there are only two types of profiling:

Good profiling and bad profiling.

You see, profiling is simply a method by which law enforcement can determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent.  And when making this determination, good profiling considers many different factors, such as dress, behavior, the car being driven, tattoos that might be displayed, sex, age, race and ethnicity.  Whatever the details, however, good profiling is practiced in accordance with sound criminological science.  And what happens when we refuse to consider certain factors in deference to political correctness, social concerns or “feelings”?

It becomes bad profiling.

It becomes unfair.

It becomes a mockery.

It becomes the TSA.

Conclusion: When rooting out terrorists, profiling Muslims is the right thing to do.

It is the moral thing to do.

It is the only thing to do.

And what if CAIR and other Islamist sympathizers are offended?  Too bad.  Did moral men or youths ever complain about the profiling of their group?  For that matter, do we hear shouts of “racial profiling” when whites are targeted (e.g., when they cruise inner-city neighborhoods in nice cars, they are often suspected of wanting to buy drugs)?  There’s only one set that should take exception to the fair and equitable application of criminological science: criminals.  As for me, I have no problem with my group being profiled as long as the same standard is applied to all other higher-crime-incidence groups.  And if CAIR will not say the same, they arouse suspicion and deserve more scrutiny themselves.

Now, at this point, the critics are often left with just one argument.  They like to say that profiling is a waste of time because if we target a certain group, the terrorists will simply use members of a different group in their operations.  Okay, now, how is this supposed to work?  Do telemarketers call people and say (cue the professional infomercial voice), “Hello, sir, how would you like to sacrifice your life for the jihadist cause today?  We’re prepared to offer you a trip straight to Paradise where you’ll be met by 72 voluptuous virgins!  But respond now because this offer expires December 14^th.”?

The critics have it exactly backwards.  It’s virtually impossible to convince a normal person to kill himself to destroy others (unless, that is, you can first convince him to convert to Islam); it’s very easy to convince a person who is willing to kill himself to destroy others to do so in a different way.  So the truth is that if we focus on methods, the terrorists will just change their methods.  (As to this, it has just been discovered that Al Qaeda hopes to surgically implant bombs in terrorists.)  Methods don’t have a will; people do.  Methods don’t reject agendas; people do.  Conclusion?  It’s a waste of time to focus solely on methods.  We must focus on people.

Yes, on people, in just the way we do when the higher-crime-incidence group is men, youths or whites.  Of course — and those on the left who believe the Constitution is malleable ought to love this — a profile is a living, breathing thing.  It’s not set in stone.  If the facts on the ground change — if, let’s say, massive numbers of alabaster-skinned, Christian Norwegians become suicide bombers — the profile will change.  As of now, however, those willing to sacrifice themselves to blow up an airplane are 100 percent of the time Muslim and 99 percent of the time non-white.  That’s called a strong correlation.  That’s called the world’s most specific profile.  It’s called something you ignore at your own peril.

So this is how you win the profiling debate.  Memorize the block-quoted argument in the third paragraph — verbatim if necessary.  Then, don’t just use it; shout it from the mountaintops.  Hang it around the left’s neck.  You must be just as vocal and zealous about spreading the Truth as the destroyers of civilization are about spreading lies.  And it shouldn’t be difficult.  Unlike liberals, you’re not asking for special treatment, just equal treatment.  And unlike CAIR and its enablers, you’re not asking for TSA dhimmitude for infidels, just a little fidelity from your government.

Libertarianism’s Folly: When the “Live and Let Live” Mentality Becomes Vice

While there was a time when I might have described myself as a libertarian, those days are long gone.  In fact, I don’t even call myself a conservative anymore.  Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with libertarians on many issues, and their governmental model is vastly preferable to what liberals have visited upon us.  Yet there is a problem: However valid their vision of government may be, their vision of society renders it unattainable.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.  But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  Now, I certainly agree with the first sentence, as it’s merely a statement of the obvious.  But then we have to ask, what constitutes “injurious”?  And, when determining this, do we completely ignore indirect injury?  Then, if we do consider the latter, to what extent should it be the domain of government?  (When pondering these matters, note that the Founding Fathers didn’t reside on the modern libertarian page.  They certainly would have, for instance, supported the idea of state and local governments outlawing pornography and would be appalled at what is now justified under the First Amendment.)

However you answer these questions, you should question Jefferson’s second sentence.  While it may make sense on the surface, it ignores that spiritual/philosophical foundation affects morality.  And what happens when a people becomes so morally corrupt they elect a government that picks your pocket or breaks your leg?

Lest there be any misunderstandings, I don’t propose that our central government establish religion.  But I do have a problem with the implication that a person’s most fundamental beliefs — which influence action — always do me “no injury,” as this leads to a ho-hum attitude that lessens the will to uphold proper traditions and social codes.  And if you doubt the power of belief, wait until a European nation turns predominantly Muslim and watch what ensues — then get back to me.

And today’s libertarians have gone Jefferson one better.  They ignore not merely religion’s effect upon morality but also morality’s effect upon government, as they apply their ideology not merely to law but also social codes.  Indulging “moral libertarianism,” they not only oppose anti-sodomy and anti-polygamy laws, they also look askance at social stigmas that could discourage such sexual behaviors.  Not only do they oppose obscenity laws, they’re wary of courageous condemnations of the obscene.  Even that most intrepid libertarian, Glenn Beck, is guilty of this.  When asked during on the O’Reilly Factor whether faux marriage was a threat to the nation in any way, he laughed and mockingly replied, “A threat to the country?  No, I don’t . . . .  Will the gays come and get us?”  I don’t know, Glenn, ask the Europeans and Canadians who criticized homosexuality and were punished under hate-speech law.

Quite fittingly, right after Beck answered, he quoted the “It neither picks my pocket . . . .” part of the Jefferson quotation, espousing the libertarian idea that we really shouldn’t care what others do as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.  To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, however, this is much like having a fleet of ships and saying that you don’t care how the vessels function as long as they don’t crash into each other.  Obviously, if they don’t function properly, they may not be able to avoid crashing into each other.  So libertarians may say “Whatever works for you — just don’t work it into government,” but what about when someone doesn’t work properly?  Thinking that personal moral disease won’t infect the public sphere is like saying, “I don’t care what a person does with his health — carry tuberculosis if you want — just don’t infect me.”

And the proof is in the electoral pudding.  Did you ever observe what groups vote for whom and wonder why?  Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates while atheists and agnostics support leftists by wide margins.  In fact, consider this: Virtually every group involved in something those Neanderthal Christians call sinful or misguided votes for leftists.  Goths?  Check.  Homosexuals?  Check.  Wiccans?  Check.  People peppered with tattoos and body-piercings?  Check.  You don’t find many vampirists, cross-dressers or S&M types at Tea Party rallies.

In light of this, do you really believe there is no correlation between world view and political belief?  In fact, is it realistic to say that there isn’t likely causation here?  And what can you predict about America’s political future based on the fact that an increasing number of people are embracing these “non-traditional” behaviors and beliefs?  The irony of Jefferson’s statement is that whether our neighbor believes in twenty gods or no God, he will likely vote the same way (this is at least partially because paganism and atheism share a commonality with liberalism: the rejection of orthodox Christianity).  And equally ironic is that he will elect people who do injury to the very Constitution Jefferson helped craft.

So there is a truth here hiding in plain sight: If someone is not a moral being, how can he be expected to vote for moral government?  Do you really think a vice-ridden person will be immoral in business, when raising children and in most other things but then, magically somehow, have a moment of clarity at the polls?  This is why John Adams warned, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue] . . . .”

Despite this, libertarians tend to bristle at bold moral pronouncements that would encourage private virtue.  As was apparent when I penned this seminal piece on the Internet’s corruptive effects, they fear that, should such sentiments take firm hold, they will be legislated and forestall the libertarian utopia.  But they have it precisely backwards.  As Edmund Burke said:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites . . . .  Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters.

Thus, insofar as the libertarian governmental ideal is even possible, it is dependent upon the upholding of morality, upon the “controlling power” of social codes.  For not only do they help shape moral compasses, thereby increasing governance “from within,” insofar as that internal control is lacking, the social pressure attending the codes serves to govern from without.  And insofar as this social control is lacking, governmental control fills the vacuum.  As freedom from morality waxes, freedom from legality wanes.

Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.  This is because, in libertarians’ failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren’t shy about advancing their “values.”  And proof of this is in the social pudding.  You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven’t dispensed with such things — that is impossible.  Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called “political correctness,” which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.

As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture.  For if the culture is lost, of what good is politics?  People will vote in accordance with their world view no matter what you do.  Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.

The libertarian chant, “I don’t care what you do, just lemme alone” sounds very reasonable, indeed.  But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don’t leave you alone.  They tyrannize you.  A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people.  And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, “Virtue is not hereditary.”

For this reason, neither is liberty.  Scream “Live and let live!” loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live — and the republic will die.

The Truth about Obama’s Muslim “Faith”

Now that Barack Obama has decided to be for the Ground Zero mosque before being implicitly against it (perhaps), discussion about his faith has once again reached a fever pitch.  To many, his stance proves he’s a Muslim, with a recent poll showing that almost 20 percent of Americans hold that opinion; to others, it just reflects a desire to be faithful to the Constitution (now, that would be change).  The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced.  Obama is not religiously Muslim.  Culturally, though . . . well, that’s a different matter altogether.

In reality, calling Obama a “Muslim” gives him too much credit.  As G.K. Chesterton once said, “We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.”  The truth, however, is that few people have thought thoroughly and to a definite end.  And Obama is no exception.  He hasn’t even thought matters through enough to understand the folly of statism. Even more to the point, he is a moral relativist, a position the antithesis of any absolutist faith.  Inherent in Islam is that belief that Allah, not man, has authored right and wrong and that, consequently, it isn’t a matter of opinion.  Thus, Obama cannot truly believe in Islam — or in Christianity or Judaism, for that matter (he could perhaps be a Buddhist, but Buddhism isn’t truly a faith but a way of life).

Oh, and since some will ask, how do I know Obama is a relativist?  It’s simple: Virtually all leftists are, as the denial of moral reality that is relativism lies at the heart of liberalism.

Speaking of relativists, this matter of Obama’s “faith” much reminds me of Adolf Hitler and paganism. Like Obama, Hitler sometimes feigned a belief in Christianity, but in reality he held the religion in contempt.  He believed it was “the greatest trick the Jews ever played on Western civilization” and lamented that it was not a warrior creed like Islam or the ancient Germanic paganism with which the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity (I wrote about this here).  Yet, while Hitler’s second in command, Heinrich Himmler, certainly believed in the ancient pagan myths — going so far as to launch expeditions to the Far East to prove them, à la Raiders of the Lost Ark — it’s silly to think that the leader himself viewed them as anything but a utilitarian device.  He wasn’t quite that romantic.

But what about culturally?  For sure, Hitler preferred seeing Swastikas and runes (respectively, pagan symbols and letters) to crosses and crèches, rebuilt Germanic pagan temples to churches.  That was where his passions lay.  (If some are upset at a comparison between Hitler and Obama, know that I’d never call the president a National Socialist.  He’s an international socialist.  Also, Hitler was patriotic.)

Obama also has passions, and there is no question as to where they lie.  As journalist Todd Fitchette wrote in “The un-faith of Obama”:

Then there is that king of Freudian slips, when Obama matter-of-factly to interviewer George Stephanopoulos, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” and didn’t seem headed for a correction until Stephanopoulos interjected.  (Note: This doesn’t contradict my assertion that Obama has no real faith.  Nancy Pelosi has spoken of her Catholic faith, but, also being a relativist, it can be nothing more than part of her cultural tapestry.)

And are Obama’s passions surprising?  He spent some of his formative years in the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, where he was registered as a Muslim in both schools he attended and sometimes prayed on Fridays in a mosque.  Moreover, there is another factor, one most people don’t consider.

As many know, there once was a great boxer named Cassius Clay.  He converted to Islam in 1964, seemingly bothered that Jesus was portrayed as “a white with blond hair and blue eyes,” as he put it, and took the name “Muhammad Ali.”  Of course, the irony of this is that, despite being intensely aware of his slave roots, he rejected the name of an abolitionist (Clay) and took the name of a slave owner (Muhammad).  It also perhaps eluded him that Christians were the first ones to outlaw slavery while Muslims give black Africans rope and chains to this day.

But I mention this because Ali’s path is a common one in the black community; it is why we’ve long had the Black Muslims and why Islamic names are so common among American blacks.  Many blacks have bought the bill of goods that Christianity is the white man’s religion, the faith of oppressors.  And they embrace Islam as part of a rejection of “white” society.

Obviously, being part of this milieu could only have reinforced Obama’s affinity for things Muslim and antipathy for things authentically Christian — of which Western Civilization is one.  And if Americans hadn’t been brainwashed with political correctness, they would have understood this.  With foreign and domestic Muslim influence, attendance at a Black Liberation Theology, pseudo-Christian church and alliances with ex-terrorists and declared communists, Obama perfectly fits the profile of an America hater.  The wolf never really wore sheep’s clothing; it’s just that Americans had wool pulled over their eyes.

As for Obama’s eyes, they cannot look heavenward when they’re so busy looking down on little people who “cling to guns and religion.”  I sense that Obama is a certain kind of person, one much like Hitler — who wanted to create a new German pagan religion with himself at its center — in a particular sense.  This type of person essentially says the following to God, “The Universe just isn’t big enough for the two of us.” And his little world certainly isn’t, filled to all corners as it is with his bloated, power-hungry ego.  This, by the way, has been acknowledged by more honest secularists.  For example, Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19^th-century poster boy for atheism who is rumored to have been a philosopher (in reality, he is someone who helped discredit the field), once said through his version of Zarathustra, “If there were gods, how could I endure it to be no God?  Therefore there can be no gods.”  I have a feeling that Obama cannot endure it to be no god.

It is, again, unwise to give Obama too much credit.  Good faith is defined as “an act of the will informed by the intellect,” and any kind of faith requires submission to something higher than yourself.  Obama is neither that intellectual nor that humble.  But all humans have passions, and his aren’t hard to discern.  He is anti-American, anti-western, anti-Christian (the traditional variety), anti-white and anti-life.  He is more comfortable dining with Bill Ayres than the Queen of England, more internationalist than nationalist, and perhaps more at home in Dar al-Islam than Dar al-Harb.  He has lived abroad and traveled much, but he is a lover of nations like a Casanova is a lover of women: He has known many but loves, and is faithful to, none — not even the one to which he should be married.  He is a cultural traitor, and, as Cicero said about traitors two-thousand years ago, “A murderer is less to be feared.”

To quote Chesterton again, he once said, “There was a time when men weren’t very sure of themselves, but they were very sure of what the truth was.  Now men are very sure of themselves but not at all sure of what the truth is.”  The latter describes Obama.  If he does have faith, it is in himself.  And that is a faith terribly misplaced.

Hello, I’m a Racist, Pleased to Meet You

There is such a thing as a conditioned response.  Here’s an example: Leftists call conservatives “racists.”  Conservatives cower and stutter some defense.  Leftists call conservatives “racists” some more.  Conservatives cower some more.  Question: How do you think you break this pattern?

We’ve seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name).  Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess . . . cue the “Jeopardy!” music . . .  “racism.”  Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys.  No, really.  I’m not a racist.  I don’t beat my wife.  I don’t kick my dog.  I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.

Look, why don’t we just save everyone the trouble?  Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, “You’re a wacist!  You’re a wacist!” (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative — I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover with the tune and all.

And such conservatives abound.  Oh, don’t get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya’, man.  But, frankly, too many of you are saps.  You really don’t get it.  People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being “racist.”  If you’re for border control, you’re “racist.”  If you criticize Obama, you’re “racist.”  If you oppose quotas, you’re “racist.”  If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you’re “racist.”  If you want English to be the national language, you’re “racist.”  The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition.  And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that.  And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.

Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking — and even conceiving of — certain truths.  They won’t say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind.  They won’t speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people.  Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be “racist,” then hello, I’m a “racist.”  Pleased to meet you.

And this gets at a deeper point.  On the O’Reilly Factor recently, Bill O’Reilly was the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill.  You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker-Jack-box Ph.D. who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom.  Anyway, the good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be “racist” because being so requires one to have “institutional power.”  OK, whatever.  I accept the definition.  Really, I do.

I just reject the word.

What I mean is, I’ve long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left.  “Racism” is a term as stupid as “ageism,” only, we’re inured to it.  We forget that “ism” refers to a doctrine, system or theory.  Thus, of course “racism” will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb?  Leftist doctrine is usually dumb.  But what’s even dumber is that we actually embrace the left’s doctrinal terms.  This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude — “bigotry” — as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot.  As for “racism,” it was originated by the left.  So leave it to them.  They can define it.  They can whine it.  And if they ask me, I’ll tell them where they can stick it.

The point is that you can’t prove you’re not a “racist” to the left, because they’ll just define “racist” as being whatever you are.  In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You’re not going to “prove” anything to the NAACP.  You’re not going to prove anything to the mainstream media.  You’re not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal.  They are enemies.  And enemies aren’t interested in proof; they’re interested in propaganda.

So cultivate the right warrior attitude.  Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to “prove” to them that their propaganda about you was invalid?  Of course not!  They know it’s invalid — that’s the nature of evil’s propaganda.  And it’s designed to invalidate you.  And you don’t respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.

You propagandize against them.

Now, this doesn’t mean you have to lie.  Note that while “propaganda” generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn’t denote dishonesty.  It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, “the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc.”  And to damage leftists’ cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.

So what this does mean is that you have to stop being “conservative” and start being bold.  The only consistent political definition of a “conservative” — the only ones that holds across time and place — is “one who desires to maintain the status quo.”  Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors.  Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous.  They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight.  They too often act like losers — and lose.

I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed).  They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children.  They deserve your boot.  You spit in their eye.  For enemies bent on your destruction don’t want compromise; they won’t yield to reason.  They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.

This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts “You lie!” at Barack Obama, you respond, “Representative Wilson was wrong.  Obama lies a lot.”  It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire.  And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard?  Not really.  I’m just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler’s reputation.

And what of civility?  Be wary.  When the left is civil — or calls for civility — it’s usually a ruse.  It’s simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment.  Here’s how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, “You’re mean!  You’re intolerant!  What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies!  How dare you!]”  Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity.  Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards.  They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers.  After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about?  It means doing what’s fashionable in our time, what makes you popular.  A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind.  A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing.  Stand up to leftists en masse, and they’ll fold like a tent.

So free yourself.  Laugh at the “racism” shtick.  Make it a badge of honor.  Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth.  Fight fire with fire.  Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you.  So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK.  I’m a racist, sexist homophobe, and I’m in your face.  What’s it to ya’?

« Previous Page — Next Page »