Democrats Gone Wild

April 12, 2014

By Wayne Allyn Root, from here:

Don’t look now, but it’s like a new TV infomercial called “Democrats Gone Wild.” We are experiencing a Democrat crime spree. Democrat politicians are being arrested all over this country. Forget the GOP, Democrats are scared to death of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). You’d almost think the Democratic Party was one big widespread organized crime enterprise.

I have advice for the GOP in 2014 and 2016. We don’t need good candidates to defeat the Democrats…We need good prosecutors.

Keep in mind Democrats are the ones always claiming to care about women, children, minorities and the poor. It turns out this is all a cover for “Show me the Money!” While they are busy painting Republicans as “mean spirited” “racist” “radical” and “extreme” for wanting to cut spending, reduce the debt and allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money…Democrats are busy being involved in bribery, fraud, theft, extortion and gun running. Al Capone and John Gotti would be proud of this scam. Maybe their new slogan should be, “The Party That Makes Crime Pay!”

This week’s Democrat crime spree started with Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon. He resigned after being arrested by the FBI on corruption charges in a FBI sting operation.

Then Rhode Island Democratic House Speaker Gordon Fox abruptly resigned after an FBI raid on his State House office. This should come as no surprise to Rhode Island citizens. Right next door in Massachusetts the last three speakers of the Massachusetts House were convicted of felonies. Would it surprise you to learn they were all Democrats?

In California, powerful Democratic State Senator Leland Yee was arrested for gun-running. Investigators said Yee was helping the arms buyer obtain weapons such as shoulder-fired missiles, from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines, in order to pay off campaign debts. WOW.

But Yee was only one of three Democrat Senators suspended that week from the State Senate in Sacramento. Democrat Senator Rod Wright faces voter fraud charges. Democrat Senator Rod Calderon faces federal charges for accepting $100,000 in bribes for passing bills.

In Philadelphia the local newspaper reported that the Pennsylvania Attorney General caught four leading Philadelphia Democrat politicians (members of the Pennsylvania House delegation) red-handed accepting bribes, but the entire investigation was shut down when a new Democrat Attorney General took office.

Then just days ago it was disclosed that Democratic Nevada Senator Harry Reid gave $31,249 in campaign funds to his granddaughter Ryan Elizabeth Reid for “holiday gift expenditures.” Nice job if you can get it. Reid claims there was nothing wrong with what he did.

I have news for our U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Using campaign funds for personal use (like enriching family members) is a crime. Ask Jesse Jackson Jr. You can reach him at The Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina.

Keep in mind this was just one week of a Democratic crime spree. One week of “business as usual” for the party that claims to care about “fairness, equality and social justice.” I guess some people are more equal than others.

And in this story about Democrats and crime, I haven’t even mentioned the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, the AP scandal, the NSA scandal, or the biggest act of criminal fraud of all-time, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” Those are really serious crime emanating from the Democrat in the White House.

(BUT YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WAYNE)!

Obama Travel Abuse Update from Judicial Watch

April 12, 2014

I just broke my calculator adding all these “vital” expenses up….!

;-(

 

Michelle Obama Riverdances through Dublin, Helps Rack Up $7,921,638.66 Vacation Tab For Taxpayers

When it comes to tracking the cost of Obama family vacations there are two primary challenges.  First, the Obamas are prolific jet-setters, so there are many details to track. And second, the Obama administration, clearly embarrassed by these lavish and frequent family vacations, stonewalls the release of records at every turn.

But we have been relentless in pursuit of this information. Our attorneys file the lawsuits and make our case, and our investigators pour through pages of records and crunch the numbers. And the information we’ve uncovered – information that would otherwise remain under lock and key – shows that the Obamas have a disturbing lack of regard for taxpayer resources.
Most recently, when reviewing the Obama family travel log, Judicial Watch recently obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revealing that President Obama’s June 2013 trip to Belfast, Ireland, including a Dublin sightseeing side trip by Michelle Obama, her daughters, and her entourage, cost the taxpayers $7,921,638.66. (Per usual, and owing to the enormous public interest in Michelle Obama’s luxury travel, our discovery earned quite a bit of press coverage.)Here’s the breakdown from the two agencies.

•    According to the Department of Air Force documents, the flights to, from, and around Ireland for the June 17 – 19, 2013 trip totaled 33.6 hours at $228,288 an hour, which comes to a flight expense alone of $7,670,476.80  (These records came in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information lawsuit filed on January 13, 2014.)


•    According to the DHS documents, the total cost for “security and/or other services” for the Dublin side-trip by Michelle Obama and her entourage was $251,161.86, including $55,004.85 at the Shelbourne Hotel and $70,855.44 at the Westbury Hotel. Vehicle rental charges were $114,721. (These records also came in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information lawsuit filed on January 13, 2014.)


Now I can hear the White House’s defense. This was a business trip. It’s all about diplomatic relations, etc., etc.  And while this might at times be true for the president, it is certainly not true for the other members of the First Family.

For example, after accompanying the president to a meeting with Northern Ireland youth on the morning of June 17, the First Lady, her daughters, and her entourage departed on their own, apparently aboard Air Force Two, for a sightseeing side-trip to Dublin. Though the White House claimed the trip was for diplomatic purposes, WhiteHouseDossier.com reported that the itinerary showed, “She and her daughters will visit the Trinity College library to explore President Obama’s Irish family roots, attend a performance by the world-famous Riverdance troupe, and visit the Wicklow Mountains national forest.”

Yes, someday we will all hail Michelle Obama’s grand diplomatic accomplishments during her “Riverdance Summit of 2013.”

And purpose of the trip aside, is it really necessary for the First Lady to drop $3,300 per night on her hotel suite for any reason at all when taxpayers are picking up the tab?

Because that’s exactly what her Dublin suite cost per The Washington Times: “First lady Michelle Obama is sparing no expense on her trip to Ireland, staying at a $3,300-per-night hotel suite in Dublin. Irish press reports Monday said Mrs. Obama and her entourage have booked 30 rooms in the five-star Shelbourne hotel. The first lady is said to be staying in the Princess Grace Suite …. ”  According to the hotel’s website, the Grace Kelly Suite features two guest bedrooms, a living room, and a dining area, and measures 1,530 square feet. More space for riverdancing, I suppose.

And the Obama entourage? Well they followed the First Lady’s lead and spared no expense either.

The Secret Service documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that members of the Obama entourage also rented rooms at Dublin’s Westbury Hotel. The hotel’s website describes the “glamorous, iconic 5 star” Westbury as, “a great social hub and Dublin’s ultimate city address.” The Daily Mail estimated the cost of Michelle Obama’s the two-day trip to Ireland, in addition to flight and security costs obtained by Judicial Watch, at around $5 million.

The American people can see through the “official business” lie used by the White House to justify the cost of this trp. The Obamas’ clearly abused the perk of the president’s official trip to the G-8 summit for a luxury European vacation at taxpayer expense. And this is far from the first time.

In February, Judicial Watch reported that the Obamas incurred $1,164,268.60 in flight expenses alone for the August 2013 family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.  In March, Judicial Watch released flight expense records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force revealing that the Obamas incurred $8,104,224 in flight expenses for their June to July 2013 official trip to Africa, and $7,781,361.30 for their 2013-2014 Christmas vacation to Honolulu – for a two-trip total of $15,885,585.30 in flight expenses alone.  These numbers may seem astonishing, but remember they only skim the surface of the true costs of these trips.

As you know, we’ve had to scratch and claw for these records. The Obamas love to wax philosophical about the subject of transparency, but when it comes to covering up their abuse of taxpayer resources their secrecy knows no bounds.

The Truth About Income Inequality

April 2, 2014

From here:

Mises Institute: A Closer Look At Income Inequality

This article by Andrew Syrios originally appeared on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website on March 31.

Economic inequality is the big thing these days. Barack Obama has called it the “defining challenge of our time,” and the number of books being published on the subject could fill a small library. Of particular note is a survey by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely of 5,000 Americans asking what they thought wealth inequality should be compared to what it actually is. Norton and Ariely asked which of two distributions the survey participants preferred, either that of the United States or Sweden (without knowing what those distributions represented). Here’s what they were given:

IMAGE A

Needless to say, 92 percent chose Sweden. This survey has become all the buzz on the progressive left, and a YouTube video about the study has gone viral with more than 14 million views. Not surprisingly, however, there are enormous problems with this analysis. First and foremost, Norton and Ariely used Sweden’s income distribution instead of wealth because “… it provided a clearer contrast.” I’m sure the left’s love affair with Sweden and an attempt to stack the deck had nothing to do with it. The top 20 percent in Sweden actually own 73 percent of the wealth. (In the United States it’s 85 percent.)

More importantly, though, like just about every other discussion on inequality, they neglect to control for age. Age is by far the most important and most ignored variable in both income and wealth inequality. The word “age” doesn’t appear once in Norton and Ariely’s paper, nor does it in the Wikipedia page on the subject; and it is not controlled for in Edward N. Wolff’s influential paper on wealth inequality, on which this survey appears to be based.

This feeds the illusion that the top 1 percent, or 10 percent, or whatever is a static group. But as the OECD noted, in 2008 there was an annual 27.2 percent turnover figure in who was in the top 1 percent of income earners. Further, a University of Michigan study showed that only 5 percent of the people in the bottom income quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, and 29 percent had moved to the top.

Wealth is a bit more stable than income, but it grows with time just the same. According to a Pew study, the net wealth of those over 65 between 1989 and 2009 went from $120,000 to $170,000. For those younger than 35, their wealth actually decreased from $11,500 to $3,500. Indeed, people under the age of 44 possess only 11 percent of the wealth in the United States.

To further illustrate this point, try this thought experiment. Say everyone in the country made the same income, but got a promotion each decade. They start at $20,000 per year in their 20s, then they go to $30,000 per year in their 30s, etc. In addition, they save 5 percent of their income each year and make no return on their savings. To make things simpler, we’ll assume there is the same number of people in each age bracket. Income and wealth inequality would look like the following with the wealth figure representing what they would have at the end of that decade of life:

IMAGE B

IMAGE C

This is about the same as the distribution the survey participants desired, which should make it clear that they didn’t take age into account either. And this thought experiment assumes that everyone is equally talented, that every industry is equally profitable, and that everyone has just as good saving and investment habits. In addition, if we add just a small return on their savings, that chart would be skewed even more.

There are many other factors that need to be considered when discussing wealth inequality as well. For example, while the entitlement systems in the United States are embarrassingly underwater, they should be considered. According to Bankrate.com, “A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).” If the government simply mandated people to have a health savings or retirement account (or better yet, let people keep their own money), that would smooth out the curve. Since payroll taxes are capped at $113,000, most of the increase would go to the lower and middle classes.

Furthermore, Norton and Ariely’s study compares households instead of individuals — a tried and true way of distorting income and wealth data. Households vary in shape and size and cannot be directly compared. As Thomas Sowell has said, “… there are 39 million people in the bottom 20 percent of households, and 64 million in the top 20 percent. So you’re saying, yes, 24 million additional people do tend to have more money.” When we further take into account that many in the bottom 20 percent are recent immigrants from poor countries, in prison, single parents, on welfare, disabled, drug addicts, etc., it becomes clear that dividing the country into such groups is simplistic at best.

Underlying all of this discussion is the belief that wealth inequality is out of control. While it has increased in recent years (primarily due to the loss of home equity for the middle class), according to Wolff, “… [wealth inequality] remained virtually unchanged from 1989 to 2007.” The liberal Economic Policy Institute released a study showing how much the top 1 percent owned at various times over the past 50 years and found the following:

IMAGE D

Other studies have detected a similar “trend.” In fact, a recent study found that economic mobility in the United States has “remained extremely stable,” just the “rungs of the ladder have grown further apart.”

So wealth inequality is not nearly as out of control as many liberal pundits say. This, of course, does not mean everything is fine and dandy. Cronyism and government largesse have caused serious problems throughout the economy and should be done away with, not compounded with more redistribution and government control.

Andrew Syrios is a Kansas City-based real estate investor and partner with Stewardship Properties. He also blogs at Swifteconomics.com. See Andrew Syrios’s article archives.

Ottawa Citizen Presstitute Gallery – introducing the Quisling Traitor, Stephane Pressault

March 19, 2014

QuislingTraitorStephanePressaultI was so revolted the first time the Ottawa Citizen leftards published this twerp’s vapidly inane maudlin lies and taquiyya drek, that I deliberately blocked it from my consciousness, and somehow managed to successfully ignore it – but not after today, when they gave him another platform upon which to spew his context-free metaphors and otherwise abstracted idodlatrous public deceptions.

From here, and here:

Op-Ed: The convert’s path

By Stephane L. Pressault, Ottawa Citizen January 31, 2014

How did Damian Clairmont become Mustafa al-Gharib?

Clairmont came from an Acadian family living in Calgary. News sources showed that he went from an up-and-coming athlete to a troubled teenager. Following his conversion to Islam, it was said that he was beginning to show signs of progress. Then the story shifts. He tells his family that he is going to study Arabic in Egypt while actually joining the ranks of Jabhat al-Nusra. On Jan. 14, 2014, Clairmont became the second Canadian fighter to be killed in Syria.

I’m a convert to Islam, so this news piqued my curiosity. I, like Clairmont, converted in my early 20s. I had my struggles before coming to the religion and sought solace in my new path. This seemed to be the case for Clairmont. His Islam came from a desire to transform his habits and his way of life. The transformation, though, is paired with a particular vulnerability characterized by an openness of heart and a desire to learn. In my own experience, I found teachers quickly, who not only taught me the basics of the religion, but acted as mentors and spiritual guides. These were and still are the people I rely upon in shaping my Islam.

Did Clairmont have someone who transformed him into Mustafa al-Gharib? This is an important question. Conversion is all about transformation. Conversion is a process of becoming and it is this process that must be understood by both the Muslim community and the Canadian community at large.

An important traditional concept that must be revived is tarbiyah, which, as my teachers have taught, is defined as formal education and spiritual training. Of course, tarbiyah is relative to the student’s ability. In this sense, tarbiyah could be a training of practical skills such as woodworking, sewing or farming, to the intellectual sphere of sacred knowledge. Developing tarbiyah is perhaps a key solution to the few who fall through the cracks because it is the transitional guide from the mere submission (Islam) to the sphere of excellence (ihsan). Creating spaces that facilitate that teacher-student relationship, so essential in the concept of tarbiyah, can provide a necessary framework in becoming Muslim.

If Muslims are to speak up on Clairmont’s death, which I am sure they have, the first declaration will be a justified criticism of radicalization. Mosques, imams and community leaders work tirelessly in condemning extremism. “Islam is a religion of peace” has become the axiom of Muslims in the West. The issue is not the effort in preaching peace, integration and solidarity among Canadians at large but it is in the absence giving space to converts to become Muslim and make their Islam authentic. Many dimensions can characterize this space of becoming: from intellectual and scholarly studies to community-oriented activism. By creating these spaces, converts can fully actualize their new identity as Muslims. In other words, there is a need to institutionalize tarbiyah.

Unfortunately, from my own personal experience, I have found tarbiyah to be absent from our institutions. There are programs to help converts cope with new issues, from learning basic tenets of faith, prayer, and even Arabic. I needed to seek out personal relationships from people who have deeply studied the religion. However, very rarely do we find institutional spaces that assist converts to become potential community leaders, scholars or imams. Most imams in the Muslim community come from scholarly institutions overseas that are culturally alienated and are themselves seeking to convey their knowledge in the language of their new environments. Clairmont had mentioned to his mother that he wanted to study in Egypt to become an imam. Perhaps, Egypt was one of the places he thought he could find an authentic Islamic institution that would be broadly recognized. Nevertheless, it is clear that, as a convert, Clairmont wanted to justify his Islam. Clairmont did not become an imam; rather he sought to fight as a mujahed. In his eyes, his fighting made his Islam authentic; The tarbiyah he found was in the way of fighting. In Canada, there may have been emotional or psychological support, but he couldn’t find a space to actualize himself.

Becoming Muslim is a process of making one’s Islam authentic, which involves bridging a cultural identity with a religious outlook. If a lesson can be drawn by the tragedy of Damian Clairmont, it is the importance of creating a culture that is at once authentically Muslim and Canadian. To do so, I believe, there is a growing need for community leaders to be both knowledgeable in the Islamic sciences while remaining steadfast to a Canadian culture. In this sense, converts would no longer feel like strangers. In the future of Islam in the West, I envision the need to have institutions that are training Imams in seminaries in Canada and in the United States. Once these would be established, the possibilities of becoming Muslim will be exponential. No longer would converts look afar to authenticate their Islam, as they would have examples of leaders, scholars and activists who understand the cultural context.

Clairmont became Al-Gharib. He called himself Mustafa The Stranger, translated as Al-Gharib. He was estranged from both his Canadian community and his Muslim community. He may not have been alienated from his religion, but he was alienated from his culture and his roots. When I meet a new convert, I always make sure to ask them where their ancestors are from. This questions often throws people back as if being Canadian contradicts being Muslim. I seek to change that. Becoming Muslim, for a Canadian convert, means understanding how Islam will shape one’s Canadian identity. Only institutionalized tarbiyah, through traditional scholarship that trains culturally relevant leaders and through artisanship and craftsmanship, that revives excellency in work can a convert embody excellence in their Islam.

Stephane L. Pressault converted to Islam in 2009 while pursuing his studies in philosophy at the University of Ottawa. Currently, he is a master’s candidate in public ethics at Saint Paul University. His area of research and interest includes Islam in the West, Islamic law, ethics, multiculturalism, secularism and ethics of hospitality.

…………….

Op-Ed: The challenge of extremism

By Stephane L. Pressault, Ottawa Citizen Wednesday, March 19, 2014 P.# A13.

After speaking with the mother of a Canadian Muslim convert who was killed in the Syrian civil war, I was confronted with the reality of my prejudice and the failings of both the Muslim community and Canadian society at large.

Damian Clairmont died fighting within the ranks of Jabhat al-Nusra on Jan. 14. After I wrote an article trying to make sense of what happened to Damian, I was contacted by his mother.

We spoke for about an hour and she shared her son’s story with me. She showed me how a mother will always love her son. Heart-wrenching as it was, Christianne Boudreau explained two points to me that she has been tirelessly struggling to share to explain why her son was not simply evil.

Her first point was that she believes the media, the Canadian government and the Muslim community have demonized Damian. It quickly became clear to her that the discourse of radicalization stereotypes those vulnerable to its effects as psychologically unstable, immoral, socially alienated, etc.

Within the Canadian Muslim community, there is a great fear, for obvious reasons, of accepting young men like Damian within the community. Yet, the Muslim community has a moral obligation to recognize and understand this issue.

Simply talking about radicalization, extremism and terrorism is not an effective way to take a stand against it.

Institutionally, Canadian Muslims are making a great effort to tackle these issues. This becomes ineffective, however, when the process of radicalization is happening in isolated spaces on the fringes of the community.

My discussion with Boudreau concluded with her second point. Conversion is a process that can entail profound sincerity.

A convert experiences a new community and is often alienated from new terms and concepts that are habituated within that community. Boudreau explained to me that her son’s sincerity had been exploited for particular political motives.

This is the essential point that needs to be discussed. Instead of labelling these young men as radicals or insane, the Muslim community must see them as victims of fringe extremist political ideologies.

The Muslim community must allow for a public discussion on the meanings of war and peace in Islam. These discussions, even with their surrounding controversies, must help define, conceptualize and understand these situations. This idea is no novelty. Currently in Abu Dhabi, Muslim scholars across the world are attempting to define jihad in the current context of the Middle East. The conference is entitled Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies.

By more carefully addressing the concept of jihad in our contemporary geo-political context, the goal of these Muslim scholars is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of particular approaches to warfare in Islam.

Their claim is that religious reformists, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, who have used Islam for various political ends, have betrayed Muslim tradition.

Prominent American Muslim scholar, and co-founder of the Zaytuna College in California, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has also been a participant representing a North-American perspective. The Muslim community must recognize the effort of Muslim scholars and leaders to reclaim Islam from extremists.

Meanwhile, it is hoped that the media can increase its coverage of efforts made to bring the work of mainstream Muslim scholars to the forefront of a very important and necessary public dialogue.

The conference has four major goals: illustrating the necessity for humanistic values and coexistence, correcting misconceptions from a scholarly point of view, discussing the instrumentalization of numerous fatwas, and promoting ways that Islam can contribute to world peace.

These goals represent mainstream Islam. If these ideas can be properly and widely understood by the general public in Canada, the chances that converts such as Damian Clairmont would fall into a fringe extremist organization will significantly decrease. However, if these young men continue to be demonized by the society that raised them, the fire of anger, mistrust and misunderstanding will always be fed, leaving them ever vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Scholarly efforts to communicate the mainstream teachings of Islam must be more widely known and supported so that Canadians like Damian Clairmont and his mother, Christianne Boudreau, can be better protected from the harm and pain they have suffered.

As Shaykh Hamza Yusuf expressed during the conference: “It’s hard to get ideas out. People aren’t thinking creatively about the problems they’re confronting. We’re not doing it in America, we’re not doing it in Russia or Ukraine, we’re certainly not doing it in Egypt or Syria.”

It is a long and arduous process to communicate and transmit these traditional teachings, however, it is possible. And the scholars in Abu Dhabi have initiated that possibility.

Stephane L. Pressault converted to Islam in 2009 while pursuing his studies in philosophy at the University of Ottawa. Currently, he is a master’s candidate in public ethics at Saint Paul University. His area of research and interest includes Islam in the West, Islamic law, ethics, multiculturalism, secularism and ethics of hospitality.

Should the United States Give Up Control of the Internet? Obama thinks so!

March 19, 2014

From here:

Should the United States Give Up Control of the Internet?

President Obama thinks so.

Late Friday, away from the news media, the Obama Administration announced its plan to internationalize control of the Internet.

This is wrong and dangerous.

The United States built the Internet and has made sure it is open to everyone. This is one public/private partnership that works. We believe, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” Join our effort to keep the Internet under American control.

If Obama gets his way, the Internet will likely be controlled by an international organization like the United NationsCan you imagine the dysfunctional United Nations trying to fairly and effectively keep the Internet in working order and unbiased?

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY’D LET PEONS CRITICIZE THE ISLAMIC CRIME-GANG?

We can’t. And we are dedicating our resources to stopping this travesty. With your help, we can stop this travesty.

Please consider helping us today with a donation. Together, we can keep America in control of a valuable American asset.

Help us today. Become a Partner.

Islamic Conquest and Extortion

February 25, 2014

Islamic Conquest and Extortion by Kab Ashraf

Here is my latest, so U can embed it in a blog post.  This is my post at Islam Is A Cult Not A Religion. Embed code at the end.  U can easily put it in one of WP’s text widgets.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/208692157/Islamic-Conquest-and-Extortion

This pdf exemplifies deliaring of the Islamic assertion of passivity; that killing innocent people is harram. It displays pages 141, 212, 213, 214 & 216 of Hedaya, vol. 2 with the crucial clauses highlighted.

Those pages are complimented by relevant quotes from the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir Ibn Kathir and The Reliance of the Traveller with links to source texts.

The following points of Islamic law are displayed by the contents of this file:
1. Infidels may be attacked without provocation.
2. Muslims are obligated to attack passive infidels at least once in each year.
3  The widows & orphans, real and personal property of Infidels are plunder for Muslims.
4. If Jihad is not carried out, the Ummah is in a state of sin.
5. Not believing in Allah is an evil which must be removed by Islam or death.
6. Imposition of Jizya is a punishment for not beliving in Allah.
7. Jizya is imposed in lieu of death.

This file is free for all.  Please download it, study it and upload it to other groups.  Link to it in your replies to al-Taqiyya/

Fjordman: The Folly of Open Borders

February 20, 2014

From here:

We Europeans do not have an obligation to destroy ourselves. Africans, Muslims and others are adults and should be able to fix their own problems. Moreover, Europe and the wider Western world simply don’t have the strength to fix all of the problems of Africa, the Islamic countries and the rest of the developing world, even if we wanted to.

The Folly of Open Borders

“There will be free movement, country to country. Globalization in its purest form should not have any boundaries…”– Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh. (Both of her children live in North America.)

Posted By Fjordman On February 19, 2014  In Daily Mailer,FrontPage  Comments

1348336233_0-450x337Ceuta is one of two small Spanish enclaves in North Africa, the second being Melilla. They provide the only possible entry to European territory without leaving Africa. Ceuta is separated from the Iberian Peninsula by the Strait of Gibraltar, and lies at the strategically important boundary between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. 1300 years ago, Muslims used it as a staging ground for their invasion of the Iberian Peninsula and their aggressive inroads into Europe. The tide took centuries to turn, but in 1415 the Portuguese conquered Ceuta. This event marked the beginning of half a millennium of European dynamism and global expansion.

4

It is ironic that Ceuta is now once again at the front lines. This time we are witnessing the retreat and decline of Europe, and the demographic expansion of Africa and the Islamic world. As one member of Spain’s maritime rescue services commented in late 2013: “It has been a very busy summer, because we’re now also rescuing Africans who not only cross in a toy boat but haven’t even spent money on buying proper oars.”

Apart from scaling the fences at Ceuta and Melilla, other common routes into Europe are by boat, sometimes via Spain’s Canary Islands off the Atlantic coast of North Africa, but more frequently to Mediterranean islands such as Italy’s Lampedusa. Some also enter Europe from the east, via the Greek islands. Greece has a huge problem with illegal immigrants, many of them Muslims coming from as far east as Afghanistan.

The tiny island of Malta, which is a member of the EU, has already received tens of thousands of illegal immigrants coming in by boat. Many of the arrivals hail from the poorest and most war-torn parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Their arrival constitutes a heavy burden for such a small nation.

On February 6 2014, at least 14 illegal immigrants, most of them sub-Saharan Africans, died while trying to swim from Morocco to the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. The Spanish government’s local delegate said that the migrants were “aggressive” and began throwing rocks. Civil Guard officials used anti-riot gear to dissuade them from rushing the border, yet about 200 attempted to swim around the seawall. Sources said that the migrants stampeded, some stepping on others on the beach, as they jumped into the sea. Authorities said the police in Ceuta used rubber bullets to ward them off, but that they fired them in the air and did not target anyone directly. “We did not use anti-riot equipment when the immigrants were in the water.”

Meanwhile, the number of illegal immigrants landing in Italy rose tenfold in January 2014, the country’s deputy interior minister said. “In 2013, Italy was subjected to an incessant and massive influx of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East,” Filippo Bubico told parliament. Throughout 2013, a total of 2,925 vessels of various shapes and sizes landed on Italian shores, carrying about 43,000 people. This represented a rise of 325 per cent in just one year. Reality is increasingly imitating fiction, with boatloads of people coming from the south to Europe, just as described in Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints from 1973.

In early February 2014, more than 1,000 migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean in nine overcrowded rafts and dinghies were rescued by the Italian navy within the space of just 24 hours. The vessels, in which approximately 1,120 people were packed tightly, were first spotted in waters south of Sicily by Italian military helicopters attached to naval ships. Once reached by naval patrol vessels, the migrants were given life jackets and transferred to a larger ship. It is thought they were trying to reach Lampedusa, Italy’s southernmost island. The turmoil in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, the civil war in Syria and instability in Africa has led to a sharp increase in the number of illegal immigrants trying to reach European shores.

The German professor of sociology Gunnar Heinsohn worries about the “demographic capitulation” of European nations. He fears that their low birth rates will lead to the collapse of the welfare state. Immigration from Third World nations cannot solve this problem; it only makes it worse. He does not believe that material aid to countries with large youth populations will prevent violence and terror. On the contrary, it may fuel more unrest. Over the course of five generations (1900-2000), the population in predominantly Muslim countries grew from 150 million to 1200 million — an increase of 800 per cent. This growth still continues. Heinsohn notes that Western countries are funding the Palestinian population explosion, for instance. He thinks that we must cease this support. He also believes that the West should stay out of the affairs of Muslim countries with expanding populations as much as possible. We should only interfere briefly if they threaten us directly.

It’s true that birth rates do not remain static. Even in some Muslim countries, birth rates are now lower than they were a few years ago. However, they are still substantially higher than those in virtually all European nations.

We don’t know exactly what the population was in the entire Roman Empire in the first century of our era. However, estimates typically range between 50 million and 80 million people, perhaps a little bit more, perhaps a little bit less. By comparison, it was estimated by 2013 that the global population grew by around 75 millionpeople annually. This means that the world’s total population is now growing by roughly another Roman Empire, every single year. Most of this rapid growth is concentrated in dysfunctional and technologically backward societies.

The continent of Africa today houses a population larger than that of the continent of Europe. This has not happened for thousands of years. Already today, African and Muslim illegal immigrants are fleeing from their own failed societies to get into Europe, sometimes risking their lives by literally swimming to European shores.

A report from 2013 predicted that sub-Saharan Africa will record the largest population growth between now and 2050. According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world’s poorest region will more than double in population, from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion. The entire population of the European Union is about 500 million people. It is estimated that Africa’s population will grow by at least twice that much, in just two generations. Where are these people supposed to live? Will they have water, food and work at home? If not, where will they go next?

Western governments and human rights organizations seem to treat the huge influx of illegal immigrants as some kind of natural disaster, something that will pass. It’s not. It’s an ongoing process, which keeps getting worse and worse. Europe’s misfortune is that it is situated right at the doorstep of the world’s most dysfunctional continent – Africa – and the world’s most dysfunctional cultural sphere, the Islamic world.

By 2014 Muslim-dominated Bangladesh was estimated to house perhaps 165 million people, a number that keeps growing by a couple of million annually. In 2000, the then Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the country was going to feed, house and employ the expected doubling of its population by 2050. She replied: “We’ll send them to America. Globalisation will take that problem away, as you free up all factors of production, also labour. There’ll be free movement, country to country. Globalisation in its purest form should not have any boundaries, so small countries with big populations should be able to send population to countries with big boundaries and small populations.”

Sheikh Hasina was again Prime Minister of Bangladesh in early 2014. Coincidentally, both of her children live in North America.

Hasina is essentially arguing that her nation needs more Lebensraum, and that other countries should accept this. The Nazis wanted more Lebensraum for Germans. This was seen as evil, and other Europeans fought them. Why are they now supposed to meekly accept more Lebensraum for Pakistanis, Egyptians, Nigerians or Bangladeshis in Europe? Despite their flaws, the Germans have at the very least shown themselves capable of maintaining a science-based industrial economy. That’s not equally the case with Nigerians and Bangladeshis.

We Europeans do not have an obligation to destroy ourselves. Africans, Muslims and others are adults and should be able to fix their own problems. Moreover, Europe and the wider Western world simply don’t have the strength to fix all of the problems of Africa, the Islamic countries and the rest of the developing world, even if we wanted to. We constitute a rapidly shrinking part of the world’s population and economy. Moreover, we have plenty of unemployment, debt and other problems of our own to deal with.

It’s nice to be kind and humanitarian, but the enormous migration waves we are currently facing are unprecedented in recorded human history, both in speed and in sheer numbers. At some point, the issue will no longer be about our humanitarian ideals or feeling good about ourselves. It will be about a fundamental question: Do we want something recognizable as European civilization to exist and flourish a century from now? If so, then the Utopian and dangerously naïve ideal of open borders simply cannot be sustained for much longer.

-Fjordman-

=================

The muslim ideology is all about hate, revenge, intolerance, violence and lying to gain advantage over your enemy – it’s all about might-makes-right extortion, aka CRIME.

Their religion teaches hate and intolerance, they rape, sodimize, torture and mutilate and kill anyone that will not convert to Islam.

Rape, war and poverty were all endorsed by Muhammad, who called them “holy duties!” Naturally, the poverty bit didn’t apply to him personally.

Islamic “beliefs” include the belief that their god cannot be understood nor reasoned with, (so it might as well not exist at all) only feared and obeyed. They also include the criminal notion that, since Muhammad got away with committing his crimes, (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, many times and, far from ever feeling remorse or apologizing for them, instead encouraged everyone else to join him in committing them, too) then “god” must have wanted him to get away with committing those crimes! So obviously islam is only an ancient yet ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

“God told us to commit these crimes!”

(Capisce?)!

;-)

So why does it now always seem to be “illegal” to accuse these moslem criminals of their crimes, if doing so might hurt their feelings (and so “make” them commit even more crimes!)?
Simply because:

Liberals are racists – they always assume that ONLY White, Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be judged guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including, of course, the “swarthy palestinians,”) just can’t help being violent animals, the poor oppressed little dears, so they’ll always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

;-)

Multiculturalism IS racism! The reason all the so-called “islamic” countries are at the exact bottom of all the global developmental indexes, can only be EITHER “nurture” (the software programming, education/”cultural” indoctrination) OR “nature” (the hardware, or “race”)!

Since all humans are born tabula rasa (as blank slates) it’s obvious that their islam causes their own suffering; let’s dare to compare:

In reality, it’s all about human reason and an ongoing, dynamic agreement to become situationally right (as in factually correct) as opposed to whining that one should be entitled to the static, idolatrous and victim-blaming right to remain irresponsibly wrong:

We self-reliantly CHOOSE to agree to the Golden Rule of Law, which, by simply defining all situational morality as: “Do Not Attack First!” enables trust, progress, and Civilization.

(See all “Western” countries)!

They force everyone to obey the brazen rule of chaos, which embodies destructive criminal slander and prejudicial immorality as: “Our god says we always have to attack all ‘The Others’ first!” and so inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism.

(See all ‘moslem’ countries)!

;-(

The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness

February 19, 2014

From here:

February 18, 2014 by

The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness

PHOTOS.COM

As I have confessed in the past, in my early years I found myself active in the Democratic Party and the general liberal methodology. I had no understanding of the concept of the false left/right paradigm. I had no inkling of the dangers of globalism and central banking. I had no concept of decentralization or non-participation. I had never even heard of libertarianism. I knew only that George W. Bush was a criminal (and I was right), but the problem went far deeper than the GOP. I was astoundingly ignorant of the bigger picture.

However, what I did have going for me was an almost violent sense of nonconformity. I hated collectivists, yet I found myself surrounded by them while working within the leftist culture. It was the insanity of self-proclaimed “liberals” that taught me the true nature of the facade of politics. When I realized that the Democrats were essentially the same corrupt entity as the neoconservatives, everything in my life changed.

One aspect of liberalism with which I am now very familiar is political correctness. I didn’t understand it at the time, not until I stepped outside the cultism of it and looked in from a wiser place. It always bothered me, but I couldn’t quite grasp why until later. Then, it hit me like a revelation. Political correctness was not a political ideology. No, it was a religion, a full-fledged spiritual con, a New Age ghetto of frothing mishmash that is sociological voodoo. And the leftists were eating it up like steak night at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

These people were rationally retarded. Every idea they proposed they merely parroted from books and articles they had read. They were like malfunctioning automatons trapped in a cycle of discontented social criticism. Their desperation to invent meaning in the midst of their irrelevant lives made me feel ill. If they could not find a legitimate cause to champion, they would create one out of thin air and defend it relentlessly, regardless of how shallow it truly was.

When I outline my analysis of economic destabilization within the United States or I write about the rise of the police state, I am driven by a fundamental sense of concrete concern. There are indeed real problems in the world, swirling in a storm of obvious factual conflicts. But the warriors of the PC culture don’t see any of it. Rather, they fantasize about injustices that don’t exist, trespasses that are ultimately fictional. They imagine themselves champions of some greater purpose that, in the end, doesn’t matter.

Recently, I read a news story about a “transgendered teen” in Maine. When the boy was in the fifth grade, he decided to dress as a girl and demanded to use the girl’s bathroom at his public school, despite having the biological apparatus of a male. This story was international news, folks! Why? I can’t say, except that the mainstream media have made a point to focus on “gender optional” issues as if they represent some kind of civil rights uprising.

The issue perfectly illustrates the disturbing nature of politically correct culture.

Teachers at the school did not deny the student the use of restroom facilities. In fact, they allowed him to use the teacher’s bathrooms to avoid any confusion. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, on the other hand, had other ideas. It ruled that the school’s refusal to allow the boy to use the girl’s facilities constituted a violation of the State’s anti-discrimination law. The ruling has been heralded as a massive victory for the politically correct narrative.

Now, let me make one thing clear: I could not care less about this boy’s sexual orientation (if he even has one). I do think the very idea that a fifth-grader at about the age of 10 is sexually conscious enough to develop a sense of gender dissuasion is absurd. Children who haven’t even experienced puberty yet, proclaiming they are transgendered? Utter nonsense. I find it far more likely that the student’s PC-obsessed parents influenced him to come to such a decision despite his naivety.

That said, a person’s sexual proclivities are not my concern. In fact, I have no interest whatsoever in the infatuations of any individual. That is a personal matter. I do not judge such people on their attractions. I do, though, judge people on how they handle their infatuations. What happens when someone wears his sexuality on his shoulder like a fashion accessory? Why is that even necessary? Is it not rather mentally backward for any person to base his public persona solely on his carnal compulsions? Do I dance around on the sidewalk bellowing to strangers how much I love the curves of women? Do I require a sociopolitical legal apparatus to vindicate my existence? Do I feel the need to shame gay people into publicly embracing my straight man’s libido? No, I do not.

The PC culture demands that we, as individuals, openly accept the sexual orientations of anyone and everyone; otherwise, we are labeled prejudiced monsters. It is not enough that we object in a logical manner. No, we must fall to our knees and thank the stars for the very existence of gender chameleons.

In the end, the psychological gender position of any particular person does not overrule his biological features. A child with a penis is a boy. Period. He will never be a girl. Ever. Not without surgical aid. And even then, he will never have the ability to give birth, which is the very hallmark of femininity. (Sorry, feminists, but that’s how it goes.) A boy, no matter his mental orientation, does not belong in a girl’s lavatory. The privacy rights of the girls outweigh the gender confusion of the boy. If I were a girl (why not play some gender games since everyone else is), I would beat the living hell out of any boy gallivanting in a dress in a bathroom I was using and make sure he never dared come back. And, by extension, if I were a rather mischievous boy with an aptitude as a peeping tom, why not dress up in a tutu in the hopes of getting a glimpse of the forbidden while being legally protected by the State?

The warped conflicts that arise, though, are not the creation of the child in question. A fifth-grader has no concept of gender rights or political correctness. This issue was a creation of the PC cult and its acolytes. These people don’t actually care about the children they involve in their legal dramas. They exploit them, with every intent to abandon them once they have chiseled their agenda into the gray matter of every American.

What truly motivates these people? Why do they do what they do? I think my experience with leftists makes me a well-positioned observer of the psychology of the culture. Here are the hidden thought processes I have witnessed while dealing directly with the PC army.

PC Elitism

One of the unfortunate side effects of religion is that proponents often use it as a means to feel superior to others. I have seen it in Christianity as much as I have seen it in any other belief system. It is the primary reason why I refuse to subscribe to organized and establishment-sanctioned spiritualism. Religion should be a personal experience first and foremost, not an easy way to fit in with the collective. Communing with others who share one’s beliefs should be secondary. Hypocritically, politically correct adherents often criticize Christians for their collectivist elitism while suffering from the same problem themselves.

PC culture allows participants to pretend as though they have some greater understanding of the world, an elevated knowledge of life that makes them superior to the uninitiated. It is important to understand that when a person pursues the methodology of zealotry, he doesn’t do it to make the world a better place; he does it to feel better about his place in the world.

The politically correct are so violent in the assertion of their ideals because they crave the subjugation of the mainstream and a recognition of their “rightness.” They don’t want people to “accept” their beliefs as tolerable. They want people to adore their beliefs as supreme. They want every man, woman and child to reinforce their ideals without question.

The malfunction of this philosophy is that zealots are never satisfied. They must always find new ways to feel superior to others. So they continuously engineer new taboos and new sins, no matter how ridiculous, so that they can forever look down upon the laymen. Because of this, there will never be an end to PC law. It will go on forever, labeling numerous social interactions and stances as “aberrant” — never satiated and never satisfied.

PC Futurism

The young are always searching for ways to feel wiser than the old. This is just the natural way of things, at least in America. Now, I know from ample experience that age does not necessarily denote intelligence. I’ve met plenty of idiotic people who had decades of time to learn from their mistakes but didn’t. But the young, many of whom lack time and struggle, have a terrible tendency to either pretend that they have “seen it all.” Or they pretend that the very atmosphere of the day somehow gives them a greater insight than generations past. The reality is that most of them know very little of import. This attitude comes from a philosophy called “futurism” (popular with the Nazis and the Soviets), which holds that all the beliefs and discoveries of the past mean nothing compared to the beliefs and discoveries of the present. This ideology is alluring to the young, because it gives them a way to feel intellectually dominant over older and more “ignorant” people who are “behind the times.”

Political correctness is basically an appendage of futurism. By labeling elders as social bigots and products of a barbaric era who don’t understand the “lingo” of the PC elite, liberalism draws in and collectivizes the fledgling left. Younger generations are given a cultural avenue toward high priesthood, a right of passage usually reserved for the aged. They get to skip ahead past all the trials and tribulations of life and announce their deep awareness of the so-called greater good.

The values of forefathers past become archaic scrawlings of racist and prejudiced cavemen who could never appreciate the “brilliance” of today’s academia. The inherent freedoms of natural law that have existed since time began are nothing more than obstacles to them, standing in the way of a new and better world where they have somehow outsmarted human instinct and centuries of history.

PC Collectivism

The very foundation of political correctness is solidified in a desire for the perpetual reinforcement of one’s worldview. PC people need every other person around them to sing the praises of their pure virtues. If I happen to disagree with the idea of gender bending, for instance, as some kind of socially persecuted subculture that needs overt government protection, then I am, of course, labeled a hateful Neanderthal. If I stand in opposition to the concept of victim group status in general, in which the state demands that designated “minorities” be given special treatment regardless of the status of the individual, then I become a racist political fossil ignorant of the bigger picture. You see, if you disagree with PC culture in any way (even if that way is rational), you cannot win. To refute political correctness is to refute the god of the New Age; and to refute their god, even with concrete logic, is blasphemy.

This kind of blind faith in political correctness lends itself entirely to collectivism. The average person begins to think that without a viable appreciation of the philosophy, he may be left out or cast aside. Most people do not know how to function without the approval of others. Therefore, even if a father happens to have a healthy skepticism over the idea of a make-up wearing fifth-grade boy waltzing into his daughter’s school bathroom, he is likely to keep his mouth shut, because to speak out would be a risk to his position within the group, or the community.

PC Control

The prevalence of PC philosophy is not subtle. I have always found it interesting that political correctness seems to consistently support the demands of the state. Our system smothers children with it in public school, our workplaces are rife with the propaganda for fear of lawsuits and colleges are veritable breeding grounds for the PC oligarchy. Politically correct culture goes out of its way to constantly test others to make sure they are also true believers. This is exactly what is going on in the following interview with Jerry Seinfeld, who, to his credit, dashes the nonsense to the ground.

The truth is some discrimination is healthy, and some discord is needed for a society to remain balanced. As long as we don’t allow our disagreements to end in the physical harm of others, then those disagreements are our natural-born right. If you are a racist (this goes for non-whites as well), that’s fine. Just don’t act out your racism in a violent way around me, or I will have to put you down permanently. If you have a distaste of homosexuality (or asexuality, as seems popular nowadays), then whatever, I don’t care. You shouldn’t have to have organizations like GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) in your face attempting to force you to put on a smile for gaydom, coordinate man-on-man heavy-petting protests in your favorite restaurant (Chick-fil-A) while you’re trying to eat a damn sandwich, push boys into the girl’s bathroom, or trying to shut down your favorite TV shows because the stars happen to share your views (“Duck Dynasty”).

Now, PC proponents will argue that the very existence of bigotry does harm to society as a whole, and it must be educated out of individuals. Frankly, I see that kind of utopian fascism as a far greater threat to society as a whole than bigotry ever will be.

Look at where we are today because of the PC nightmare! We have a Nation on the verge of industrial and economic collapse, partly because companies are forced by law or persuaded by government subsidies to hire people with victim group status, even if they are unqualified, while ignoring highly qualified people who just happen to have lighter skin. We have children not even old enough to discover their own inherent character being clinically diagnosed with “gender dysphoria” by a psychiatric community of quacks, which conjured most PC terminology out of thin air. We have boys who are told that they are stunted for acting out their natural male impulses and girls who are told that true femininity is weakness and that they should act more masculine. We have a mainstream culture that coddles and infantilizes young adults, young girls who think promiscuity is the key to womanhood and that motherhood is disgusting (which I find rather ironic), and young men who have no testicular fortitude and no clue how to take charge of their own lives.

The American family unit has been completely destroyed. We have women who are ashamed to set aside careers to raise children because feminism frowns upon “breeders” who bring down the whole gender. We have men who abandon their children and refuse to take responsibility. And we have a weak-minded population addicted to collective affirmation and unwilling to think outside the box for fear of being shunned and shamed. Honestly, I can’t see a single redeeming quality to political correctness other than the fact that those people who espouse it do so loudly and obnoxiously, making it easier for me to identify and avoid them or to take special note of them as an obvious zombie threat in an America swiftly declining into mundane oblivion.

Brandon Smith

Gun-Grabbing Liberal Hypocrite of the Year Gets His Just Reward

February 16, 2014
Washington Times News

GUN STUN: Gun control activist swears he forgot he was carrying gun while visiting school

Hypocrite

And is that a palestinian-supporting “anti-violence” kaffiyeh he’s wearing, too?

 

By Eric Owens

A Buffalo, N.Y. community activist who is well known locally for pushing for a highly restrictive 2013 gun control law has been arrested for — wait for it — carrying a gun illegally at a public elementary school.

The arrested gun-control advocate, Dwayne Ferguson, caused quite a scene at Harvey Austin Elementary School, reports local CBS affiliate WIVB.

At about 4:15 p.m. on Thursday, police acted on a pair of anonymous 911 tips. A battalion of cops quickly swarmed the school. The brigade included over a dozen squad cars, the SWAT team and K9 units. The Erie County Sheriff’s Air One helicopter and what appears to be an armored vehicle also turned up.

The school was immediately placed on lockdown. Parts of two streets were closed.

About 60 students who were still on campus participating in after-school activities were funneled to the cafeteria.

Cops searched the school room by room and would not let parents on campus until they were satisfied that no shooting threat existed.

Ferguson, 52, was at Harvey Elementary because he works as a mentor in an after-school program for disadvantaged students.

He said he frequently carries a pistol. He has a license but the license does not matter under the strict state law Ferguson helped pass.

Among much else, the 2013 law, deemed New York’s SAFE Act, made it a felony to carry a gun on school property, according to The Buffalo News.

While it had previously been illegal to carry a gun on school grounds, the new law bumped the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

The community activist has claimed that he forgot he was carrying his gun in a felony gun-free zone he helped create.

Rev. James E. Giles, Ferguson’s friend and the president of Buffalo’s Back to Basics Outreach Ministries, vouched for this claim.

“I’m sure Dwayne went into the school not thinking he had the gun on him,” Giles told The Buffalo News.

Giles said Ferguson even asked police on the scene what was going on.

“Dwayne’s reaction was to get his kids — he had about 50 of them — and make sure they were safe,” Giles explained.

Ferguson was eventually busted when police were patting down the people at the school so they could evacuate. He was wearing the gun in a holster. Throughout the duration of the terrifying lockdown, the community activist never bothered to tell the cops that he was carrying a gun.

“He had opportunities,” local chief of police Kevin Brinkworth told the News.

“I will say he had no ill intent to harm these students,” Brinkworth noted. “I don’t know why he had it on him.”

Ferguson is the head of the Buffalo chapter of MAD DADS, a national group that opposes gang violence and illegal drugs. MAD DADS is an acronym for Men Against Destruction Defending Against Drugs and Social Disorder.

The father of three also belongs to Buffalo Peacemakers, a separate anti-violence group that stands athwart gang-related crime.

Still more, Ferguson is something of a professional vigilante in Buffalo. He can be seen patrolling local malls and city streets in an effort to stop gang violence.

Ferguson now faces two felony charges of criminal gun possession.

He faced his first court hearing on Friday, reports local NBC affiliate WGRZ. Prosecutors had asked Judge Jeanette Ogden to set bail at $10,000. However, Ogden allowed Ferguson to walk out of her courtroom on his own recognizance, citing his community involvement and his squeaky clean criminal record.

Ogden did order Ferguson to submit all of his guns to authorities and to stay away from Harvey Austin Elementary until his criminal case has been resolved.

Alan Borovoy – criminal at large

February 15, 2014

Billed on the front page as “He’s the man who was right – Alan Borovoy has managed a career of being on the just side of history”

From the Ottawa Citizen leftards, here:

The man who was right

By Terry Glavin, Ottawa Citizen, published Friday, February 14, 2014, P.#A11:

Column: Alan Borovoy, the man who was right

Canadian lawyer Alan Borovoy. Credit: courtesy Irwin Law Inc.

Photograph by: Irwin Law Inc.

Over the course of the past few decades’ most divisive and closely contested struggles for civil rights and social justice promoting false group-might-made-rights at the expense of real live individual human’s rights in Canada, exceedingly few people can credibly claim the right to say “I told you so.” One person who can say it is that scruffy and wisecracking kid from Toronto’s Grace Street gang, back in the late 1940s, the one who could always be counted on to throw the first punch.

(Actually, attacking first pretty-much defines criminality)

That kid was Alan Borovoy, best known for his 40-year role as general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. In his just-published At The Barricades (Irwin Law, Inc., 364 pages, softcover), a surprisingly elegant cross-genre fusion of legal history, political analysis and riveting memoir, the 81-year-old Borovoy nevertheless doesn’t allow himself so much as a boast.

Neither would Borovoy let me goad him into any bragging during our conversations earlier this week, but looking back over a lifetime of front-line activism against the more thuggish practices of the Canadian establishment, Borovoy has consistently shown up on the just and the decent side of history. Similarly, in Borovoy’s many fallings-out with the mainstream of liberal-left opinion, it’s the liberal left that has ended up looking not so great, in retrospect.

Borovoy’s At the Barricades presents a sweeping panorama of dramatic social change in Canada. It is chilling to be reminded of Pierre Trudeau’s grossly overreaching invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970, but how many of us remember that the FLQ crisis record for mass arrests was broken more than a decade later when the Toronto police carted off more than 300 people in a 1981 sweep of gay bath houses?

The bathhouse raids came 20 years after the Ontario legislature established Canada’s first Human Rights Commission, which was the result of a campaign Borovoy helped lead against the racist and anti-Semitic practices of landlords, public beach managers, private clubs and golf course owners in Toronto, Windsor, St. Catharines, Hamilton and Newmarket.

By the mid-1960s, Borovoy had helped found the Halifax Committee for Human Rights, setting in motion the historic and controversial forced relocation of the residents of Africville, the long-neglected and marginalized ghetto of black people on the outskirts of Halifax that had its origins in the tumults following the War of 1812.

That led to the Kenora campaign, one of the major agitations for Aboriginal people in Canada during the 20th century. Among other things, the campaign led to the revival of the Anishinabe Treaty Council and a tightened federal focus on Aboriginal housing and health across the country.

All this was while Borovoy was still with the old Labour Committee for Human Rights, before he’d taken up his post with the CCLA, on the magnificently auspicious date of May 1, 1968.

Still, Borovoy says he never considered himself a soixante-huitard — a “68er”of the New Left — preferring to think of his political standpoint as hailing from an earlier, sterner-stuff tradition, that of the “1930s liberal.” This helpfully explains why Borovoy so often found himself obliged to fight in opposition to the received wisdom of Canada’s liberal establishment.

Borovoy was an early skeptic of “hate speech” laws, for instance.  and yet he helped craft and create them. This put him at odds with the Canadian Jewish Congress (Borovoy had been a CJC activist from his school days) as far back as the 1960s. By the 1980s, Borovoy was finding himself having to more or less side with such unsavoury characters as the Jew-hating high school teacher and Eckville, Alberta mayor Jim Keegstra, and the neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel, the serially-imprisoned author of such pamphlet classics as “The Hitler We Loved, and Why.”

The folly of Canada’s hate speech laws would end up producing an embarrassing public spectacle half way through the 21st century’s first decade. While right-wing pundit Ezra Levant was prosecuted for publishing allegedly offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, similarly absurd proceedings were brought against Maclean’s magazine over an allegedly “Islamophobic” series of articles by conservative author and polemicist Mark Steyn. No convictions resulted, in either case.

Which, he fails to note here, is the first time the Commission had EVER lost any cases, previously having a 100% conviction rate, since they had no real procedural rules, no real judges, and free kangaroo suites of lawyers for only the “plaintiffs” and none for the guilty-until-never-proven-innocent slander-defendants.

By the 1990s, Borovoy also ended up having to confront something he hadn’t quite expected. A disturbing authoritarian tendency on Canada’s university campuses, of all places, produced a sequence of rights-trampling excesses of the kind conservatives will attribute to political correctness.

But which same authoritarian tendency to produce rights-trampling excesses liberals will no-doubt always attribute to ‘Freedom!’

“I was a social democrat, a civil libertarian, a secular Jew, and a philosophical pragmatist,” Borovoy writes, a “small l liberal” and a skeptical egalitarian, but “an unequivocal anti-Communist and perhaps even a Cold War hawk.” Thus was Borovoy situated a the margins of the main liberal-left currents of late 20th century (Borovoy was a youthful admirer and later a dear friend of the great American political theorist and philosopher Sidney Hook).

When his friends in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (later the NDP) were all for Canada pulling out of NATO, Borovoy wanted none of it. When almost everyone on the “left” seemed animated by an unseemly antipathy to Israel, Borovoy remained steadfast that Israel was deserving of our affection and support, not least because it is a democratic island in a sea of police states.

“This commitment to democracy became, as I allegedly matured, the central point of my philosophy,” Borovoy told me, not missing the chance for a wisecrack with that “allegedly” bit. “Every experience I had shored that up. You’ve got to be able to fight on all sides, intentionally.”

Thus proving the adage that “People who stand for nothing will fall for everything,” evidently.

The fight is nowhere near over.

But then, it never is, is it, liberal criminals? It’s all part of the “Eternal Struggle” (kampf) for Understanding” which is a great alibi excuse for your crimes, to pretend to be infantile delinquents in order to hide your eternally victim-blaming criminal negligence conspiracies.

Constant vigilance is called for, and Borovoy sees ominous signs even now, nearly half way through second decade of the 21st century. While he admits to a nostalgia for the “Red Tories” of Canada’s recent conservative past, Borovoy doesn’t have the kindest words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“I’m particularly bothered by his anti-crime agenda, the way he’s using it to pander to his base,” Borovoy said. “With minimum sentences, he’s undermining the judicial process. Does anyone in his right mind believe that raising a minimum sentence from four years to five years is going to do anything for deterrence? Please.”

Another thing weighing heavily on Borovoy’s mind these days is the Quebec Charter of Values: “It’s a gratuitous assault on inter-religious respect and rapport. It’s fanning the flames of xenophobia, and it really disturbs me.”

He’s “disturbed” because Quebec doesn’t like muslims public threats as presented by their triumphalist uniforms (hijabs etc)! And so he thinks people noticing the islamic threat are the ones creating that same xenophobic and lack of religious  respect and rapport threat!

On foreign policy matters, however, Borovoy is perhaps not so hard on the Conservatives. “I’m not prepared to kiss Harper’s ass just because he’s supportive of Israel,” Borovoy told me. “But in Harper’s recent visit to Israel he was paying a special respect to a political democracy in that part of the world, in the Middle East. I do appreciate his attachment of a special value to Israel, because Israel is a democracy, a beleaguered democracy.”

Borovy remains active, having gone back to his roots in the labour movement — he serves as the chair of the public review board for Unifor, the successor union to the Canadian Auto Workers — and from time to time he takes on teaching assignments. Borovoy has some advice, too, for young activists.

It’s not what you believe that matters, but how you believe it.

Spoken like a true criminal!

“Beware of your allies.”

Stalin would be so proud! But then, with allies like other liberals (criminals) who needs enemies, right?

;-)

Respect, but do not “worship,” the people. Things get better, but usually in small increments, so avoid fantasizing about what you can easily achieve.

Most importantly, have fun: “We should attach a high priority to having fun. It’s often such fun to kick the ass of the establishment. And there’s no reason to be deprived of it.”

Not even if or when the establishment becomes right?  No, of course not – extortion is such fun because liberals love to hate! Whee!

Terry Glavin is an author and journalist whose most recent book is Come from the Shadows.*

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

(*Which is an apology for Afghan muslims).

Formerly a decent journalist of a conservative bent, Glavin was recently corrupted into becoming a liberal (criminal) himself.

;-(


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers