Does this man know leftists consider him a bigot?

The Thought Police at the Washington Post are on the warpath once again over the Washington Redskins nickname. In spite of the fact it would cost owner Daniel Snyder heap–big wampum to change the name, they say it is bad medicine and it has to go. They are also angry about calling people who sell their own tickets “scalpers,” but that’s for another time.

What fired up the grievance machine this time was a gripefest on sports nicknames at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. One of the panel participants gave a summary of the ‘anti–Redskins’ argument when he challenged the paleface Washington owner to visit the National Congress of American Indians’ next meeting and start calling the attendees “redskins” and see if they consider it an honor.

That would be equivalent to visiting the nearest university Women’s Studies department during a performance of the Vagina Monologues and making a case for the positive contributions of heterosexual men.

Just because one is surrounded by screaming fanatics does not mean you deserve to be burned at the stake. (Note to Jesuits in the reading audience, I mean no offense with this analogy.)

Frankly it sounds to me like the staff of both institutions have been sampling the firewater. The Red Man has already had his revenge. Indians introduced white eyes to tobacco and that golden leaf is adding to the death toll as I type. The largely imaginary “smallpox blankets” were not even a rounding error compared to Big Tobacco’s body count.

The WaPost cites Suzan Shown Harjo, president of the Washington-based Morning Star Institute as a strong supporter of sporting censorship. (Rule of Thumb: beware of experts who use all their names.) She says there are some 900 troublesome nicknames and mascots across the country, down from a peak of more than 3,000.

Harjo is proud of the fact that among the first mascots flayed was ‘Little Red,’ who used to perform at University of Oklahoma games.

I remember ‘Little Red.’ We attended OU at the same time. He was a genuine Kiowa who volunteered to be part of the athletic program. People cheered him during games. Students appreciated the work he put into his authentic costume and his footwork. Plus he didn’t leave a mess in the end zone like the Sooner Schooner. All these accolades were too much for professional Native American outrage intensifiers so they worked to have him fired.

I’m surprised Harjo let the school off so easy, merely stopping with the banishment of ‘Little Red.’ ‘Sooners’ itself is a nickname rife with bigotry. It’s a negative reference to cheaters during the land rush that crossed the border early and is no doubt a slap in the face to illegal border–crossers everywhere.

While we’re at it, how about Notre Dame’s ‘Fighting Irish?’ Doesn’t that imply the Shannons might have a drinking problem? What’s more, nicknames are just the tip of the iceberg for those “who oppose the appropriation of Native American imagery in sports.” Are they casting their gimlet eye on tomahawks, feathers, loincloths, arrows, and buffalo? Where does it end? Must 7/11 stop selling jerky?

But fair is fair. Why do ‘First Americans’ get to hog (no offense to Jews & Moslems) all the outrage? What about all those pagans wearing crosses around their necks? Or Germans and Hispanics wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day? And don’t get me started on honkies that give soul shakes.

What’s more, the Redskins aren’t the only sports enterprise with a ‘hurtful’ name. What about the Cleveland Browns? Isn’t that offensive to Hispanics and people suffering from melanoma? How would you like someone to make fun of your freckles?

Among the worst of the commercial enterprises is the Jolly Green Giant: A continual poke in the eye to tall people and committed environmentalists.

The person I feel sorry for is ‘Skins general manager Bruce Allen. This slang term controversy is déjà vu all over again for the Allen family. First the WaPost goes and lights up his brother for saying “macca” in a campaign appearance, now they are after him and his team for a name that’s been around for decades. Allen no doubt thanks his lucky stars that he’s never used the word “niggardly” in conversation.

Even the ‘conservative’ Washington Times is clinging to this bandwagon. One of their sports columnists asks, “When was the last time you used “redskin” in non-sports discussion? If the word really, truly honored, we’d have a National Museum of the Redskin…” Whoops, Faulty Analogy Alert! Formal names don’t usually incorporate nicknames, this is why the Marine Heritage Museum is not called the Jarhead Heritage Museum.

Frankly, I feel sorry for the agitators. How pathetic does life have to be to support a belief that the nickname of a professional football team is damaging to one’s psyche?

Personally, I don’t harbor any particular affection for the Redskins as you can read here. But I do hope they stand firm in the face of hysteria.

Otherwise I’m afraid my team is in imminent danger, because it will only be a matter of time before vegans come after the ‘Packers.’

The post The Only Good ‘Redskin’ Is a Deleted ‘Redskin’ appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.  Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle, it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race-conscious, and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.” (Attorney General Eric Holder, February 18, 2009)

A Yahoo Poll issued the day of our 2013 State of the Union message indicated that over 75% of the public had no intention of watching or listening to it, a remarkable drop in interest and excitement compared to worshiping throngs that embraced America’s first half-white President in 2008.   It’s understandable to a degree I guess.  Those of us who follow this administration can almost recite what Obama is going to say and we don’t require a teleprompter to do it.

It is also unfortunate because it indicates why we are in the mess we continue to find ourselves.  Obama’s repetitive boring rhetoric allows him to continue to thrive because most Americans now choose ignorance over information.   I guess the thought is, “If I don’t hear it, it won’t remind me of what’s wrong”, proving my contention Obama is not the problem, we the people are.

But while most presumably tuned out because either we all knew in advance it would simply be a re-hash of the Obama campaign touting hope and change via wealth redistribution or because “The Big Bang Theory” is simply a better expenditure of time I listened, primarily in order to be able to talk coherently about it on my show which happened to air right after his speech.  Yes, my sacrifice to my country is I miss re-runs of Sheldon, Leonard, Penny, Howard and Raj so my audience doesn’t have to in exchange for re-runs of Obama’s speeches in a fresh suit.

But back to my point.  Obama wasn’t 3 minutes into his speech when I caught something he said that confirmed what I have been proclaiming since the Newton, Connecticut shootings as to how he will portray the next 4 years in hopes of assisting the progressive element of this country to remain in power beyond 2016.

“It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love.”

Aside from the fact liberty and responsibility are not bargains, the surface of his statement sounds much like most of Obama’s patriotic sounding chest thumping, meaning he always attempts at “sounding” American.  And it does sound American, doesn’t it?  Who wouldn’t agree with the ideals and principles of hard work, responsibility and equality?

But if you follow Obama as much as I and others like me do, you recognize this as progressive doublespeak, that which sounds like one thing to mainstream America but something different to those who religiously embrace progressive ideology.

Obama was in fact highlighting the voting blocks he is targeting for his continuing class warfare campaign.  Embedded within this one line lies the meaning of all Obama is and all he seeks to do.  It exposes his distrust and dislike for not only the wealthy but middle income Christian conservative white America.

In Obama speak; ”…where you come from” is a reference to poverty, “…what you look like” is a reference to race and “…who you love” is a reference to sexual preference.

For some reason I immediately I thought to myself, “The time has come to not only stand up to this continuing division of America through the bastardizing tactics of this tyrant but much more to those who through their ignorance buy into his claims”.  This can only be done by addressing Obama’s and those like him misconceptions it is the white race that is keeping everyone else down.  In other words it is time to take up Mr. Holder’s challenge to discuss “things racial”.

Upon assuming the position of Attorney General in 2009 Eric Holder issued the challenge quoted above to America regarding racism.  Like Obama it sounds right, even American.  But there is much more to this than meets the politically correct eye.  The same innuendo and accusation our President proclaimed just an evening ago lies hidden in Mr. Holder’s real meaning.  Herein lays the problem with such a discussion.

Eric Holder’s challenge to debate racism in America is based on a narrow perception racism is not seen or understood from the perspective of the black community and therefore that is why we can’t or won’t acknowledge it exists and needs to be dealt with.

Others like him express the same meaning when they speak of social and economic injustice politically referred to today as disenfranchisement.  A great example of this paradigm would be Jesse Jackson’s “Rainbow Coalition” which as far as I know displays only colors in grayscale.

In other words, having won the right to vote black activists now have expanded disenfranchisement as not only a racial issue but economic and social believing that one inherently leads to the other.  It is their way of sounding rhetorically inclusive (to other non-white races, the impoverished and guilt ridden whites) while remaining racially segregated, the very issue Mr. Holder says he is sad to acknowledge.

The thrust of this theological ideology is a political agenda that claims white America owes reparation to black America due to the issue of slavery.  Obama calls it wealth redistribution that gives everyone a fair chance.  Eric Holder refers to it as the white sin of “cowardice”.

History, as interpreted by others who are not white often paints a picture of aggression, oppression, hatred and greed as the traits by which Anglo Saxons have conquered much of the world.  That is certainly true to a great degree I suppose.  But it also indicates something most people do not understand about the white race.

And that is the history of the white race is one of overcoming the very things those who are not white claim they cannot.  Poverty, security, freedom are the same desires the white race sought and still seek to obtain as much as any nation or people caught in the cross hairs of that quest.  And if the truth be told perhaps the biggest enemy the white man has overcome is himself.  Let me explain.

In the Bible we read the story of Abraham.  Abraham appears to be a somewhat religious man (his father was an idol maker) and certainly from what we read of him he desired prosperity.  At some appointed time, the Bible tells us, God decided that Abraham would be the father of the nation of Israel, the people by which He would send Jesus Christ to die for the sins of mankind.

The question before us is why did God choose Abraham?  Was Abraham special because of his social standing, theology or wealth?  As a nomadic shepherd he had no wealth which would indicate he had no social standing.  His father was an idol maker by trade so it certainly wasn’t his religion.  Could it be because Abraham was white?

I would put it before you that God chose Abraham because He saw a man who would recognize opportunity, embrace the responsibility it involves and would eventually mature to a man that would put in the work and achieve his desires all the time remembering who he was and from Whom his prosperity came.  The side note to this is Abraham just happened to be white.  And, it is only a side note.  It was, as Martin Luther King once stated, “…the content of his character” that set Abraham’s course and destiny, not the color of his skin.

To further prove my point we know that when God called Abraham that character He recognized in him had not yet been developed.  Abraham disobeyed God by taking his idol making father with him when he moved away from his home, gave his own wife away not once but twice to save his own skin and even laughed at God when told he would have a son at the age of 100 years old.  But God saw the finished man, not the man in the making.

Even further, the nation of Israel which descended from Abraham is called by God more than once, “…a stiff-necked people” inferring they are stubborn and prone to disobedience, not unlike their father Abraham.   You could say stubbornness is in their DNA.

So by our standards Abraham was not the best candidate for the founding of a nation though he might have made a good politician given his propensity for deceit.  And neither would we consider Israel a great people as they possess the negative traits of their ancestor. But, you ask what does this have to do with racism?

In an age where too many claim the white race is the source of all that ails us I put it to you to consider that perhaps God chose Abraham not for his color or for who he was but what he was to become.  If Abraham is indicative of what is wrong with the white race than I think it is fair to say God may have chosen him to show what any man or woman can become if priorities and discipline are nurtured.  In essence maybe the white race has actually been the weakest race all along and God is telling us that if we whites can do it anyone can do it.

I personally believe it is not color but culture that determines who we allow ourselves to become.  We too easily color code our respective cultures in order to justify or defend our own shortcomings, lack of discipline and low self-esteem.  We also can use it to boast of our own superiority. All these faults transcend color.

I believe anyone can achieve their heart’s desire.  But I also believe that like Abraham we must place our trust in the same God Abraham did and look beyond color, culture, social standing, ideology and institutional theology and embrace the equality that Jesus died to provide for all of us.  This also requires we practice the same discipline and assume the same responsibility such freedom requires.

Unfortunately it also requires placing our faith in a Great White Hope…that would be Jesus Christ sent for our redemption and empowerment to achieve what God has ordained for us.  Yeah, a white guy.  Since we will all return to dust one day, in the end does that really matter? What say you, Mr. Holder and Mr. President?

Jon Matthews is the Producer and Host of “That Radio Show” which airs Monday – Wednesday from 7 – 8 PM (PST) on Blog Talk Radio. He is also author of the soon to be released book, “The Day The Music Died; How Apostasy & Liberalism Have Destroyed Our Republic”.  You can reach Jon at jon@rightandwrongradio.com.

The post Restoring Our Republic Through The Great White Hope appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The 85 year old head of the Catholic Church stated, “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.”

He continues, “However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

The words The Pope chose were very revealing. At one point he talks about the physical strength it takes to lead the Catholic Church. On the other hand he reveals the emotional toll it has taken on him as well. When one feels as though they are fighting a battle that doesn’t seem to be getting any easier it has a profound affect on them; especially the elderly.

When The Pope talks about questions in deep relevance he is referring to America turning their backs on God as a society. The rapidly changing world he is referring to is the speed at which more Americans than ever are denouncing the Church by switching from the Catholic faith to the religion of Social Justice.

The practice of Social Justice by the Catholic Left has been gaining in political power in America and around the world for years. From embracing Gay Marriage and homosexuality to the acceptance by many Catholics of the practice of abortion the Catholic Left has been gaining in influence. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capital punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted by the practice of euthanasia for unwanted babies and the elderly infirm.

Fighting for your values is not an easy task. It can be draining both psychically and emotionally. It is also not a young man’s game either. Pope Benedict XVI realized this and understood that in order to help the Catholic Church move forward that he would need to take a step back.

So who should replace him?

Given the factors that lead to Pope Benedict XVI decision to step down the next Pope should be younger, healthier, and stronger both psychically and emotionally. He should be more charismatic and possess more passion. He should be able to fight to preserve the Catholic Church and its teachings worldwide and never back down from an ideological challenge.

There has never been an American Pope in the entire history of the Papacy, but maybe that could change. Although history and long odds are stacked against him, the perfect replacement for Pope Benedict XVI would be the current Arch Bishop of New York Timothy M. Dolan.

Cardinal Dolan is relatively young at age 63, he is in seemingly good health, and he has already proven to be a much needed and reliable conservative voice for not only the Catholic Church but more importantly for our Judeo-Christian nation as a whole.

Cardinal Dolan has been on the frontlines in the battle for religious freedom. He was a leading voice against the Obama Administration’s far reaching mandate on contraception. In a CBS interview, Cardinal Dolan condemned the interference of the government in what he viewed as the outright dismissal of the right to religious conscience and freedom. His position lead to the Obama Administration slightly changing their policy in regards to the contraception mandate.

Cardinal Dolan is also staunchly pro-life. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Cardinal Dolan strongly rebuked then Senator Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for misrepresenting timeless Church doctrine on the issue of abortion. He also criticized the University of Notre Dame for allowing the most radical pro abortion President in the history of the United States to give the graduating class its commencement speech, calling it a “big mistake.”

Cardinal Dolan is also a big supporter of traditional marriage. He understands the dangers of changing the definition of traditional marriage and the far reaching consequences it can have on society. In a 2009 New York Post interview he said, “There is an in-built code of right and wrong that is imbedded in the human DNA that defines marriage between one man and one woman for life. If we go tampering with the definition of marriage than we will be in big trouble.” For more on the importance of preserving traditional marriage see http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-defense-of-marriage-act-should-never-be-repealed

There are a host of other great reasons why Cardinal Dolan would be the best choice as the new Pope but the main reason is he has been a proven fighter against the left and particularly the Obama Administration. He has been that constant thorn in the side of Barack Obama and the rest of the leftist ideologues in America. He will not back down in the battle between traditionalism and secularism. He understands the threat the Catholic Church is facing from Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Islamofascism here in America and around the world.

America and the rest of the world need a new spiritual leader with the capability, charisma, and intellect to change disbelieving hearts and minds. Our religious freedoms and long standing traditions are under constant threat from an enemies both foreign and domestic. Having someone like Cardinal Dolan in our corner will give us the strength and determination to endure these battles and emerge victorious.
..

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Traditional conservatism versus secular liberalism and the Jewish voter
Why The Defense of Marriage Act should never be repealed
Are we still a center right country?
Exposing the tactics and language of the left

The post Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

By Dr. Phil Taverna

Victory at Yorktown is another great book written by Gingrich and Forstchen.  Keep in mind this book is considered a novel, but is based on facts that shaped American History.

I will take the liberty to rely on some of the facts to make a point. But we must begin to ask ourselves with a communist liberal president that lives by executive orders can we appreciate that all the fighting that took place for liberty and the Constitution may have been  for naught.

This part of the Revolutionary War starts with the execution of Major Andre who was the go between for Benedict Arnold and  the British. And the British were not willing to trade Arnold’s neck for Andre’s neck, so he died a soldier’s death so to speak at the end of a rope. The problem was that he was caught behind enemy lines without a uniform. Since he was deemed a spy, an example had to be made. I am sure that General Washington would have preferred to stretch Arnold’s neck. Arnold was someone Washington believed would someday replace him as the head of the troops in America.  Arnold the trader had planned to capture our general in his act of treason.

General Washington was the greatest man ever. He suffered through several winters with his troops. And no matter how much fun we make of the French in WWII, it was the French that saved our butts in the Revolutionary War. The French supplied the thirteen colonies with troops, money, weapons, uniforms and naval support.  And President Washington was eternally grateful for their generosity. And the debt was paid many times over in future wars.

If the British were more cordial in their actions, the United States would have never been born. If they just waited things out and not tried to kill and rape future Americans, there would never have been the support needed  to beat the British, especially without the help of the French.

In Yorktown it was just a beautiful set up. Cornwallis who ended up being a jerk and a coward, was surrounded by a well thought-out strategy. Cornwallis had no chance of winning without the support of his navy, which wasn’t about to take on the French Navy. Maybe they didn’t like Cornwallis either.

There are 2 interesting quotes in the book.  “When freedom is pitted against tyranny Washington prayed, that henceforth and forever, those fighting for freedom, for the rights of man, would, if need be, hold to the last man, and if fated to fall, before doing so, they would train their sons and daughters to remember them and to continue the fight.”.

This is an interesting quote. Basically what the president was saying that if the war was lost, that the children would follow in their footsteps some time later and pick up the fight for liberty. In a sense that was true. The War of 1812 put an end to the British tyranny forever.

Well at least until now. Obama is not much different than a tyrant. And at some point in time the sons and daughters will pick up the challenge and change the color and texture of the Senate so that all the Obama tyrannical executive orders can be put back in the bottle. And again liberty will be available to all men and women as well as prosperity.

The second quote looks like this: ” As you can see, I have gone old and near blind in service to my country. I did not fight George the Third to become George the First.”

At this time in American history, people were confused. NYC had been occupied by the British and NYC actually prospered while occupied. And there were many loyalists throughout the land. That means they remained loyal to the British crown. And like today congress was pretty useless and powerless. Seeing George Washington as a great leader and one who could get things done, the folks in power wanted to make George the ruler.

And since George Washington had the greatest army in the lands who  fought behind this great leader for many years, the army could have made George Washington the king. 

I believe  there are many liberals like the Clinton’s or Obama. Even Jimmy Carter would jump at the chance to be the king. What is the difference between President Washington and the other clowns. First off, President Washington paid a dear price. And he truly believed in freedom and democracy. Not like President Jefferson who may have drafted the Constitution at least in part, George Washington believed in Freedom and Democracy. And in all fairness, President Washington lived under a tyranny. And understood the values of Freedom and Democracy.

But the liberal presidents have a different philosophy. They think and swear by the fact that they know better than anyone else in the country. In other words the citizens and non-citizens of this country are so dumb, only Barack Obama has the answer. Capitalism is no good. Health care is no good. People with guns are no good!

And by overspending Obama weakens the country. The one industry firearms  has flourished under Obama. So why not destroy that as well.

Obama has done nothing to help the economy. He has done nothing to protect the children in our schools. Just the other day a 6 year old was abducted right out of a classroom in Philadelphia.  One of the liberal Meccas of the world. No gun was necessary. Maybe we should stop spending money on education and start spending money on security for our children while they are allegedly being educated.

Even though the Revolutionary War is long over, there is still another war being fought. So as General Washington predicted, you must teach your children to carry on the fight against tyranny that was fought so long ago.  

 ”They would train their sons and daughters to remember them and to continue the fight.”. The fight starts today. Let’s vote all the liberal tyrannists out of our Senate and our House. The fight starts today. Are you the children who are ready to fight for freedom!

YourDemocracyChange.com

The post Yorktown: Did they Fight for Freedom or for Nothing. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

View of Baikal Lake

B A I K A L

Written by: Guy Graybill

Posted: Dec. 3rd, 2012

There’s a lake in Asia that has garnered a number of impressive superlatives. It is among the most ancient of the world’s lakes at more than 25 million years old. It is a long (395 miles) and narrow (49 miles) natural wonder, a great geological rift that continues to widen, almost imperceptibly. Lake Baikal is so immense that it holds about 1/5th of the world’s unfrozen fresh water. The lake is surrounded by mountains, the tallest of which surpasses 9,000 feet. Before the migrations into the area in recent centuries, the ethnic population was a mix of Eskimo and Mongol populations. The waters of more than 300 streams pour into this marvelous natural reservoir. Despite all the inflow of waters, there is but one stream carrying water from Lake Baikal. That stream flows from the Baikal rift as the Anagara River. That river, carrying the waters of more than 300 incoming streams plus huge quantities of natural precipitation, flows west, where it is spanned by the large city of Irkutsk (500,000 plus inhabitants), then flows north and again west, where it gushes into the great Yenisei, itself a world-class river as the sixth-largest stream on the globe, in volume of water pouring from its mouth and into the Arctic Ocean.

A final superlative for Lake Baikal: It is the world’s deepest lake. Its waters reach a depth of more than 5,300 feet. In fact, its watery depths are so great that Russia’s Soviet tyrant, Josef (Djugashvili) Stalin, once planned to have a rail spur end just above the lake so that he could load train cars with thousands of his unwanted compatriots and run the cars and their hapless passengers directly into the lake, to disappear forever. Lake Baikal, this unique natural wonder, is the ideal natural feature for contemplating the issue of racial purity. Consider the analogy. It is impossible to consider all the racial distinctions in the world, because the races have been mixing from ancient times to the present. Was there ever a time when the races weren’t being diluted or when the races were not diluting themselves?

It’s easier to understand racial mixing if one considers the activities that lead to mixing, as much as to who was doing the mixing. To suggest that ancient races rarely mixed is to suggest that concubines couldn’t conceive or that lands which were successfully assaulted didn’t also provide women to be assaulted, or that slaves become sterile or that prostitutes never got pregnant. Even the simple act of migration mixed the ethnic groups. Whenever ancient peoples migrated, they came into contact with the local population. Whether through force or flirtation, that contact was often intimate.

Within the Italian peninsula, for example, we know that Etruscans, Greeks and Romans mixed. We can also assume some racial mixing when the Huns came in from the north, when the Vandals arrived from North Africa and the Carthaginian child hostages were absorbed from North Africa. In a more recent example, the Mikado’s soldiers may have set historical records for rape as they moved south along Asia’s Pacific rim and among the near islands.

The Mikado’s soldiers behind entrenchments, Manchuria

Although all modern nations are mixed in their ethnic ties, one of the finest examples of racial mixing has occurred within the United States. Although the races were already mixed on arrival, the atmosphere within the new nation seemed conducive to interracial breeding. The new arrivals lost little time in entering into relationships with the aborigines of America or with the other immigrants. America, a great ‘melting pot’, was also a great breeding farm. That is why Americans witness repeated displays of hypocrisy whenever folks try to isolate specific ‘races’ for deprecation.

What pure folly drives the more ‘Caucasian’ Americans to pervert mathematics to try clinging to some phony racial purity. Only a complete nincompoop can claim that a person who is 10% ‘white’ and 90 % non white is a ‘black’ while a man who is 90% ‘white’ and 10 % ‘black’ is also ‘black’! Suddenly, one realizes that the bigots who employ such asinine logic are simply trying to enlarge that segment of the population that the bigots hope to keep ever under the political and economic subjugation of a dwindling minority.

To the present day, we hear of concerns for racial purity among the Hebrew descendants; yet the Christian Bible, a common source book for Hebrew history, makes clear their willingness to mix with other races. There was the concubinage of women from conquered tribes, the consorting with prostitutes of unknown racial origins and the marriage to members of other tribes. Among many examples, Hebrew marriage to other tribes included the two marriages involving the Moabitess, Ruth, who was the great grandmother of David; the siring of ten tribal leaders by Jacob, four of whom had Syrian mothers; the marriage of Bathsheba to a Hittite and the marriage of the greatest of the tribal patriarchs, Moses, to Zipporah, a Midianite. Obviously, Solomon’s vaunted wisdom didn’t include a concern for the racial purity resulting from his bedding of 300 wives and 700 concubines.

The most illogical tale of the Old Testament tells us that the curse of a drunken father, Noah, against an innocent son, Ham, set the course of racial prejudice for the rest of History. It allowed the placing of all the world’s peoples within three artificial groups, the descendants of the cursed son, Ham, as well as the two brothers, Shem and Japheth. That curse of an inebriate has created undeserved agony for great masses of humankind. Is there Biblical evidence that the Hand of God was in any way involved in this calamitous curse? Seemingly in contradiction to the curse on Ham, we are told that Abraham sired a son, Ishmael, with Hagar, an Egyptian and, we are told, Ishmael was to be the father of all Arabs. If that claim is valid, every Arab has blood diluted by the blood of Abraham. How, one must inquire, can this legacy be reconciled with the roles of Ham, Shem and Japeth and what, then, becomes of the countless peoples who already inhabited Arab lands as well as those numberless groups who had already inhabited the trackless climes of far greater distance?

Overwhelming evidence proves that the concept of ‘racial purity’, is maintained only through self-delusion. It is something to be bellowed about by all those leaders whose leadership is fed on bigotry. This irrational basis for racial purity is found within races that continue to mingle with other races, while pretending that they are faithful to some special racial exclusiveness.

Do Arabs, some of whom are extremely touchy about their religion, also worry about racial purity? Surely, the Islamist warrior is not concerned about the ethnicity of the 72 virgins that await him after martyrdom. One must admire the snake-oil salesmanship of the Jihadist recruiters who can get warriors to welcome death on the promise of being given 72 virgins in Paradise. Are we missing something? Does the Jihadist willingly accept martyrdom on the promise of living for an eternity in Paradise; but with less than a month’s supply of maidenheads?

Clearly, Baikal’s lake is analogous to the lake of humankind. Each has been thoroughly mixed and mixed again… and again. Again, we compare with Lake Baikal’s immense waters. The great lake of mankind can never unmix. We must pretend to be sightless, not to see that every race is impure. Every race has been hybridized. The races, hopelessly mixed, can only mix to a greater degree. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ is a sham. No tyrant will ever unmix a race.

As with the waters of Lake Baikal’s hundreds of in-flowing streams, the human Baikal is now so thoroughly diluted that we can stop the pretense about racial superiority and begin to live as brothers and sisters in the great, deep lake of humankind

Winter on Lake Baikal. Photograph: Olivier Renck/Getty

The post A CURMUDGEON’S MUSING appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

About the New Immigration.

Contemporary migration and its challenges.

In moments of levity, this writer presents himself as a “professional immigrant”. Indeed, by choice or driven by vainly resisted forces, his life had to be repeatedly relocated. The experience of starting anew is as unpleasant as it is also valuable. In the aftermath of the US’ election, the migration experience became a recognized topic of significance.

Migration is not only a force that determined the US’ election. A new movement of peoples is tied to the appearance of unwelcome immigrations throughout the developed world. This new immigration, its political impact and its social consequences, will serve as a subject of future discussions.

Mankind’s history is the record of migration. Some episodes are not mentioned because of the due emphasis given to the record in immigrant-shaped countries, such as the USA, Canada or Australia. Conveniently separated from the overall case of the movement of peoples is that history’s migrations were also conquests. The correlation is so strong that we can talk about conquests that were immigrations carried out with other means. We should admit that the present’s nations are located in territories that have been taken from their earlier inhabitants that were driven away, either assimilated under pressure, or annihilated. Any given land, even if it is now officially “our inherited historic homeland”, has been at one point someone else’ territory. To illustrate, consider the current owners of the real estate and the events in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa during the Dark Ages and the Muslim Conquest.

Equally as effective in creating today’s political-ethnic map by the sword has been peaceful migration. As in the case of Kosovo, once the heart of historic Serbia, where under Ottoman rule the majority there became Albanian. This new demographic reality came about without the consent of the earlier majority because it lacked sovereignty. Ironically, what used to be southern Hungary became Serbian because the Crown let Serbs that fled Turkish misrule settle there. Frequently, after the individual trickle-in of settlers or their entry as organized groups, the land used by them became lost to the state that asmitted them of its own volition. This process is an ongoing one and fuels disputes involving land that had traditional owners and the new majorities that claim it for them. The instances abound in which such antecedents are destined to become recognized issues once the new ethnic balance receives a separatist component.

Antidotes exist to such disputes. One of them is the grant of cultural autonomy and local self-government. This is an effective measure where the ethnic minority is a local majority with ancient roots. Even in Europe, some states see federalism and local autonomy as door openers to secession. Nevertheless, a federal response to what could otherwise have become secession, has often defused tension. No Finn is Sweden, no Swede in Finland, and none of the four nations that make up Switzerland, feel oppressed because he belongs to a minority. Going further we allege that, federalism is a key to the success of politically and economically thriving states and their system.

There are countries in which national success, immigration and the new settlers’ rise are presented as intertwined issues. Indeed, this is a realistic assessment and not a PC –inspired slogan. In these instances, we find a conscious policy that regulated admissions and a clear expectation regarding the comportment of the entrant. That meant that pre-dating arrival, there was a will to adjust to the ways of the host and a desire to participate in success-strategies. It must be evident that learning the language of the majority was part of this adjustment.

The record shows that there are immigrations that do not share this attitude and reject the notion that immigration implies adherence to the “social contract” that governs the host. More than that, those that reject the values that regulate the societies to which they have applied for access set the comportment’s tone. Beyond this imported hostility, one also finds a lack of imported skills that in their state of development the receiving economies need. From both of these barriers follow traits that hinder integration and we can talk about “resistant minorities”. The resulting and intended creation of separate and thereby inassimilable groupings react to “rejection” by hating additionally the order around them. Being condemned to failure because of their attitudes leads to frustration. This dropping out before getting spurs to hostile acts against the majority and its order, which is blamed for failure.

Classical immigration has produced individuals that, through their will to exploit through creative adjustment existing opportunities, have created a growing middle class. For individuals this process meant upward social mobility. The process of personal upgrading facilitated the integration into the system that these individuals have chosen by settling in it.

Both in the classical countries of immigration, as well as in Europe, a new immigration is unfolding. The attraction is not in all cases the striving for opportunity but the lure of financial support that is allotted independently of the beneficiary’ societal contribution. This creates, at the expense of the existing middle class, an immobile underclass whose perspectives depart from the majority’s and which contradicts the attitude that had made the host country successful. Not infrequently, this immigration begins with an illegal act. In Europe’s case, false national origins are claimed to support the fraudulent claim of political persecution. In the case of loosely controlled countries that lack residence registration, illegal entry and residence is practiced. Given this inauspicious start, mainstream careers will not necessarily be pursued, and so the inclination to engage in continued illegal activities is given.

Illegal or forced immigration tends to prove to be an irreversible process. This is an outcome in highly developed systems that in their practice extend protection, not as intended, to the falsely accused. Much rather, the criminal that violates the rules of the game naively assumed by society, is shielded. Thereby his apprehension is hindered and his chastisement is obstructed by protection intended for another purpose and whose postulates reflect assumptions that are invalidated by the nature of the challenge. Therefore, the conditions assessable now suggest that, economically and politically advanced societies have caused themselves to lose their ability to control their immigration. Furthermore, thereby, a significant part of their sovereignty and some pillars of their social order are also impaired.

The post Contemporary migration and its challenges. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

We all know how the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in November, 1620, and how they lost half their population to starvation, sickness, and exposure that first winter. We all know how a Native American named Squanto taught the survivors to fish, plant corn, use fertilizer, and hunt deer. And we know that following their first harvest, Governor William Bradford (above) declared a day of Thanksgiving that we celebrate to this day.

What most of us never learned was that the original contract the Pilgrims brokered with their London sponsors required that everything the Pilgrims produced was to go into a common store, and every member was to be allotted one equal share.  Further, all the land they cleared and all the buildings they constructed were to belong the whole community.

It must have sounded like the ideal society.  Free of outside evil influences, greed and personal property were to be banished.  Everyone was to work for the common good, and altruism was to be its own reward.

How did it work out?  Horribly.  In the three winters of 1621-1623, many died from starvation, pneumonia, or both.  Here is Governor Bradford’s own summary of the community’s results with what we now call Socialism:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.

In other words, said the Governor, it simply didn’t work.

Wisely, in April, 1623, Bradford abruptly abandoned the idealistic practice of collectivism. Instead, he assigned a plot of land to each family, permitting them to keep everything they grew or made and to market anything they didn’t consume themselves.  He actually harnessed all that awful ”greed” and put it to work in a Free Enterprise system.  Bradford had discovered that even these most idealistic of peoples had no reason to put in any extra effort without the motivation of personal incentives to do so.

So how did Free Enterprise work out for the same people in the same place under the same circumstances?  Boffo!

The Pilgrims soon had more food than they could eat or trade amongst themselves.  So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Native Americans.  They paid off their debts to their London sponsors and soon attracted a great European migration.

As Bradford summarized the new approach:

This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content.

This was an essential and timeless lesson, learned the hard way.   So why isn’t this lesson featured up front, in neon lights, in American history classes?  Why isn’t it the lead story of the Pilgrim experience?   Perhaps it’s because the people who write our history textbooks still don’t want to believe it.  Perhaps those authors still cling to the hope that some form of Socialism will one day triumph over Free Enterprise.   Unfortunately for those authors, the historical record couldn’t be clearer, and the Pilgrims’ experience is Exhibit One:  when it comes to bettering the life of the common man, Free Enterprise works — and Socialism fails.

For more than 3000 years at Passover, Jews around the world have been re-telling the story of their deliverance from slavery, and for over 2000 years at Easter, Christians have been re-telling the story of their redemption.  Now that it’s been nearly 400 years since the Pilgrims landed in America, perhaps we could begin re-telling the real story of Thanksgiving every year, headlining those life-and-death lessons the Pilgrims learned about the differences between Socialism and Free Enterprise.

[Originally posted at WesternFreePress.com, January 26, 2011]

The post Thanksgiving Story: The Pilgrims, Socialism, and Free Enterprise appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

It was a hard choice to endorse the Progressive Romney, but I felt that the stakes were so high it was worth the effort.  As I said repeatedly he might have driven us to the poor house a little bit slower.  Instead we have a triumphant President Obama and the Chicago Outfit he represents sitting astride the prostrate body politic.  The last four years will be but a prelude to the horrendous destruction these looters will do to the American Experiment in the next four.  And given their obvious ability to lead their army of useful idiots, takers, and corrupt city political machines to electoral victory we should probably brace ourselves for President Biden in 2016.

The perpetually re-elected establishment rigidly controls the entrenched two party system, which conveniently calls itself Democrat and Republican.  They are two sides of the same coin, and two wings on the same bird of prey.  They both represent the Progressive central-planners who believe government is the answer when we know it is the problem.  No matter which side wins the government grows and devours more of the nation’s output and its wealth.  The election results ratify the electoral majorities’ union with the statists.  It also points to:

• the permanent establishment of Obamacare
• the probable capture of the Supreme Court
• the loss through re-interpretation of our rights
• the full implementation of the Cloward/Piven Strategy with massive debt , borrowing, and inflation
• the expansion of rule by decree
• the continued and expanded humiliation ofAmericain international affairs
• the end of the American experiment in limited government, personal liberty and economic freedom as we have known it

As alarming as all this sounds do not despair, God did not leave us nor forsake us.  First of all He gave us plenty of warning.  This author and many others repeatedly predicted an Obama win.  As I stated numerous times, the Chicago Machine doesn’t lose elections.  Also our hope is not in the hand of man.  Man didn’t give us the peace that passes all understanding and he can’t take it away.  God gave us His Word which is always our refuge and our fortress.

He told us:

• A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it shall not come near you.
• Do notsorrow, for the joy of the Lord is your strength
  • Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!  Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.  Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
  • God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear…
  • If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

That is why I can face this morning with joy in my heart and hope in my spirit for I know who my Savior is and I know what He has promised me.  Build your life upon the Rock that doesn’t roll and when the wind and waves beat against you, you shall not fall.

God’s Word tells us not to put our trust in leaders whose plans are of this world.  Don’t look for utopia here.  Don’t keep your treasure in the world where rust destroys and time forgets instead keep your treasure with God.  He promises us that if we draw near to Him He will draw near to us, and that if we humble ourselves before Him He will lift us up.

So don’t despair.  Don’t let the passing victory of the evil steal your joy because if the devil can’t steal your joy he can’t keep your stuff.  And remember, weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.  Trust God, praise Jesus, and remember: the hope of the righteous will be gladness, but the expectation of the wicked will perish.  The plans of the wicked may flourish but they will also wither like the flower in the field.  Trials and tribulations come upon us so that we may grow and persecution was also promised to those who believe along with a way of escape.

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Keep the faith, keep the peace, we shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

Excerpt:

Don’t let the passing victory of the evil steal your joy because if the devil can’t steal your joy he can’t keep your stuff.

Tags:

The post The Joy of the Lord is My Strength appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

An article entitled The U.S. Constitution and Civil War, posted at my blog on December 27, 2011, has received more “hits” than any other post there. It has received 14.66% of my total hits this year thus far; 33.10% of those hits came this October, more than in any previous month. Another article, Shall we Have Another Civil War posted on August 10, 2011, has also received many hits this year.

This may indicate that there is now substantial interest in the Civil War, possibly as suggesting what our future may hold. I do not want another civil war, of any type, and hope that we can avoid it. The article concluded,

The U.S. Constitution is well worth saving, but not by violating, ignoring or otherwise diminishing it. We can properly amend it, a difficult process when the states are free to ratify or reject amendments. However, it is the only viable way unlikely to lead to long lasting scars or conceivably to another Civil War. The rights of the States are the keystone of the Federal system upon which the country was founded and prospered; chipping away at them even piece by piece, a few at a time, is perverse.

To have another civil war to preserve the federal union by disregarding the Constitution would be no less destructive and no less perverse than was the former. The Constitution provides sufficient political and legislative processes, if wisely used, to implement necessary changes and enough judicial safeguards to prevent Federal overreach in doing so. The Executive is required to follow the Constitution and to usurp neither the Congressional nor the Judicial prerogatives it embodies. The individual rights it guarantees are no less crucial. To avoid civil unrest and perhaps civil war, we should give far more thought than at present to returning to these and other basics of our form of government. Governments rot when their citizens let them and can recover only when their citizens demand it.

Unfortunately, fidelity to the Constitution has deteriorated greatly since 1861, much of it not in the distant past. President Obama and members of his administration have issued vigorous denunciations of free speech, most recently in connection with blaming the Benghazi disaster on a little viewed video. Political correctness in general holds great sway to the point that saying anything which anyone might conceivably find offensive is deemed unacceptable by many — and in some cases punishable by law — with very little regard for its truth. There have been Federal efforts to require religious organizations to provide contraceptives and abortifacients contrary to their religious doctrines. There have been successful efforts to prevent States from taking action to enforce existing immigration laws in response to purposeful Federal failures to enforce them. There have been Executive Orders effectively repealing Federal immigration laws. These are examples of a growing trend. There are others. Until the Constitution regains its proper place, not only of respect but also as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution will remain in danger and so will the United States as a nation of laws.

What, short of violence, can be done in the face of these and other governmental usurpations? The easy answer is to fire those in Government who are responsible for them. Unfortunately that can’t be done simply by saying that it should be done, and actually doing it is far more difficult. It requires that those who vote first inform themselves of the issues, of the constitutional implication and of the positions taken by the candidates. However, candidates are generally circumspect in stating their positions, apparently due to desires to attract as many, and to alienate as few, voters as possible. Perhaps more attention should be paid to what they did in the past and less to what they now say they will do in the future.

How many voters have even read the Constitution? How many who have read it understand what its various sections mean, even broadly? How many care? I have read articles suggesting amendments to the Constitution but ignoring the explicit requirements of Article V for them to become effective — two thirds approval by both houses of the Congress to send a specific measure to the States, followed by ratification by three fourths of the States. (A Constitutional Convention called for by two thirds of the States can also propose an amendment, which must then be ratified by three fourths of the States to become effective, is also possible under Article V. However, that has not happened since the Constitution went into effect.) ObamaCare infringements of religious freedom under the First Amendment? What’s that? Who cares? They don’t infringe upon my religion. Limitations on gun rights under the Second Amendment? What’s that and I don’t much care anyway because I don’t want a gun. States rights under the Tenth Amendment? I don’t know what that means, but they must be old fashioned and the Federal Government is really big and knows best. The Commerce Clause under Article I, Section 8? What’s that? Who cares? Shouldn’t the Federal Government just go ahead and do good things like they do in some countries? No, it shouldn’t, unless authorized under the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we tend to be upset by events of the present and of the immediate past, while relegating others to memory as lesser concerns. There is a tendency, even for some who generally stand for States rights, to favor otherwise unacceptable Federal intrusions when accompanied by Federal funding, without apparent regard to how those intrusions are likely to expand, and in what directions, even if the Federal funding does not. Here’s one example: even Colonel Allen West, whom I otherwise greatly admire, favored

federal legislation requiring states to impose uniform driver licensing requirements for teenagers in exchange for additional federal funding as well as to retain certain existing federal funding.

That legislation articulated specific steps to be taken by the Secretary of Transportation, but also vested tremendous authority in him to promulgate

any other requirement adopted by the Secretary of Transportation, including learner’s permit holding period at least 6 months; intermediate stage at least 6 months; at least 30 hours behind-the-wheel, supervised driving by licensed driver 21 years of age or older; automatic delay of full licensure if permit holder commits an offense, such as DWI, misrepresentation of true age, reckless driving, unbelted driving, speeding, or other violations as determined by the Secretary. (Emphasis added.)

The Secretary (as well as successor secretaries) was hence to be given an open legislative mandate to do whatever might in the future please him; for a court to find that nearly any requirement adopted by the Secretary had been beyond his statutory grant of authority would be very difficult if not impossible in such circumstances. Fortunately, that legislation remains in committee and appears to have little to no chance of passage. Unfortunately, the Federal legislative process increasingly delegates the writing of Federal laws to administrative agencies. Perhaps some of our CongressCritters are too lazy, too inept, too corrupt or too busy fund raising and campaigning during long pre-election seasons to bother to provide firm and clear instructions to Federal regulators. Or perhaps some Federal legislation is unnecessary and perhaps whatever is necessary can best be done by the individual States to suit the different needs of their citizens. ObamaCare is a prime example of delegation gone wrong. I understand that the Federal regulations already promulgated far exceed the statute in length and that more are on the way. We don’t need — and should not want — that sort of legislation, no matter how well intended it may appear to be on its face.

How about the history of the United States? In an article titled Governments Rot when their Citizens Let Them, I argued that although the government of the United States is still better than those of many other nations, it is in trouble:

[T]he United States has a history and retains a vestigial culture, albeit increasingly diluted and diminished, of individuality, independence, and public service as a burden to be accepted, only temporarily, for the common good. To us, the concept may seem rather naive, funny, and old-fashioned. It shouldn’t. Cincinnatus (519 – 438 B.C.), who returned to plow his fields in Rome when he had finished his job as supreme military commander, is fading as a role model and even a memory.

He gained fame as a model of Roman virtue. He was a farmer above all, but when called to serve his country he did so well, efficiently, and without question, even though a prolonged stay away from his farm could mean starvation for his family. When he served his country, he made his stint as dictator as brief as possible. He was also admired for his lack of ambition.

Much of that culture, although diminished in Rome, spread slowly to parts of what was then the wider world, including Britain. Centuries later, Britain gradually transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, with many of the individual freedoms and restraints on government set forth in the United States Constitution. It took a very long time. Nor was it, as the French ruling class understood, automatic. M. Guillotine’s clever and comparatively humane device, celebrated as the people’s avenger, was much in use as the French Revolution proceeded. Far less humane “rebels” in Libya are hardly proving themselves historically unique by exacting their vengeance without much sensitivity.

. . . .

In more recent years, Britain’s culture has become no less multiculturally devalued than that of the United States. Venezuela, Cuba, and many others never, at least in recent memory, enjoyed cultures conducive to freedom and democracy. Ditto many countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, plus some of the countries they colonized. Mexico? Hardly a role model for the United States; I didn’t learn much about Mexican history or culture half a century ago in school, and I doubt that many young people in Mexico learn much today about the history or culture of the United States. Few are likely to develop cultural attitudes in contemporary Mexico compatible with life in the United States.

Haiti was colonized by France and revolted to form a “republic” at about the time of the French Revolution. There was some stability under various dictators. More recently, there was a rebellion in 2004, then earthquakes and floods that made existence even worse. Will Haiti ever have democracy and freedom? In the foreseeable future, there seems to be no path to that destination, including some kind of well-intended conquest; some type of mobocracy, maybe, but not freedom.

History suggests that where the requisite seeds and fertile soil are lacking, germinating and growing responsible, responsive governments for a free people is almost impossible. Although President Obama is not the only leader in the United States more hopeful than knowledgeable about even recent history, as President he is more capable than most others of doing great harm.

Obama’s historical ignorance could be a full time beat for somebody who does this work for a living, and it tells us something truly important about Barack Obama. His ignorance is as broad as it is deep. Not that you couldn’t deduce that on your own from his performance on the job.

This lack of historical awareness, along with other disabilities, seems to have spawned a penchant for ignoring reality in such places as Libya while neglecting to water the fragile plant on our own still fertile soil — and while using what remains of it to bring impoverished cultures and their consequences to the United States. (Emphasis added.)

How many voting citizens pay attention to what’s happening in the United States, let alone the rest of the world? Not enough. In the article excerpted above I noted,

On the morning of Wednesday, April 20th, [2011] “Troy Polamalu has amazing hair, top-selling NFL jersey” was shown as the top story on Yahoo News. The point is not that Mr. Polamalu’s amazing hair is less than newsworthy, or even less than fascinating. It is that we have rather more important matters to pay attention to, and to ensure that our elected and appointed government officials deal with them on our behalf. Our basic liberties are eroding. Multiculturalism becomes the governmental and social norm. The authority of the allegedly most transparent government in history receives ever more expansive interpretations, its interpreters intent upon directing us along the paths they, in their infinite unwisdom, deem best.

The mass news media compound the difficulty by taking sides, apparently based on ideology and political preference, and hence failing to report events that would be inconvenient for those whom they support were they to report them objectively. Fortunately, by depriving them of the ratings they need to sell us as audiences for their sponsors’ products and hence to survive, we can perhaps train them to behave more responsibly as news media. Fortunately, some in the “new media” often tend to do a better job — for us.

There is not just a single gigantic Augean stable full of fecal matter that even Hercules would find difficult to muck out; there are many. Although it might be fun to condemn various of our elected representatives to mucking out real Augean stables full of real bovine excrement, no President has Herculean abilities and Hercules’ method — disposing of the stable contents with the help of two rivers — would not be approved by the EPA. Even if it were, it would not be effective in cleaning our many Augean stables:

First the hero tore a big opening in the wall of the cattle-yard where the stables were. Then he made another opening in the wall on the opposite side of the yard.

Next, he dug wide trenches to two rivers which flowed nearby. He turned the course of the rivers into the yard. The rivers rushed through the stables, flushing them out, and all the mess flowed out the hole in the wall on other side of the yard.

Nor can our own Augean stables be cleansed quickly. Governor Romney is not likely to reverse our disastrous current trends completely, but he is certainly more likely to begin to do so than is President Obama if reelected. He is also less likely further to countenance additional expansions of Federal authority beyond constitutional limitations. Governor Romney, along with a reasonably conservative Congress, can provide a beginning and might eventually even lay the foundations necessary to lead our nation back to the basics — a road that she now, perhaps more than at any other time since 1861, needs to take. Should we take that road, we can avoid civil war; if we don’t, I don’t know. If we don’t, perhaps we deserve whatever happens.

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

The post Civil War, the U.S. Constitution and History appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

atthews, Right & Wrong Radio  

“I went down to the sacred store where I’d heard the music years before, but the man there said the music wouldn’t play.  And, in the streets the children screamed, the lover’s cried, and the poets dreamed, but not a word was spoken – the church bells all were broken.  And the three Men I admire most: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, they caught the last train for the coast…the day the music died.” (Bye Bye Miss American Pie, Don McClean 1972)

“Will this be the convention that we will now remember as the time that God was nay’d and boo’d by the Democratic National Convention?”

This question was put to Jesse Jackson, activist/shakedown artist and self proclaimed savior to all disenfranchised humanists of color by Fox political pundit Sean Hannity just hours after DNC Committee Chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa literally overrode the all too obvious and unfortunately for the Democratic Party, too well documented, will of a majority of the DNC delegation in North Carolina regarding blasphemous changes to the DNC platform.

I admit I was stunned.  Not so much by Villaraigosa’s confused reaction to the raucous crowd (liberal leaders are not use to their sheep thinking for themselves) or even Jackson’s apostate response to Hannity’s question (apparently the name of God is a cultural problem exuberated by the Christian right when we pronounce God’s Name exclusively in regard to His begotten Son Jesus).  I was stunned by the initial actions taken by the delegation that had prompted Hannity’s question in the first place.

Up until this very moment I had always held the belief the Godlessness that exists within the Democrat Party was primarily at the leadership level, an alliance between humanistic progressive atheists that attempt to justify their claim God is a crutch that enslaves the intellectually weak and morally timid and Black Liberation activists like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who deceptively use a false Gospel Message to perpetuate these same perceived weaknesses among the black community.

Humanists and atheists use their arguments to advance their agenda of legalizing sin without civil accountability and consequence by claiming everything is a right rather than a choice, while those like Wright, Jackson and Sharpton seek power and profit through exploitation of the flocks they claim to serve, revealing they are not wolves among sheep like their apostate comrades, but wolves disguised as shepherds. Liberal leadership uses both factions to raise money and garner votes that advance their own agenda with is usually a combination of the two.

As I watched this remarkable DNC episode unfold another event (though not as public) immediately came to mind, a prediction I made back in November 2008, just days before the last Presidential election when I stated on my radio show it might be good if Obama was elected as it would to a degree never before witnessed expose the extreme ideology that has evolved among the leadership of today’s Democrat Party.

So it was in somewhat stunning shock and awe I realized I was witnessing just the opposite, a Godless coupe by the masses rather than the party heads calling for the removal of God and refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel from the DNC platform while the leadership of the DNC attempted to appear they were trying to salvage what little decency and respect for our national heritage remains among liberals, forcibly overriding the will of the people just weeks before it will be decided if their anointed messiah will be immaculated for another term.  Of course we know in reality they were simply trying to salvage votes.  Votes that now hang in the balance.

I have been fortunate over the last 15 years to have been allowed from church pulpits, radio shows and political forums to preach, teach and commentate as to the state of faith in God and America. I can attest there are prophetic elements, some real, some fabricated that exist within them both, whether insight that imparts truth on events that shape our spiritual lives from the pulpit or the lies and spin that pave the paths of deception we too often must eventually commentate on in the political arena.

But this event at the DNC convention has a much deeper historical aspect to it than others, an aspect that is forever etched intellectually in my mind and soul, its implication embedded deep in my heart much more than past experiences.  I can only describe it as the sad realization of a paradigm shift that carries with it an especially eerie prophetic aura as the future plays out in real time through media driven cyberspace.

This realization has driven me to my keyboard not as a prophet that predicts the future for that future is now upon us, nor as a commentator who desires to educate and entertain but as a citizen of both this world and the next who believes he has been blessed by God with a gift of discernment and a tongue by which to articulate cause and effect regarding events that occur in our society.  And as it now stands a command by my God to do so.

With every command comes a desired objective, a warning regarding the failure to achieve that objective and the necessity of a response. Our objective as a nation is clear.  If we of this nation do not address this situation now, if we do not repent and humbly seek God’s forgiveness and return to the Biblical principles on which we were founded than all that remains for us to be experienced as a nation and people is the dust we shall find heaped upon us, shaken off by the feet of a jealous God in this world and His eventual righteous judgment in the world to come when He declares He will share His glory with no one.  Knowing that almost half of this country can listen to Obama and still believe him after 4 years of lies and deceit makes me wonder if we indeed are already in that age of judgment

As I pen this we are just a few weeks away from the 2012 Presidential election and our nation stands at a crossroad that will determine our direction not only as a nation but more important as a people of God.  I hope those of us who are fighting to keep our Republic are not fighting in vain for God tells us that those who labor without God do indeed do so.  So let us pray heaven’s Trinity has not deserted us.  For if He has then surely we will mourn the day the music died.

Jon Matthews is Host and Producer of “Right & Wrong Radio” a conservative talk show that streams on the internet. You can visit his site at rightandwrongradio.com or email him at jon@rightandwrongradio.com.

The post The Day The Music Died: How Progressivism and Apostasy Have Destroyed America appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Toleration does not moderate radicals: it incites them.

Duly Noted. George Handlery

It is a common place that history does not repeat itself. As so often, this shibboleth panders to a partial truth. Indeed, history’s does not condemn us to bear its repeat performance. It is the ignorant that cause the past’s suffering to return to haunt us.

Memoirs, documentations, and grilled acquaintances tell a recurring story about the Holocaust. Survivors had an interesting response to the “but why did you not leave while you could”? Yes, they were well aware of anti-Semitism. They were also cognizant that, the National Socialists program promised their liquidation. As Islamists put it today, there was then, too, a stated will to “decapitate” the many that they disliked. The Nazi program –unlike that of the Bolsheviks- was not only not a secret but was even advertised to drum up support. There are contemporary movements that act analogously.

The question is why the clearly targeted did not respond by fleeing while they could. What kept the future victims at the scene of the crime to come were not jobs, status or property. The reason to stay was that, the stated policy was not believed to be seriously meant. As a child, I recall my family holding a conclave as the Iron Curtain came down. Should we abandon everything and start anew abroad? Language and employability were not a hindrance. What decided the matter was the “family graves” and that “it” cannot turn out to be as bad as proclaimed. Later this sounded ironical when we were about to join the departed in those prized graves a bit prematurely.

For the contemporaries, what became  the 20^th century in the center and the east of Europe seemed unimaginable. Today, as we know more, comparable scenarios brewing should not be put off as a creation of an overactive fantasy. The “impossible” has shaped our past and should be seen as a realistic future scenario.

Why is the lesson ignored that the unbelievable can happen? To our possible peril, the mayhem of the past is “ethnicized”. The Germans did it. Or the Russians were the ones. Strange people that one prefers not to know about were culprits and the victims. This gives comfort even if most groups of mankind are capable of atrocities. (Just think of Chinese and the Japanese, the Armenians and Turks, Tamils and….). The point is that, we tend to limit disturbing events to a time and to people in a manner that insulates us from them. This, the pressure to bear good news, and the lullaby-fantasies of ideologues, combines to hinder emerging threats from penetrating our cocoon. The fact-denying political culture that emerged in advanced societies enables these to ignore coming threats. This impairs their ability to cope with budding challenges even if these openly announce their planned destruction.

The foregoing has alerted to the recurring of the past and those features of our culture that facilitate that. The generalization had a purpose. It served to justify the presentation of the gist of a report from Malmo, Sweden. Sweden is not exactly the place associated with racial hatred on the loose. Nevertheless, categories of victims and perpetrators acting under special rules emerge. A few years ago, when my son was working for a Ph.D. in the area, I was told to avoid that town. It was not correct to mention it, but recalcitrant immigrants were said to make the place unsafe.

With that said, an essay in a top-rated paper undergoing a leftward slide (NZZ, 10^. 10.) deserves reconstruction. Its specifics shed light on a general condition, and the situation depicted could resemble one the reader recognizes from close to home.

Malmo has 300 thousand inhabitants of which 70 thousand are Muslims. Most of these live and think like “at home” which they have fled claiming persecution. By being often unemployable in a modern economy and also by their choice, they are a closed community that dominates a section of the town. Therefore, in some zones, unemployment is 85% and the residents can live their life without contact to Swedish society. Excepted are agencies that allocate welfare. The situation is stable as the town gives an eighty percent majority to the Left. As elsewhere, the vote reflects the wishes of those that received citizenship without integration. Admittance to citizenship as a right spreads and determines elections and politics as redistribution.

The consequences for Malmo’s Jews are rather severe. The recommendation of the Wiesenthal Center against travel to the town is an expression of conditions. Here a few items to illustrate the details.

1. To protect their community center, the Jews asked for permission to set up observation cameras with a view of the sidewalk. The city council declined permission.
2. An “artist” has placed a sculpture before that center. He used canisters bearing “Cyclone B” inscriptions.
3. The Jewish soccer club is exposed to racial curses. Jews are regularly attacked (see “A”). The cemetery has been vandalized.
4. A choir of eight graders shouted “Jewish pig” at their instructor. A fourth grader asked a teacher whether he is a Jew. Then he promised, “We will kill all Jews”.

The city’s Red mayor called upon Jews on Holocaust Day to disassociate from Israel’s role in Gaza. In an interview, however, he felt that all was well and that that Malmo accepts neither anti-Semitism nor Zionism. One suspects that Jews walking around in public, resting in a grave, or teaching class might be practicing offensive Zionism.

The foregoing teaches a lesson. The right to immunity granted to some can impair the right of others to exist. In general, our norms that express rights can conflict with other values. Acting out the freedom of religion when a faith discovers an insult in the practice of others, is an example. Ethnic pride may include the denigration of other groups. The freedom of assembly can limit public security. Free speech may incite violence against disliked elements.

Let us take these collisions a step further. We can conclude that, the freedom that has become a system in advanced countries can be abused to the detriment of liberty in general. The retort to that is that the problem, if it exists at all, is local, minor, as such not grave and therefore, time will fix it. This ignores that radicalism allowed to be rampant, does not recede: it gains in force. Since we have already been there, one can affirm that self-indulging illusions die hard. Harder than people, in any case.

The post Repeating History. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

This Howard Stern show features interviews with some ordinary folk who are likely to vote their gut feelings this year, having nothing else to help them to decide. Maybe they are right and the pro-life “Obama-Ryan” ticket will eventually result in the prohibition of abortion and the capture of Osama bin-Laden.

Three cheers for the Obama-Ryan campaign! It will certainly defeat this year’s challenge by the McCain-Palin campaign, although the latter may get between twenty and forty percent of the votes.

Here is the 2016 Obama’s America video. I watch few motion pictures but had never seen one as powerful as this:

Previously taken down at the request of the user, I wonder how long it will remain available this time. It’s well worth watching and sheds more than a little light on President Obama’s domestic policies and foreign policies as well as on the views of many in the third world.

I wonder whether any of Mr. Stern’s interviewees will have the time to watch it or would understand it were they to do so. Would they understand the spiritual affinity among the Reverend Mr. Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Barack Obama and the latter’s father? President Obama’s remaking of America? Would they care? Would they feel good about it? What about his increased flexibility if reelected? Would they feel good about that as well? Would they feel as good about it after it had happened?

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

The post Many will Vote their Gut Feelings this Year. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

By Dr. Phil Taverna

Newt and Forstchen (left) signing books at Nixon Library California.

Newt Gingrich and his partner Forstchen have come up with another great Civil War Novel. If you haven’t experienced the read, it is quite fascinating to read a book that puts you in the middle of this battle. The Battle of the Crater by Gingrich and Forstchen.

When I look at history I try to compare it to things that are happening today.

Let’s assume Newts novel is 100% accurate. The Battle of the Crater was the perfect storm. By that time both sides were pretty tired of fighting. And the battles turned into trench warfare with a cost of a great deal of casualties just to try to extricate the trench inhabitants.

They were trenched out near Richmond and if they could win this battle, the Union could cut off Lee’s supply lines and probably end the long war. There was this big honking fortress in the middle of the Confederate lines and they came up with the perfect plan.

A bunch of Union folks blessed with being miners, decided that in several days they could tunnel under the fortress, blow it up in the middle of the night. They would cause such a ruckus and a giant crater. By the time the rebels recovered, the well trained Black troops would lead the entire White Union troops to finish off the Rebs.

The plan was all worked out and accepted by all. General Meade was not real happy with the plan. Like Obama he wanted the credit to go to him, and him alone. And General Burnside who ended up being Governor of Rhode Island, wasn’t the John Wayne of the day. When Meade changed all the plans at the last minute, Burnside basically sat on his hands and watched as thousands of Americans went into battle. Burnside took the blame, but eventually Meade was reduced to General Grant’s puppet for the remainder of the war.

President Lincoln was concerned, because his re-election was coming up and a victory would help him win the election and finish what he started.

After weeks of planning the real question is why would Meade change the plan with less then 24 hours before the battle?

He reduced the amount of the explosion. He provided fuses that were not reliable and timely. And the Black troops who never saw battle trained vigorously until they were well equipped and trained to accomplish the impossible. After the explosion that was to take place at 3:30 AM they were trained to attack with very little light and were all set and equipped to break down the trench barriers and run the Rebs all the way back to the supply lines.

At the last minute Meade orders Burnside not to use the Black troops. Instead a bunch of White troops led the charge. They were not trained. They were not properly equipped. They were not even briefed as to what they were supposed to do. Instead of taking over the trenches at 3:30 AM, the faulty fuses did not go off until there was daylight. And the Union troops ended up fighting from the Crater rather then the Rebel trenches.

As a result after a while it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately the fish were the Union soldiers, and instead of shooting canon fire into the crater, they just had to light the fuses and lob them into the crater. Only about 865 Americans died that day. But why did Meade change the orders and caused the defeat?

There are several thoughts. Meade didn’t want Burnside to get the credit. Meade didn’t want the Black troops put in a position to win the battle. Maybe he didn’t trust the Black troops to actually go into battle as new recruits rather then veterans.

Quote from the book:   “The point is, we Irish have had to claw every inch of the way for what this country claims is the right of all men, but those rights get forgotten by a lot of people once they get the rights for themselves.”

Another quote: “Two hundred thousand like them (black soldiers) now serve and they at least, as Frederick Douglass has said, have shown to the world the right of citizenship and no one will ever dare to take it away from them.”

When Obama ignores and makes fun of Our Constitution, is he like General Meade? Does Obama want this country to win? We know what ever happens tomorrow, Obama will find a way to take credit for things he had nothing to do with.  And Obama works real hard to make sure that President Bush and the Republicans get all the blame and no credit.

In the end the newspapers wrote that it was the Blacks that caused the defeat of the Battle at the Crater.  Newt tells the story in an all together different manner. Many Blacks were sacrificed that day because of the bad decisions of Meade and the lack of John Wayne qualities in Burnside. If Burnside was John Wayne: “Hey Partner” the battle would have ended differently. Can you Court Marshal a Hero? Obama has tried on several occasions.

It is always a shame and wasteful when politics get in the way of winning wars. But what about the Black stuff? Just the other day Costas couldn’t resist pointing out that Gabby the gymnast who won Gold was the first African American. As if none of us knew she was Black. Then he goofed. He said wouldn’t it be great if some Black child sitting at home today is inspired by this and takes up gymnastics (paraphrased). I am sure there were a few sitting in the ghetto and just couldn’t wait to find a coach. Do we have Public Housing funding for Olympic Training… Yet!

The point is wouldn’t a White girl be inspired by a Black girl winning the gold! Assuming Costas is a liberal, it appears that since the Civil War the liberals just can’t resist pointing out when one is Black. I think maybe it is time that these liberals understand that the color of skin makes no difference. They are all Americans and should be treated the same.

Since the time of General Meade, there has always been this need for liberals to point out the difference. And back then the liberal media blamed the loss on the cowardice of the Black Soldiers.  It was a lie. It was the generals that lost the battle but they survived the day. Many of the Black soldiers did not. They made the ultimate sacrifice along with many of their white brethrens.

So we can only hope that the True Americans and the Patriotic Americans can see the political and liberal lies that infect our airways and print on a regular basis. It has been a long time since the Battle of the Crater. But       

Please register to vote so real hope and change can occur in a capitalistic manner. Don’t let the liberals take Your American Dream Away again!

YourDemocracyChange.Com

The post Are We still Fighting over the Civil War’s Crater? Newt might Think So! appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Crocodile Tears For Kurds…or, Math a la Ankara
by Gerald A. Honigman

On August 9th, Turkey’s Islamist government’s Foreign Minister engaged in some mathematical chutzpah. Follow the excerpts below from Istanbul’s Today’s Zaman to get a hint at what I mean…

Ahmet Davutoğlu said Turkey would not be opposed to a possible autonomous Kurdish region in Syria following the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, if all groups in the country can agree on it…Stating that Turkey is not against the improvement of Kurds’ rights in Syria, the foreign minister recalled that he had met with leaders of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Kurdish National Council (KNC) during a visit he paid to Arbil…Davutoğlu said, “I told them, the leader of the SNC chairs the council as a Syrian Kurd. And you [KNC] are sitting here as Syrian Kurds. Sit down and come to terms. What we oppose is the threat of terrorism and the possibility of one of you claiming possession of somewhere. Elections should be held in Syria; a parliament should be formed that includes Kurds, Turkmens and Arabs. You can come together and say we will grant autonomy [to the Kurds]. This is up to you. We would not oppose that”…Turkey announced it strongly opposes the presence of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Syria’s northern cities along the Turkish border following the withdrawal of Assad’s forces from predominantly Kurdish-populated areas …Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan earlier warned that Turkey will intervene if “terrorist formations” emerge along its border.

Sounds reasonable, right? I mean, who could object to more freedom and rights for people?

Well, I have no objections with what Davutoğlu said. It’s what he didn’t say that’s the problem.

Notice, for starters, how the Foreign Minister sits on his delusional moral high horse speaking of alleged concern for the improvement of Kurdish rights…in Syria.

No doubt, this is needed. Ismet Cherif Vanly’s book, The Syrian Mein Kampf Against The Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968) has that title for good reason and is one of many sources I have used in my research for over four decades now and in the writing of my book which includes this subject in depth and detail (http://q4j-middle-east.com).

In many ways, however, Syrian and Iraqi Arabs merely copied a page from the Turks’ own book.

Among other things, besides the imprisonments, massacres, and other violence, the Kurds’ language and culture were outlawed to Arabize them as Ankara did likewise to Turkify them–to the point of renaming the Kurds “Mountain Turks” instead. The PKK, mentioned in the above excerpts, was sired by Ankara’s subjugation of almost one half of the entire Kurdish population of the world (some 35-40 million truly stateless people) who remained within its post-World War I borders.

Recall that Iraqi Arabs gassed and slaughtered some two hundred thousand Kurds during the Anfal Campaign in the 1980s–and many others prior to that.

With the breakup of the age-old Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I, and prior to the League of Nations’ Mosul Decision in 1925, Kurds had been promised independence in at least part of the Mandate of Mesopotamia. After 1925, a collusion of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism secured the entire Mandate solely for the Arabs’ interests instead.

Caught between a reinvigorated, if constricted, nation of the Turks due to Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) and his Iranian counterpart, Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Kurds’ best chance at independence in the new nationalist age was thus reduced to Mesopotamia–and the Brits nipped that in the bud. Keep in mind that Kurdish population is double that of Syria’s.

Almost a century later, we are living with the tragic consequences of this earlier treachery today, as witnessed by the Turkish Foreign Minister’s comments.

But, I’ve detoured a bit. The main focus of this analysis has to do with Turkey and the comments Ankara’s Foreign Minister recently made about the Kurds. So let’s get back on track.

It’s always easier to point fingers elsewhere, but there really is much wisdom in the saying that those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

It’s great that the Turks now express alleged positive concern about Syria’s three million Kurds–but what about the plight of some17-20 million of these same people in Ankara’s own southeastern provinces? Had the Turks’ subjugation of these folks not existed, there would be no PKK nor support for it.

Speaking of glass houses…

Ankara organizes “relief” flotillas to support Hamas in Gaza–an Arab group totally dedicated to murder Jews and their sole, tiny state–but expects no one anywhere to give sympathy to the cause of the PKK.

Unlike Hamas, the PKK does not seek the destruction of Turkey–just political and cultural rights for the Kurdish people. And while Arabs already have almost two dozen states–including one, Jordan, formed from almost 80% of the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine–Kurds still have no state at all.

Related to this mathematical reality, let’s next consider the following…

The CIA’s Fact Book on Israel shows it to have a population of roughly 7. 5 million people, of whom about 20% are Arab. Among the latter are some very hostile elements. Israel’s territory is about 20,770 sq Km.

Turkey has a population of about 80 million people, of whom about 20% are Kurds. Turkey’s territory is about 780,580 sq Km.

About thirty-eight Israels would fit into Turkey.

Despite Israel’s minuscule size, Ankara (and its friends elsewhere–like the American State Department ) has no problem demanding that Israel allow the creation of another Arab state, dedicated to its destruction, right in the Jews’ backyard. The Turks simply ignore proclamations by even so-called Arab “moderates” that all negotiations and other such “peace initiatives” are but Trojan Horses, steps along the way in the Arabs’ post-’67 destruction in phases strategy for Israel.

Now, how will the one-fifth of Israel’s population that is Arab react to this adjacent potential hostile development which the Turks insist upon? And how will the majority of Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian Arab (however you define that since many, if not most, “Palestinians” entered the Mandate of Palestine after 1920 from elsewhere in the region ), react to this?

The Arafatians had already tried a takeover of Jordan in 1970. They were crushed in King Hussein’s “Black September.” And Israel’s mobilization in the north sent a message to the PLO’s Syrian allies at the time as well. Yet, neither the Turks, nor hardly anyone else, seem to be worried about any destablizing effects that the creation of a Hamastan or Fatahland will likely cause.

But, more to the point, the same Turkish hypocrites now crying crocodile tears for Syrian Kurds, and who declare that Israel must grossly endanger itself so that yet another Arab state might be born, insist that Kurds must remain forever stateless because of some problems that their freedom might cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel’s size in territory and about eleven times its size in population–and with the same roughly 80% to 20% mix of potential “headaches.”

Recall Davutoğlu’s earlier comment to the Kurds, “what we oppose is the threat of terrorism and the possibility of one of you claiming possession of somewhere.”

Keep in mind that, besides Turkey, Turkic peoples have about another half dozen states in Central Asia, but how dare some forty million Kurds–who pre-date both Arabs and Turks in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey by millennia–dream to have a nation of their own.

In the wake of the Islamist and so-called Arab Spring, a new Middle East must be born…one in which all of its diverse peoples finally get a slice of the relative justice pie. And that’s precisely what is meant by the subtitle of my own book, The Quest For Justice In The Middle East…The Arab-Israeli Conflict In Greater Perspective.

It’s that greater perspective, you see, that’s far too often deliberately ignored…and not only by the Turks.

www.geraldahonigman.com

The post Crocodile Tears For Kurds…or, Math a la Ankara appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Arab – Israeli Conflict

What’s Everybody Fighting Over?

By Scott Rohter, October 2011

In a letter to the editor dated October 18th 2011, Sarah Ruth writes, “It is pure bunk to say that there never was an Arab country called Palestine.” Actually Sarah, there never was an Arab country called Palestine, not in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world! This statement happens to be historically true. The two key words here are Arab country. Approximately five thousand years ago, there was a non-Semitic, non-Arab people living in the general area of the Gaza Strip, called Philistines. Their language was similar to Hebrew, but they were not descendants of Shem (one of Noah’s three sons) so therefore they were not Semitic. And they were certainly not Arabs! The Philistines were a sea-faring people similar in origin to the Phoenicians who lived a little further north along the coast in Tyre and Sidon. The Philistines were descended from Ham, who was another one of Noah’s sons. They lived along the south eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in what is present day Israel, and they were closely related to the Canaanites who lived farther inland, and to the Phoenicians who lived farther north along the coastal plain in what is today Lebanon. None of these ancient people were Arabs who have always been desert dwelling tribes that lived east of the Jordan River, in the Sinai and in present day Saudi Arabia.

The Phoenicians were sea-faring merchant traders who went on to colonize North Africa, and founded the great civilization there called Carthage, which was the earliest rival of Rome. Remember how Hannibal’s army using elephants invaded Europe, and was ultimately defeated and destroyed by the legions of Rome? Those were the Carthaginians, whose ancestors were the Phoenicians. They were the relatives of the Philistines! These people waged war with Rome continually until they were utterly defeated, and practically all trace of these ancient peoples has been lost from history. Carthage was once the rival of Rome, and the wars between Carthage and Rome are called the Punic Wars.

To read the rest of this article, view photos and see related articles please visit my website

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/Middle-East-primer-Arab-Israeli-conflict.html

The post A Primer on the Middle East – 5,000 Years of History in a Few Hundred Words appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Can Moscow scale down inherited Soviet ambitions?

Great powers are a special breed. Until the First World War, the “Great Powers” were European entities. Membership in that club enabled its participants to extend their control beyond the Continent. These dependencies were by location, but also by tradition, population, and development, unlike the “mother country”. Due to the difference came the ability to discover, to subjugate and to colonize. Europe’s dominance expressed its high development. The decisive advantage, the knowledge, the institutions, the economy behind it, was concentrated in that small area. For long, these factors could not be copied outside the European culture’s sphere.

A lesson of the world wars that ended the Eurocentric era is ignored. It is that no European nation, no single traditional nation state, can be a global power. Russia is the only country that has been under the old and under modern terms a Great Power. For that reason, she could continue as a “superpower” after the old system’s eclipse.

This the British accepted without much trouble. Their influence, exerted without the illusion of global grasp, has been used with realistic wisdom. The Germans, once totally defeated, were grateful to survive and to be protected by a new, far away superpower from an uncomfortably close one. In time, through work, and the resulting economic power, they have recovered much of their international status. France had difficulties to accept new realities. The “Great Nation’s” demonstrative pretensions of might, such as expelling NATO, are symbolic signs of grandeur pasted over a lesser substance.

The rest of Europe’s went beyond the revision of outdated power postures. Adaptation led to the error of the opposite. A symptom is the national security equivalent of making a career out of living on welfare. Not acquiring the power within their means became a strategy. NATO discovered that dependency and the corresponding lack of responsibility brings benefits. The provider of no cost security was a protector that had no alternative but to act as the defender of last resort.

Here again, Russia appears as a special case. She had been the only Power in the European system with a pre-industrial base and a Eurasian location. The condition extends into our time. Her adjustment to modern realities is more complicated than that of the USA or China. Neither has been a traditional Great Power, none of them is geographically European, and both rose from insignificance to superpower status. Russia, on the other hand, became the first defeated major power of WW1. During a civil war and intervention, she lost land and sovereignty. Thereafter, as the depository of a secular faith, the Soviet Union became a superpower after initially entering WW2 on the wrong that is losing side. However, her system that received legitimacy and global goals from her ideology, collapsed under the economic consequences of that irrational faith.

The Soviet’s misfortune might be Russia’s luck. Today’s Russia has nearly shrunk to her core. In time, the blessing of shedding flab could convince even the sulkers. However, she has passed through the process without jettisoning all territories whose alien population represents in our age of nationalism, a potential ethnic-religious risk.

Russia’s future depends on the inclinations and limitations of her unbound governors. The open questions related to adaptation transcend Russia’s state boundaries. Any stable European and transatlantic order, or the security of these regions, is limited by the extent of Russia’s intentions and participation. That is a consequence of more than her dominant size, resources and population. The combination of these factors makes her into one of the superpowers. With that, she is the only global player with a partially European base.

Since we live today, and not yesterday or tomorrow, the question is how Russia’s leaders will be able to retreat from Soviet goals and how that redefinition of the national interest will affect our lives.

There are global forces that threaten Russia as a culturally Christian, and, considering her goals of development, in intent western country. Not the West is the source of this challenge. On the other hand, opposing the West because of its cold war victory stimulates local forces. By a rational assessment of their real benefit, and divorced from the dead issue of the USSR, the returns appear to be small. This is increasingly so if the gains are compared to the price of revenge that will strengthen the global forces that were alluded to above.

Changed roles that entail reduced might can be difficult to accept. Russia’s goal of world domination has been a chimera once and it is a fool’s dream today. Meanwhile, the country’s global role is unquestioned even by those that dread her motives. It is notable that hardly anyone in the USA rejects a comparable “downgrading” through leveling. Possibly, the acceptance of limited power depends on the psychological burden carried.  America has always been a reluctant superpower. Total control might have been within her means: an intention it has never been.

Russia’s grappling with her changed possibilities are demonstrated by her role in Syria. Behind the policy, we detect injured pride and a visceral resistance to events beyond her control. Quite likely, the support for a locally rejected foreign autocracy has further causes. The claimed respect for “sovereignty” sounds hollow. This suggests that leadership by a KGB Colonel (Putin) suffers from a worldview that reflects a Soviet perspective. Autocrats determine Russian policies and these feel kinship for challenged dictatorships. The stubborn vetoes in the “SecCouncil” will produce international isolation and ostracism by the Arab world. The support of tyranny will strengthen regional suspicions. It will also convince states outside Russia’s sphere of facing an unpredictable entity led by an instinct to dominate that sabotages those beyond her immediate reach.

The record created in the Syrian crisis is also harmful in other ways. The efforts of Russia’s committed friends become unnecessarily burdened by Moscow’s comportment. Meanwhile, the mortgage on a future Russian foreign policy once led by the desire for security through cooperation, will grow.

The post Russia, Once More appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Libertyand the pursuit of Happiness.” Please notice that this, the foundational sentence of the American way of life does not say “endowed by the Supreme Court.”

Ever since the Supreme Court took unto itself the power to void laws passed by the representatives of the people in Marbury V. Madison the black-robed Justices have acted, and Americans have accepted them as if they are the source and the summit of what is and what isn’t allowed in America.  In most cases since the middle of the 20^th century, the high court has sided with whatever the central government wanted to do in the way of extending its power and curtailing rights which any person who can read plainly sees protected in the document they are sworn to defend.

However, in Article Three of the Constitution, the one that outlines the judicial branch, after specifically enumerating which types of cases the Supreme Court shall try it says, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

We often hear of obscure clauses of the Constitution which have been stretched and strained to sweep more power and authority into the never satisfied maw of the Federal Leviathan such as:

• The “Necessary and Proper Clause” which is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”  This is also known as the “Elastic Clause” because Congress and Presidents have stretched it to give them powers the Founders never would have dreamed possible outside a tyranny.
• The “Commerce Clause” found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 states, “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  This is the go-to clause for the Progressive’s conquest of America.  This is the clause that was used in the 1930s by FDR to implement most of the New Deal.  It was used by LBJ in the 1960s to impose the Great Society.  And it is being used by BHO in the 21^st century to shackle us with the social democracy brand of socialism which has devastatedEurope and which has been repudiated by our former adversaries in the Cold War.

In the Supreme Court decision Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 it was handed down from on   high that wheat farmer growing wheat on his own property for his own use can be         legally regulated under the commerce clause because not selling your wheat and using it           yourself is actually competing with wheat that is sold and is therefore commerce.  This is the same clause the Obama Administration originally used as a defense to say they can fine people for not buying insurance arguing that not buying insurance is commerce.

Yes, these two clauses have been stretched and interpreted beyond any semblance of rationality to restrict and restrain Americans in the enjoyment of the freedom and liberty which should be our birthright, yet the clause which clearly states that Congress has the power to reign in the Court has been ignored.

Forget all the posturing about abortion by all the so-called conservatives in Congress. Has there ever been a concerted, protracted or sustained effort to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?  No there hasn’t.  And yet tomorrow, or even today Congress could pass a law stating that abortion is an exception to the court’s jurisdiction and with the signing of this law by the president Roe V. Wade would be null and void, and all state laws affecting abortion would once again be in effect.  And this same procedure could be used for the representatives of the people to take back control of the law and the country from the Court.

The Congress is elected. The Supreme Court is appointed.  Congress can be replaced. The Justices of the Supreme Court serve for life.  They could be impeached and removed; however, none have ever been removed and the likelihood of that happening is remote.  There are checks and balances in the process of passing laws.  The Senate is a check on the House and the House on the Senate.  The President is a check on Congress and Congress is a check on the President.  There is a check designed to restrain the Supreme Court from becoming a black-robed committee of kings: Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 giving Congress the power to create exceptions to the Court’s jurisdiction.  However, tradition and the desire of professional politicians to demagogue about issues instead of solve them keeps the perpetually re-elected from reigning in these want-a-be demigods.

Thursday June 28, 2012 will live in the memory of all patriotic Americans as a day of infamy along with Pearl Harbor, and 9-11. This is the day the Supreme Court ruled that if the Central government can’t force American citizens to do what they want them to do one way they can do it another.

When the Obama Administration and their co-conspirators, the Progressive Democratic Party in Congress, rammed Obamacare through Congress they argued that the fines imposed under the individual mandate upon anyone who didn’t purchase health insurance wasn’t a tax, but that it was penalty allowable under the Commerce Clause.  According to the Constitution all tax bills must begin in the House.  Obamacare began in the Senate; however, that was all right since the fines weren’t taxes they were penalties.

When the issue got to court and it became clear there wasn’t a majority ready to declare not buying insurance was commerce the Obama Administration argued there was no standing to litigate the individual mandate and the fine it imposed because it is a tax.  Through the looking glass inside the beltway and behind the curtain it’s a penalty when that argument works and it’s a tax when that argument works.

Sophistry is defined as “Reasoning that appears sound but is misleading or fallacious. In Metaphysics, Aristotle defines sophistry as ‘wisdom in appearance only.’”  When we look at that definition from now on it will be hard not to see the face of Chief Justice Roberts who today showed his true colors as the midwife of totalitarianism.  While declaring unconstitutional the very arguments used to pass the law the majority declared the law constitutional based upon the very arguments its opponents used to try and defeat the bill.  Up is down, right is wrong, and the government can do whatever it wants.

During the ratification debate when addressing the Supreme Court one of the leading Anti-Federalists wrote, “There is no power above them to control any of their decisions.  There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature.  In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven.  Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel independent of heaven itself.”

The balance between the central government and the once free citizens it is attempting to turn into dumbed down helpless dependents has been significantly changed.  As predicted by the Anti-Federalists, the courts have been used over and over to expand the power of the central government to the detriment of the States and the citizens.  Today we crossed a threshold; we passed a tipping point and are no longer at the edge of the abyss. We are careening down the cliff into the fearful embrace of totalitarianism.  An over the top Supreme Court has given the green light to an out of control Progressive Administration, and as of today there are no checks and there is no balance.

Those of us who love liberty and are dedicated to limited government must contact our representatives and demand that the Supreme Court be brought under control.  Something must be done to preserve liberty or the United States we have loved will become the one we have dreaded.  An all-powerful central government will continue to grow and bend all things to its will.  We must return to the literal definition of constitutional government or this living document will be the death of freedom and the graveyard of liberty.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

The post Why the Congress Must Reign in the Supreme Court appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

getty images

Rising Menace: Despite the obvious writing on the wall, many American and German Jews failed to adequately recognize the devastating threat posed by Nazism.

By Andrew Nagorski

In the very early 1920s, when Adolf Hitler was still only a local rabble rouser in Munich, two men from Munich’s American consulate made a point of observing his rallies: Robert Murphy, the young acting consul, and Paul Drey, a German employee who was a member of a distinguished Bavarian Jewish family.

“Do you think these agitators will ever get far?” Murphy asked his colleague.

“Of course not!” Drey replied. “The German people are much too intelligent to be taken in by such scamps.”

Since the recent publication of my book “Hitlerland: American Eyewitnesses to the Nazi Rise to Power,” many people have asked me why American diplomats and journalists were often slow to recognize the threat that Hitler represented. It’s a legitimate question, requiring more than a simple answer. But an equally legitimate question is why many German and American Jews were often just as slow in waking up to the Nazi danger.

Or slower. In fact, some Americans living in Germany were more alarmed by what they were witnessing than German Jews appeared to be. In late 1932, as Hitler was close to taking power, Edgar Ansel Mowrer, the Chicago Daily News correspondent who was one of the most perceptive observers on the scene, attended a dinner at the home of a prominent Jewish banker. All the other guests were also Jewish bankers, and Mowrer was startled to hear that some of them had given money to the Nazis at the urging of non-Jewish German industrialists.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/157832/jews-failed-to-spot-hitlers-menace/?p=all#ixzz1yo5YnmMt

The post Jews Failed to Spot Hitler’s Menace appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Federal Reserve System (the Fed) was established in 1913 as one of the cornerstones of the Progressive agenda.  They said it was a way to stop the boom and bust cycle which has always been a fixture of capitalist economies.  The Fed is America’s third Central Bank.  The First and Second Banks of the United States were born out of Alexander Hamilton’s ideas as expressed in his famous Second Report on Public Credit in 1790.  The first bank was allowed to expire and the last was ultimately killed by Andrew Jackson in 1833. Jackson believed the Bank had too great an influence politically and economically.

TheUnited   Statesgrew to become the greatest industrial power on earth in the next eighty years without a central bank.

Established in 1913, the Federal Reserve is America’s central bank.  It is semi-independent/semi-public depending on which role is needed to justify its actions.  It is run by a board of seven Governors.  These Governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  Led by a Chairman who is also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate these eight people control a system of twelve Regional Federal Reserve Banks which have numerous branches throughout theUnited States. The Fed can expand or contract the money supply in many ways.  They print money both physically and digitally, they set interest rates, they can loosen or tighten the regulations for lending, and they can purchase debt from the Treasury.  Most of these measures are neither understood nor noticed by the general public.  This helps build and maintain the impression of a mysterious institution behind a curtain pulling levers and pressing buttons secretly controlling the economy.  In many ways this impression is correct

Ben Bernanke is the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Some believe that this is the most important post in the United States because the Federal Reserve controls our economy through its control of the money supply.  Mr. Bernanke acquired the nickname Helicopter Ben from a speech he delivered in 2002 entitled, “Deflation: Making Sure “It” Doesn’t Happen Here.”

In this famous speech he said, “The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand – a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers. Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending–namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.”  This is a well stated summation of the problem of deflation.

As a defense against the ravages of deflation the future Chairman of the Federal Reserve never actually said he would drop money from a helicopter.  What he said was, “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”  Which was coupled by later analysts and pundits with the statement, “A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous ‘helicopter drop’ of money.”

In the popular imagination this has been shortened into the oft misquoted belief that he said he would get in a helicopter and drop bales of money to combat deflation.

The collapse of the Housing Bubble in 2008 brought the American economy to a standstill and threatened to escalate into a systemic collapse of major banks and other financial institutions.  To stop the wheels from coming off the commercial cart the politicians reacted with unusual speed and vigor.  George Bush famously said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” when he advocated and passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which was designed to buy mortgage backed securities in an effort to inject money into the American banking system and thus restart the economy.  This 700 Billion dollar fund (later resized to 475 Billion) was eventually used instead to bailout major banks, AIG, and buy GM and Chrysler with only 22 billion ever going to buy toxic assets.

This was followed by President Obama’s stimulus bill which cost another 800 billion and was supposedly designed to kick start the economy by providing jobs.  The Congressional Budget Office eventually evaluated that these shovel-ready jobs cost 4.1 million each.  But then again as our President later joked, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”

Spending government money to prime the economic pump cannot work.  The government doesn’t produce anything.  It must either take the money out of the economy through taxation taking from the productive for the benefit of the unproductive or print the money thus causing inflation.  All the government can do is redistribute wealth; it does not create it.  And when the government is in the business of picking winners and losers we all lose freedom, liberty, and opportunity.

Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and the resulting loss of value of currency.   The Progressives didn’t invent inflation.  The Obama Administration isn’t the first to resort to inflation to keep the ball rolling without the pain of tax increases.  America was born in inflation.  During the Revolution one of the greatest problems was how to finance the war.  America was effectively blockaded by the massive British fleet and unable to trade with the rest of the world.  So the government printed the money they needed, and printed and printed and printed until the money was effectively worthless coining instead of wealth the shameful saying, “Not worth a Continental.”  These early ancestors to our dollar were eventually redeemed at 100 to 1.

Helicopter Ben has already overseen two rounds of monetary inflation referred to by the mysterious name of Quantitative Easing (QE) which is a fancy way of saying the Fed floods the banks with money.  The staggering size of these have only now begun to come to light showing that since the 2008 collapse the Fed has flushed more than 16 trillion dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the hands of banks and corporations both foreign and domestic designated by the Federal Government as too big to fail.  That is more money in four years than the entire national debt which has taken 236 years to accumulate and QE 3 is on the way.

While running for office and telegraphing his distributive goals Mr. Obama said we need to spread the wealth around. Chairman Bernanke has said the government can produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.  However, no matter what these two wannabe puppet masters may believe there is no free lunch.  In their insolated ivory-tower gated community world they may never have to pay the tab for their misguided attempts to create wealth with the wave of their hand.  Those of us who work for a living who live in the world of family budgets will.  The money we earn will be worth less and less and less until it is worthless.  The money we have saved will lose value day by day.  Someday people may not say, “It’s not worth a Continental.” They may instead say, “It’s not worth a dollar.”

The problem with getting older is you can remember when what we now pay at the pump was a car payment, and what we now pay for groceries was a house payment.  The central-planers behind the curtain in OZ may tell us there is no inflation, but our eyes and our wallets tell us something else: the truth.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

The post Not Worth a Continental appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Elements of the Tea Party concerned with the nature of liberty and the disintegration of Constitutionally limited governance have been hijacked by an ideologically paranoid sentiment. While Tea Partiers are rightfully wary of government nit-picking in economic and personal affairs, some libertarian and anti-war members have linked the same caution to the only role in which government is Constitutionally justified to act—national security. Whether the matter is radical Islam or cyberspace, any attempt by the government to expand the net of surveillance to the civilian population is lambasted as tyrannical. In particular, the May 17th WSJ article “Tea Party Terror Flakeout” noted that tea partier Justin Amash wanted “to bar the U.S. Military from capturing, detaining, or interrogating any terrorist of any nationality captured on American soil.”

Without even taking an ideological position, it should be obvious that preventing the military from pursuing a terrorist on our soil is absolute insanity. If our military travels across the globe to capture and detain Taliban members, so they can find and stop their plots to launch attacks, the Left screeches that we are imperial oppressors out for blood. If our military doesn’t move at all, and detains a vetted Taliban member in America, libertarians screech that with such power any American citizen could be forcibly detained. Does it take a genius to know that both positions are dangerous and naïve? What is the point of our national security forces except to pursue threats wherever they go, and whoever they may be? How can anyone anticipate whether the next jihadist plot will be designed by a person living in Qatar or New Jersey? In both sentiments, from the Left and some libertarians, lies a serious flaw of reasoning when it comes to the Constitution and the role of a national military force.

Tea Partiers understand the gist of the Constitution, and yet people who join or sympathize with the Tea Party charge that there is some Constitutionally-limited condition regarding national security. Such a notion is entirely false, as the central executive position of the Presidency also entails the role of Commander-and-Chief and the primary authority to detain enemy combatants. Detention is not a testament to tyranny or unjust imprisonment. In fact, detention is crucial as a tool for both gathering intelligence and making sure the detainees do not return to aid the enemy during wartime.

Of legitimate concern are the instances in history where the powers of the Presidency were abused and the definition of “combatant” redefined to encompass unvetted civilians—such as FDR and the Japanese internment camps. The finagling of words by FDR and the legitimate powers of the Presidency are two different matters, however. In Korematsu v. United States (1944), instead of upholding the Fifth Amendment, and without any constitutional basis, the Supreme Court approved FDR’s unfounded decision for all Americans of Japanese descent to be placed into internment camps simply because of their race, rather than any legitimate national security threats (if individuals were associated with an enemy during wartime, the vetting process and detainment would be a legitimate executive power, but this was not the case). The activist Court justified enslavement based upon their own fallacious opinions and with complete disregard to the clear language of the Constitution. With this example in mind, right-leaning opponents to neoconservatives should recognize this historical stain as an instance of judicial activism rather than military overreach. In fact, the process of military protocol would probably have done more to prevent such an injustice from taking place by properly vetting and releasing the civilians.

The danger of modern politicians redefining the terms of the Constitution should be taken seriously, but the same concern should not inhibit the necessary duties of the military. The Founding Fathers and authors of the Federalist papers—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—explicitly countered the view that the Constitution enables the creation of a miltary establishment, regardless of the paranoia that the neoconservative view necessitates a breach of constitutional principle. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 23, the Constitution does not give the federal government too much power to manage national interests, and on that matter the federal government should have as much flexibility and power as possible to defend the country. The insight of this thinking is clear in 2012, as new threats linked to technology and new power dynamics force our military to adjust considerably.

The thought that U.S. citizens are breeding a threat by supporting military efforts ignores the necessity of a reasonable, efficient security for liberty and free enterprise. Many people forget that the Navy and Coast Guard are significant for protecting commercial vessels and ships that transport food and other products. Since piracy is far from dead, people can only traffic their wares legally and safely when they are guaranteed protection on the sea.

By its very nature, the rule of law and national defense is coupled with the allowance of maximized liberty. A land-based example is the situation of a family living in a gang-infested neighborhood. With the sound of gunfire outside and bullets coming through the windows, how freely do you suppose those people can walk outside and do anything at all, even in their own homes? Such people are literally hostages living in fear. The Founding Fathers emphasized the importance of a republican establishment to prevent such a lifestyle, since the rule of law is the basic protection a citizen has against the crimes of someone else.

On a national scale, our military is no different—they act as the law enforcement that specifically protects U.S. citizens from the large-scale plots individual states cannot handle separately. The proponents saying that U.S. citizens who receive training from the Taliban should be tried in civilian courts surely do not have good intentions. There is a detailed vetting process that specifically determines whether the individual “is part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners, and engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” (Rasul v. Bush). An individual determined to not be an enemy combatant is released by the military, so by all means, if there’s nothing to hide, there’s nothing to it. Unfortunately, radical Islamic jihadists are being tried—and briefly released—from civilian courts.

The recent example of Terek Mehanna, a Massachusetts resident who plotted to attack the Natick Mall after receiving training from the Taliban, is a case in point. “Mehanna and the co-conspirators had multiple conversations about obtaining automatic weapons and randomly shooting people in a shopping mall, and the conversations went so far as to discuss the logistics of a mall attack, including coordination, weapons needed and the possibility of attacking emergency responders,”, the Justice Department said. He will still be quite young and healthy when he is released. If a second 9/11 happens and he ends up being one of the bombers, I’d like to see if the idiots who had him tried in civilian court will blow it off or admit that they let off a serial murderer. That’s not a fault of the justice system, that’s the fault of people who do not trust the military court system to properly handle a situation that was clearly in their jurisdiction.

The onus is on those with an ingrained bias against the fair judgments of our military leaders, and a paranoia on the nature of law enforcement. For some, this assessment is made with a misunderstanding of the relationship between individual liberty and law enforcement. For others, the deliberate delegitimatization of law and the military is contingent with the goals of anarchy and Communism.

Communist leader Leon Trotsky seethed that conservatives are “constantly…interested in the maintenance of ‘order’ in every corner of the terrestrial globe”. Indeed, anarchy—the motto “All Walls Must Fall”—is directly related to the destruction of the current order, and a subsequent replacement by “revolution”. With this idea in mind, the categorization of “anarchy” as the extreme right is completely false. Anarchy is not an end to itself, and it does not reflect a dissatisfaction with government—it represents a desire to overturn the rule of law and call for a radical dismantling of society. Such an outcome suits the sentiment and agendas of socialists and Communists who call for “global governance”, “a new world order” and openly condone violence as a means of “revolution”(which has been on full display recently with OWS attacks on banks). Following along the same lines, it shouldn’t be surprising that the same people who call for anarchy, socialism, and Communism, are the same people who want to “off the pigs” and have a specific agenda targeting police and legislation they deem “unjust”. A “right-wing” person by definition believes in the two necessary components of conservatism—the rule of law (the res publica=republic) and the defined role of the government as stated in the Constitution. The presence of a constitutionally limited republic defines the mindset of libertarians and conservatives alike. Order and security are intrinsically tied up in a belief in the constitutional republic, and pure opposition and violence, notwithstanding legitimate arguments concerning crime and lawlessness in law enforcement and the courts, show anarchists to be true vessles of the radical Left, not the Right.

A Tea Partier who truly understands liberty and the Constitution should also understand the role of the military and law (as it is properly applied). Representative government cannot be met when even instances of fair play are deemed unconstitutional, and proponents of liberty need to understand the primary conditions that liberty requires.

The post Tea Partiers, listen up! The role of national security and the Constitution appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.