Executive Amnesty Begins

October 20, 2014

Obama Administration Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ Of Millions Of New Immigrant IDs

From here:

Obamnesty

Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive amnesty may have already begun.

Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”

The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.

“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.

The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.

Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.

The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” Vaughan said.

Last year, Vaughan reviewed the Gang of Eight’s provisions to estimate that it would have roughly doubled legal immigration. In the “surge” scenario of this RFP, even the relatively high four million cards per year would be more than doubled, meaning that even on its own terms, the agency is preparing for a huge uptick of 125 percent its normal annual output.

It’s not unheard of for federal agencies to plan for contingencies, but the request specifically explains that the surge is related to potential changes in immigration policy.

“The Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential ‘surge’ in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements,” the document says.

A year ago, such a plan might have been attributed to a forthcoming immigration bill. Now, following the summer’s border crisis, the chances of such a new law are extremely low, giving additional credence to the possibility the move is in preparation for an executive amnesty by Obama.

Even four million combined green cards and EADs is a significant number, let alone the “surge” contemplated by USCIS. For instance, in the first two years after Obama unilaterally enacted DACA, about 600,000 people were approved by USCIS under the program. Statistics provided by USCIS on its website show that the entire agency had processed 862,000 total EADs in 2014 as of June.

Vaughan said EADs are increasingly coming under scrutiny as a tool used by the Obama administration to provide legalization for groups of illegal aliens short of full green card status.

In addition to providing government approval to work for illegal aliens, EADs also cost significantly less in fees to acquire, about $450 compared to more than $1000. In many states, EADs give aliens rights to social services and the ability to obtain drivers’ licenses.

Vaughan noted there are currently about 4.5 million individuals waiting for approval for the green cards having followed immigration law and obtained sponsorships from relatives in the U.S. or otherwise, less than the number of id cards contemplated by the USCIS “surge.”

USCIS officials did not provide additional information about the RFP by press time.

Yes ISIS is islamic

October 17, 2014

From here:

How Does Islam Determine What Is ‘Islamic’?

The Islamic answer for how to determine what fits the doctrine sure doesn’t match Obama’s process.

What relationship does the Islamic State, ISIS, have to Islam? Almost every Western politician answers: “Absolutely nothing.” President Obama adamantly stated in a televised address that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.”

So how does one determine what is, and is not, Islamic? The traditional process — the Islamic answer — is as follows:

What do the core texts and scriptures of Islam say about the thing in question? Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify it? Do the hadith and sira texts — which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran (e.g., 33:21) exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways — call for or justify it?

If any ambiguity still remains, the next inquiry is: what is the consensus (ijma‘) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning it? Here, one most often turns to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men — the ulema – and considers their conclusions.

Muhammad himself reportedly said that “my umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”

For example, the Koran commands believers to uphold prayers; accordingly, all are agreed that Muslims need to pray. But the Koran does not specify how many times. In the hadith and sira, however, Muhammad makes clear that believers should pray five times. And the ulema, having considered all these texts, are agreed that Muslims are to pray five times a day.

Thus, it is most certainly Islamic for Muslims to pray five times a day.

But while both Western politicians and Islamic apologists readily accept such methodology to determining what is Islamic — prayer is in the Koran, Muhammad clarified its implementation in the hadith, and the ulema are agreed to it — whenever the question deals with anything that makes Islam “look bad,” to Western sensibilities, then the aforementioned standard approach to ascertaining what is Islamic is wholly ignored.

Let us consider some of the most extreme acts committed by the Islamic State — beheadings, crucifixions, enslavements, sexual predations, massacres, and the persecution of religious minorities — and put them to the test. Let us see if they fill the same criteria for being Islamic, especially in the context of jihad, which has its own set of rules.

Beheadings

The Islamic State beheads “infidels” — including women and children. This aspect of the Islamic State has provoked horror around the world. Is it Islamic?

The Koran calls for the beheading of Islam’s enemies, especially in the context of war, or jihad:

“When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely” (47:4). Another verse states: “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels — so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]” (8:12).

As for the other criteria — the example of the prophet, and the consensus of the umma – Timothy Furnish, author of the 2005 essay “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” writes:

The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him. Islamic leaders from Muhammad’s time until today have followed his model. Examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead, in Islamic history are myriad.

For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse [decapitation verse, 47:4] literally.

Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a millennium ago.

Crucifixions

The Islamic State has been crucifying regularly; the mainstream media claims that even al-Qaeda is “shocked” by such behavior. Koran 5:33 asserts:

The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.

Accordingly, crucifixions are common throughout Islamic history. After Islam’s prophet died in 632, many Arabs were accused of apostasy. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, launched a jihad campaign on them and many “apostates” were crucified as an example to the rest. In Witnesses For Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860, crucifixion is listed as one of the many forms by which thousands of Christians were executed by the Muslim Turks.

More dramatically, in her memoir Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described seeing — in the early twentieth century in the city of Malatia — 16 girls crucified, vultures eating their corpses:

Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands. … Only their hair blown by the wind covered their bodies.

Recently, people (including children) have been crucified by self-proclaimed jihadis in the name of Islam in countries as diverse as the Ivory Coast and Yemen.

Slavery and Rape

What of slavery, especially the enslavement of non-Muslim women for sexual purposes which the Islamic State has been engaged in?

From the highest scriptural authority in Islam — the Koran — to the greatest role model for Muslims — prophet Muhammad; from Islamic history to current events, the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women is a canonical aspect of Islamic civilization. Koran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.

The prophet of Islam himself kept and copulated with concubines conquered during the jihad. One captured Jewish woman, Safiya bint Huyay, was “married” to Muhammad right after her father, husband, and brothers were slaughtered by Muslims during a raid. Muhammad took her from among the spoils after hearing about the young woman’s beauty. Unsurprisingly, she later confessed: “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most — for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” right before “marrying” (or less euphemistically, raping) her.

Khalid bin Walid — the “Sword of Allah” and hero for all aspiring jihadis — raped another woman renowned for her beauty, Layla, on the battlefield, right after he severed her “apostate” husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Massacres

What of wide-scale massacres? In this video, the Islamic State appears to be herding, humiliating, and marching off hundreds of male hostages (the number often given is 1,400) to their trenches, where Islamic State members proceed to shoot them in the head — all while the black flag of Islam waves.

The prophet himself ordered merciless massacres of “infidels.” After the battle of Badr, where Muhammad and the first Muslims prevailed over their enemies, Muhammad ordered the execution of a number of hostages. When one of the hostages, ‘Uqba, implored Muhammad to spare him by asking: “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?”, the prophet responded: “Hell.”

More famously, Muhammad ordered the execution of approximately 700 Jewish men from the Banu Qurayza tribe. According to the sira account, after the Jewish tribe surrendered to his siege, Muhammad had all the men marched off to where ditches were dug and promptly executed by beheading — just like the Islamic State marched off and executed its victims near trenches in the video.

Dhimmitude

The Islamic State is even responsible for resurrecting a distinctly Islamic institution that was banned in the 19th century thanks to the intervention of colonial powers: “dhimmitude.” Establishing dhimmitude is the practice of exacting tribute (jizya) from conquered Christians and Jews and subjecting them to live as third-class citizens. They must embrace a host of debilitating and humiliating measures: no building or repairing churches, no ringing church bells or worshiping loudly, no displaying crosses, no burying their dead near Muslims, etc.

These measures are also derived from the core texts of Islam. Koran 9:29 calls on Muslims to fight the “People of the Book” (interpreted as Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” And the Conditions of Omar — named after one of the “righteous caliphs” — explains how they are to “feel themselves subdued,” which is exactly what the Islamic State decreed.

Past and present ulema are confirmed that Koran 9:29 and the Conditions of Omar mean what they plainly say. Thus, according to Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi, speaking during a Friday mosque sermon:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet — there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions [reference to Conditions of Omar] are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit … do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer … If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.

It is false to say, as President Obama does, that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” Indeed, even in the most savage of details — including triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and laughing while posing with their decapitated heads — the Islamic State finds support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.

It is dishonest to accept the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence — is “X” part of the Koran, hadith, sira, and does it have consensus among the ulema? – only to reject this same methodology whenever “X” makes Islam look “bad.” In the context of jihad, all that the Islamic State is doing — beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, enslavements, and subjugation of religious minorities — is Islamic.

- Raymond Ibrahim -

Bilderberger Group Plotting

October 15, 2014

PlottingBilderbergers

Here’s the truth of it fully exposed – I hope it leads to people wanting to at least try to change things!

BANKSTERS SELL MONEY. (Over time, on the installment plan, ‘renting’ it out.) Obviously, this instantly devalues the money itself, as well as the goods it buys and the labor earning it. So, we are – literally – all living on borrowed time now.

Oh, and they’re also total FRAUDS, because they have bribed all governments to “legally” allow them to literally write checks their reserves can’t cash, under their “fractional reserves” doctrine… to the tune of up to FIFTY TIMES what they actually have (‘in reserve’)!

This means that they can lend out $50. for every real $1. they actually have, and, even if they only charge 2% interest on it, they double their actual money each and every year.

That means, if I’m a bankster’s kid, and I ‘invest’ only $1,000 in dad’ s bank when I’m 20, then by the time I’m 30 that $1,000 has become a million; by age 40, a billion, and by the time I feel like ‘retiring’ at age 50, I have a trillion un-earned fraud-based dollars to call my own!

First year my money doubles, etc:

Year:

1, 2, 3,   4,  5,   6,    7,     8,      9,       10

My money becomes “worth:”

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024

So, since the bankster Families have been at this for over 200 years, YES by now THEY REALLY DO OWN THE WORLD.

And they will always back both sides in every war and conflict, because then both the winners owe them AND the losers do, and they will both have to pay the banksters for their reconstruction efforts, too!

So: It’s always WIN/WIN for them, and LOSE/LOSE for all the rest of us!

Re-post of Rabbi Shalom Lewis’s “Ehr Kumt” and “Ehr Daw”

October 14, 2014

(As deconstructed in detail here).

From here:

Ehr Kumt (He is Coming)

October 11, 2014

The History and Danger of Administrative Law

(and “Civil forfeiture law” crimes):

Philip Hamburger
Columbia Law School

PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including the American Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, the Notre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. 

There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.

In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.

The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?

The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.

But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.

The Prerogative Power of Kings

The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.

Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.

Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.

Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.

These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal,   supra-legal, or consolidated power.

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.

After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.

This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.

The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.

In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.

Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.

One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.

Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.

As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.

The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.

* * *

In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.

Copyright © 2014 Hillsdale College.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

=================================VLADDI’S COMMENTS RE: ADMINISTRATIVE “LAW:” ===

‘Administrative law’ only means might-made-group “rights” – and in this case, the rights of the largest group, ‘the state,’ to trump the human rights of all real live individual citizens.

There is only one real Law, which simply defines the rights and responsibilities of ALL humans and groups thereof, regardless of size: the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines all circumstantial, situational moralilty as “Do Not Attack First.”

So our only real legal right is to not be attacked first, and our only real legal responsibility is to not attack (thereby) innocent others first. Period.

So, between two or more people, this ‘sicial contract’ meanswe can neither do anything TO, or FOR, others without first getting their express consent.

This means, in practice, that even the largest group, ‘the state,’ has no right to attack any of it’s individual component parts (human citizens) first.

It’s why we have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and not, as liberal criminals seems to prefer, guilty until never proven innocent.

From this agreement, we gain trust, progress, and civilization; this “social contract” means our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (therefore innocent) others first. Period.

The rest are all symptoms, and all sub-sequent valid legislation depends on that Rule: Every law is an if/then warning which says, in effect: If and when you choose to attack first in this, that, or those ways, then this, that, and these punishments will apply to you.

Bad laws are crimes because they attack first. At “best” they are only ‘ethical’ lists of rules and excuses amerliorating bad, attack-first criminal premises.

A “Judge’s” only job is to determine rational cause-and-effect (who started it) and all irrational criminal excuses or alibis are based on the opposite, victim-blaming slanderous pretense.

It should therefore be easy for any judge to see if a law is bad (an attempt to deprive citizens of due process, by disregarding any need for evidence by slanderously insisting on asserting that they are Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent, and so must impossibly prove a negative in order to defend them selves).

Bad laws are slanderously “pre-emptive” first attacks, like all gun control laws:

“Since you DO own a gun, therefore you WILL use it to commit some crimes, SO we must now stop you by ‘defensively’ attacking you first – for your own good, of course!” There’s no if/then; they are threats, not valid warnings. Pretty much every “law” any liberal ever passes, is some form of extortion like this.

Guns exist. They will never again not-exist. More laws do not equal order. In general, no force or police or laws are necessary among free citizens who can and will govern themselves, while the opposite is: no amount of force or police or laws are enough for a people who CANNOT – or will not – govern themselves.

Other bad laws depend not on what your free-will choice of what you might DO might eventually be, but on their subjective yet objectifying definition of what you ARE: in islam’s prejudicially slanderous us-versus-them and might makes right sharia code, all weaker groups – foreign infidels, women, children, slaves – are openly and officially pre-discriminated against, encoded right into their system of criminal laws.

Bad (“defensively pre-emptive”) laws are crimes because they attack first.

Unfortunately, there’s only so many symptoms of “Do Not Attack First!” one can address with “laws” of morality, only so many right answers, before one must veer off into exploiting the almost infinite number of sorta almost right,(but really wrong) answers, in order to keep up the pretense that one is actually doing something responsible to earn one’s pay and enjoy the right to govern others – a point at which, when reached, societies decline into criminality and empires fall into ruin.

Government by criminals (liberals) likes to presume it can do whatever it wants TO us, so long as it pretends it’s doing it FOR us/our own good!

 

See also:

 

http://unclevladdi.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/canadas-supreme-criminals-legalize-extortion/

British Gov to enforce sharia blasphemy laws

October 2, 2014

Having once banned freedom scholars Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering not so great Britain (because of course the poor swarthy mentally inferior muslim animals would surely riot in protest,) Theresa May is still working hard on behalf of sharia blasphemy laws and against all Western free speech ones, as of October 1st, 2014:

UNITED KINGDOM

Tories want to rein in “extremists”
(that means people who notice islamic crime, not the islamic “muslim” criminals themselves!):

Britain’s interior minister on Tuesday proposed new power to bar people with extremist views from appearing on television or publishing on social media, even if they are not breaking any laws. Home Secretary Theresa May told a conference of the governing Conservatives that if re-elected next year, the party will introduce civil powers to disrupt people who “spread poisonous hatred” even within the law.

Source: The Ottawa Citizen, Wednesday, October 1st, 2014, P.#C2; also:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11130455/Theresea-May-Isil-could-obtain-chemical-biological-or-even-nuclear-weapons.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2774876/UK-government-plans-curbs-nonviolent-extremism.html

Assad is the target; ISIS is the excuse

September 26, 2014

Re-posted from here and here:

isiscartoon0923

The so-called “Peace President” — aided and abetted by a feckless Congress — has begun yet another illegal war.

By bombing targets inside Syria without the permission of the Syrian government, Barack Hussein Obama violated international law — and the U.S. Constitution — and should be brought up on war crimes. He has now, finally, gotten the war with Syria that he so desperately sought last year before the American people rose up in opposition.

This time, thanks to two propaganda videos that purported to show the beheadings of American “journalists,” the American people have gotten behind the Syrian war. If you think Bashar Assad is not the ultimate target of the regime, acting on behalf of the globalists, you haven’t been paying attention.

Islamic State — or ISIS or ISIL, whatever their current nom de guerre — was created by the U.S. and funded by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates precisely to bring to down Assad.

This lawless regime’s first illegal war was in Libya, in which the U.S. used the cover of NATO to violate international law and create regime change in a sovereign nation which posed no threat to the U.S. It has drone-bombed a number of other nations– killing innocents, including women and children in the process — that did not threaten the U.S., another violation of international law.

Wars are used by the globalists to cover a failing system. People in the know are aware that it’s time for the big New York market to crash and usher in the second Great Depression.

As the big New York stock market crashes, this will signal the beginning of the second great economic depression. Yes, we have had depression since 2008, but the big one is just ahead. Everything is ready!

Get your ducks in a row while the crowd is still asleep.

The public believes that the government will keep pumping the stock market. Not so! The stock market will crash when it’s ready — and that will be soon.

The war that the politicians and talking heads have been long clamoring for has begun. So we are now just ahead of the big stock market crash and all-out war.

Behind the scenes there is mass devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Few people see the trickery.

Market riggers have kicked the legs from under silver and gold, giving the big banks time to accumulate and corner as much of the precious metals as possible.

The ultimate target of the new American bombing campaign is the regime of Bashar Assad. Attacking ISIS and the newly minted enemy du jour, the Korashans, is just an excuse.

The Wall Street Journal laid bare the backstage machinations required to get the Saudi Arabian kingdom — one of the principal backers of ISIS — on board.

Folks, the U.S. is not fighting a “war on terror.” It is fighting a war to ensure Saudi Arabia’s dominance in the region and to open the way for a natural gas pipeline from the South Pars/North Dome Gas-Condensate field in Qatar to Turkey and then Eastern Europe. The American people have been lied to once again. And once again, the American people have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

The New York Times reported Sept. 18 that the U.S. is paying “salaries to thousands of ‘vetted’ rebels and has given them ammunition to boost their battlefield mettle.” These rebels, according to The Times, hate ISIS, but their priority remains ousting Assad.

As for the Saudi involvement, “Syria had become a critical frontline in the battle for regional influence with Iran, an Assad ally. As Mr. Assad stepped up his domestic crackdown [on the opposition forces], the king decided to do whatever was needed to bring the Syrian leader down, Arab diplomats say,” according to The WSJ.

“In the last week of August, a U.S. military and State Department delegation flew to Riyadh to lay the ground for a military program to train the moderate Syrian opposition to fight both the Assad regime and Islamic State — something the Saudis have long requested. The U.S. team wanted permission to use Saudi facilities for the training. Top Saudi ministers, after consulting overnight with the king, agreed and offered to foot much of the bill,” The WSJ reports.

In other words, the Saudis wanted the U.S. to train and equip the forces fighting Assad. The U.S. wanted Saudi Arabia to join a coalition against ISIS to give its attacks on ISIS “international legitimacy,” and the U.S. military needed a base in Saudi Arabia to train opposition fighters. The Saudis agreed to supply the base and some fighter jets in exchange for a promise to equip the anti-Assad rebels.

In addition to stripping Iran of a key ally, taking out Assad will open a way for the coveted gas pipeline across Syria — a pipeline Assad opposed. That pipeline will ultimately supply gas to Eastern Europe, which currently gets most of its natural gas from Russia. That pipeline will cut off Vladimir Putin’s trump card in his conflict with the West.

So the U.S. trumped up an ISIS threat, pulled the Korashans out of their old playbook, polished them up to make them appear new, put a shiny cover on an old plan to use clothing as a terror weapon (remember the underwear bomber), and used them as the excuse to begin the campaign to bring down Assad.

This battle has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and ISIS poses no threat to the U.S. This is a battle ensure Saudi Arabia’s regional dominance — a Saudi Arabia that purports to be an ally of America but which played a key role in the 9/11 attacks and has been funding the very terrorists the regime is using to terrorize Americans into supporting this new war. This battle is to provide Qatar with a means to natural gas profits and to cut the legs from under Putin and destroy one of his last remaining allies in the region.

Putin’s not likely to take such a threat lying down, so the “peace president” is risking World War III on behalf of Saudi Arabia and globalists with interests in the Qatar gas line.

But regardless, once again, the globalists will win and the American people will lose blood and treasure and be further impoverished by a war paid for with more money printing.

Neoconservative Infiltrators Seek To Co-Opt Liberty Movement

September 21, 2014

From here:

This is the second of a two-part series. Read Part 1, <a “nofollow”=”” href=”http://personalliberty.com/resurrection-neoconservative-lie/”>“The Resurrection Of The Neoconservative Lie.” 

The so-called “moderate” Free Syrian Army, a group entirely created by Western covert intelligence agencies, has been for some time interweaving with the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL), which was also created by covert intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, neocons like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argue that FSA members are the “good guys.”

Once again, I have to go back to the neoconservative ideology, which holds that unification requires the creation of enemies in order to galvanize peoples and nations around a centralized leadership. We have seen mounting evidence that ISIS is a fully fabricated monstrosity. We see fake Republicans like McCain involved from the very beginning of the process, admonishing President Obama for his participation while helping Obama with his mission. And now we see these same instigators coming to the American people with promises of utter terror if we do not rally around their governance.

But the charade doesn’t stop there.

The liberty movement also has infiltrators who, in my view, are seeking to co-opt our momentum and divert the efforts of constitutional proponents away from the true enemies of our republic (namely, internationalist financiers calling for total globalization) using the looming threat of an extremist Islamic caliphate.

One such example is Fox News contributor Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been skulking around my neck of the woods in Montana for some time, attempting to sell his version of the final liberty “solution” to the large community of patriots in the region. Vallely’s answer to the problem appears to be an extension of his Operation American Spring project, which he has been promoting every year for as long as I can remember and which has failed every year to produce the million-man armed march on Washington, D.C., that it calls for. The strategy has evolved into what essentially amounts to a military coup led by neoconservative brass.

Vallely’s suggestions are certainly enticing to some, and his rhetoric sounds rather similar to what many in organizations like Oath Keepers believe. However, there is a distinct difference. A military coup led by politicized generals who may very well be controlled by the same globalist interests as Obama is not an expression of constitutional revolution. It is, in fact, a warped and twisted facsimile of revolution. The idea is alluring because many Americans want to take direct action to remove corrupt government, but they do not want to risk their lives to do it.

Military coup takes the responsibility of constitutional revolution away from the people and places it the hands of a select few. What this means is that a military coup led by Washington-bred generals is actually advantageous to the elites because it allows them to undermine legitimate rebellion without directly confronting it at the risk of energizing it. Two birds are thus killed with one stone: The revolutionary momentum is derailed, and the establishment maintains control through military puppets who have more room to impose greater totalitarianism through overt force.

But what if those generals were rock-solid constitutionalists? We can only guess at the result, but I can say with certainty that pretenders like Vallely are not constitutionalists.

Before Vallely settled in Montana to become a “freedom fighter” he was most famous for co-authoring a Department of Defense white paper called “From Psyop To Mind War,” published in 1980.

The paper devises fourth-generation warfare methods to paralyze entire nations with complex propaganda, turning the population against itself and its own interests so that controllers do not have to expend vast military resources to defeat them conventionally. This strategy was deemed preferable, as it would reduce destruction of resources while still establishing dominance and/or destabilization. It is also a strategy that was recommended for use against the American people (not to mention the use of “ESP” as a weapon, but we don’t have time to get into that garbage). The Arab Spring, funded and directed by covert intelligence agencies, is a perfect example of mind war in action. And in light of this, I find it interesting that Vallely would champion a project labeled Operation American Spring, as if the joke on us is right out in the open.

The other author of “From Psyop To Mind War” is a man by the name of Michael Aquino, who has a foggy career history beyond his status as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. military and allegedly an employee of the NSA. What is not a mystery is Aquino’s religious orientation. The man is an open Satanist, a former member of the Church of Satan, and a current member of his own Temple of Set. (Aquino founded the Temple of Set five years before working with Vallely, meaning his darker theological leanings were well known to any of his peers.) Whether one has a Christian orientation, one is compelled to question the moral intentions of a man who curls his eyebrows to look like horns, worships either the myth or the actual embodiment of the prince of darkness and tries to present such activities as a mere expression of rationalism. One is also compelled to question the moral and mental compass of anyone who would willingly maintain a working relationship with such a person and then suddenly fight the good fight as a Christian patriot. I have not found a single instance in which Vallely has stood in public opposition to Aquino or “From Psyop to Mind War.” And to this day, Aquino thanks Vallely for his efforts on the white paper.

After retiring from the military, Vallely became a client of Benedor Associates, a neoconservative public relations firm. And he continues to ally closely with neoconservative political elites. It should come as no surprise then that just like McCain, Vallely also took a trip to Syria, on the same day as the infamous sarin gas attack — the same gas attack that was most likely perpetrated by Muslim extremist groups as a false flag against the Syrian government, and which almost led America into World War III. In response, Valley called for increased U.S. government support for the FSA insurgents.

So why is a retired neoconservative U.S. general who wrote a psychological warfare paper with a DoD Satanist supporting extremist insurgency in the Middle East while suggesting military coup in the United States? I can only suggest that the Hegelian dialectic is in full force. The elites conjure a frightening enemy in the form of ISIS, attacks occur that distract the masses away from the internationalists, and the chaos that follows — whether it results in revolution or military coup — is then sold to the world as a natural by-product of a crumbling Western world due to the misguided zealotry of “conservatives.” After the dust settles, the men who made the collapse possible move forward with the global centralization they always wanted, using America as a horror story to teach future generations in Common Core-style classrooms about the barbaric attachments to national sovereignty and individualism.

A fanciful conspiracy theory? Perhaps. Or perhaps it’s a very real possibility if the liberty movement and conservatives in general are suckered into the neocon fold once again.

–Brandon Smith

How To Save America And Create 20 Million Jobs Instantly

September 21, 2014

From here:

Hi. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. And do I have a plan for the Republican Party — if the Republicans want to win elections by a landslide, if they want to save the economy and if they want to create 20 million middle-class jobs almost overnight.

Back in 1994, a Contract with America won Republicans control of Congress. In my latest book, “The Murder of the Middle Class,” I lay out the Middle-Class Contract with America that will help do it again in 2014 and 2016. If only the GOP would listen, we could turn around this terrible economy, save the middle class and return America to greatness.

Republicans need to do more than be against Barack Obama. They need to present their vision and a detailed plan for how to reinvigorate the economy and create millions of high-paying, middle-class jobs. Here is the 10-point plan that can stop this long-term decline and dysfunction and once again make America’s middle class the greatest in the world. A Middle-Class Contract with America created by a small-business owner (that’s me) can do it again.

This is a common-sense contract to protect, save and serve America’s middle class. This “contract” has only three goals: Support, stimulate and reward middle-class job creation.

Start with a national income tax vacation. Ronald Reagan already proved a radical plan that gives power (and money) back to the people will turn even the worst recession since the Great Depression into the biggest economic expansion in world history. Reagan saved America from economic ruin by cutting taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent. This idea is Reagan on steroids! Obama wasted more than $2 trillion dollars (the updated cost) on a “stimulus to nowhere.” He gambled on big government and lost. Six years later, there is still no recovery for small business or middle-class jobs.

Like Reagan, I’m betting on the private sector. Government cannot save us from this Obama Great Depression. Only the taxpayers, investors and small business owners can save us. So my version of “stimulus” goes to the group of citizens that pay the taxes and create the jobs.

My national income tax vacation lets taxpayers take a vacation from income taxes and keep 100 percent of their income for one year. Sit back and watch the greatest economic explosion in world history. What will they do with their windfall? Start businesses, build businesses, expand businesses. Buy stocks, homes, autos. And go on a consumer-spending binge. And, of course, an orgy of spending by the citizens creates real jobs (as opposed to spending by government).

This plan puts the money in the hands of the financial first responders, not government. The people who pay taxes and create jobs by starting businesses will save America — just as they did under Reagan. Millions of jobs will be created (and they won’t be part-time, low-wage jobs flipping burgers). Obama’s belief in government has failed the middle class. This plan puts the power in the hands of entrepreneurs and taxpayers.

Critics will ask, “How do we pay for it?” The total cost of my income tax vacation is $1.2 trillion (that’s all the personal income taxes in America for one year). That’s less than Obama’s 2009 stimulus. How come no one asked where Obama would find the money for his stimulus?

This economy is even worse than Jimmy Carter’s economy. So we need a radical game changer. We need Reagan squared. This is how you save America: by inspiring and rewarding all the people who actually pay taxes, instead of punishing them and stealing their money to reward the freeloaders with their hands out. Obama proved that idea is a disaster.

Next step: Return from the one-year national income tax vacation to the 0-15-0 tax plan. The country needs a game changer. My 0-15-0 tax plan is exactly that. It is modeled after Hong Kong, the greatest booming economy in the world (with 3.5 percent unemployment). We return from the one-year personal income tax vacation (the “0” in the 0-15-0) with a 15 percent flat tax.

It’s important to note that Hong Kong allows deductions for mortgage and charitable deductions. It works. Copy it. You hear me, GOP? Stop trying to eliminate mortgage and charitable deductions with a flat tax. That’s just plain stupid. The economy depends on real estate and home ownership. Churches and charities depend on deductibility of donations. Hong Kong’s booming economy proves a flat tax works with both of those deductions included.

Secondly, Hong Kong also has a zero capital gains tax. So does our No. 1 competitor in the world: China. We must match China or lose market share. A zero capital gains tax will motivate an explosion in investments and start-ups. That’s how you jump-start a middle-class jobs explosion.

The third plank of my plan: Jump-start job creation with an Angel Investors Tax Deduction. Two of every three new jobs are created by small business. A majority of these new jobs are created during the first three years of a new business start-up. We need to encourage more start-ups. I propose offering an Angel Investors Tax Deduction. Under my plan, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for up to 50 percent of their income tax bill (up to $25,000) for investments in new business start-ups. This isn’t for millionaires. It’s tailor-made just for middle-class investors. Over a decade, any middle-class American can invest $25,000 per year; and after 10 years, they save $250,000 from the clutches of the IRS. If any of those businesses succeed, middle-class taxpayers can build a million-dollar nest egg for retirement. More importantly, millions of jobs will be created with all this money flowing into business start-ups. What do all new businesses need? Employees.

Plank No. 4: Create a reverse inversion. Inversion is when U.S. companies run away from America because we have the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world. I want to cut the corporate tax rate to a flat 15 percent, so companies across the globe will want to practice reverse inversion by coming to America — not running away.

Secondly, encourage U.S. companies to bring all their offshore money back into the United States. Financial experts estimate American corporations have more than $2 trillion parked offshore because of high U.S. corporate tax rates. My plan allows companies to bring their foreign earnings back to America with only a small 10 percent tax/penalty. Companies will rush to take advantage, thereby instantly producing about $200 billion in new tax revenues to be applied to debt reduction. Better yet, the remaining $1.8 trillion dollars will be pumped into the U.S. economy.

Third, model the great (and booming) state of Texas and pass a national Loser Pays Law. You want corporations to bring back jobs from overseas? Reduce frivolous lawsuits and watch what happens. Anyone want to bet? Do these three things and every company in the world will want to move to America. Watch millions of jobs be on-shored, instead of offshored.

Plank No. 5: We need an Endangered Humans Protection Act. The average energy job in Texas pays about $150,000 per year. These are the kind of jobs that can save the American middle class. Because of technological advances, America is in the middle of an energy revolution. If only the Obama administration would take the shackles off, America could become the energy capital of the world.

How do we create millions of great jobs? Approve Keystone XL, increase energy production, encourage more fracking and clean coal, and ease regulations so we can export more of America’s No. 1 product to our allies in Europe. That’s how we defeat Russia, too. We become the energy supplier to the world.

Oh, and kill the EPA. Today. As in, this minute.

The energy industry has more of a direct impact on middle class Americans than any other issue. Creating high-paying energy jobs would lower unemployment, boost the tax base, lower the debt and dramatically lower everyone’s energy bills, leading to increased consumer spending. The middle class is saved by $150,000 energy jobs. It’s destroyed by job-killing green energy. The party that offers that vision sweeps to landslide victory.

Plank No. 6: Legalize, regulate and tax “sins” like marijuana and online gambling. This is what we do in Nevada, and the result is we are able to afford zero state income tax and zero business income tax. We should be replicating this model through the United States because it works. Are you listening, GOP? Get out of our bedrooms, as well as our boardrooms. Let people do what they want. Stop sticking your head in the sand, tax it and reap the benefits. By the way, this is how you create even more jobs.

Plank No. 7: America desperately needs a gold standard. The dollar has lost in the neighborhood of 98 percent of its buying power since 1913 (since the Fed was founded). We need a gold standard to back the dollar with something real and tangible. This prevents politicians from spending us into bankruptcy by making spending promises with money we don’t have. It also reduces the likelihood of a debt crisis, dollar collapse or the loss of world reserve currency status.

Plank No. 8: Repeal and replace Obamacare with a health freedom plan. The economy cannot improve without the repeal of Obamacare. Health insurance premiums are up more since Obamacare started than in the eight previous years combined. Heck, they are up 88 percent in liberal, Obama-loving California alone. This is bankrupting middle-class consumers and destroying our economy. Obamacare is also a middle-class, high-wage-job killer. There can be no good-paying middle-class jobs until the regulations and taxes of Obamacare are repealed. Period. Obamacare has to go or nothing else will work.

Plank No. 9: Seal the border and reform immigration policy. After the border is sealed with a virtual wall (protected by thousands of drones), create a path to permanent residency (with work permits) — but never citizenship for any illegal immigrant. They’ve lost the right to vote by breaking the law.

Our wide-open border is leading to disaster for the economy. Millions of poor, desperate immigrants arriving here to demand welfare and food stamps will bankrupt our economy and force massive tax increases. But a terrorist attack or Ebola pandemic on U.S. soil is even worse- and both can happen tomorrow because the border is wide-open. One terrorist attack and this already vulnerable economy will drop off a cliff. One Ebola pandemic and commerce will grind to a halt. People won’t leave their homes out of fear. The border is the key to all of this. Seal it to save America’s economy from destruction.

Plank No. 10: Follow the U.S. Constitution to limit the power of Congress and all branches of the federal government. This starts with term limits. I believe all politicians should be limited to two terms: one term in office and one term in prison.

That’s a brief summary of my plan to save this economy and country, direct from the pages of my book, “The Murder of The Middle Class.” We need hope, not just criticism. This plan is all about hope.

America is in decline, but it’s still savable. We can turn it around. There is still time, but the window is small. This plan will create 20 million new jobs quickly — just as Reagan’s tax cuts did in the 1980s.

It restores economic freedom. It rewards entrepreneurship. It stimulates small-business job creation. It limits the power of government — just as the Constitution demands. It puts the power back in the hands of the people. Most importantly, it will restore the American dream for middle-class Americans.

This answers all the liberal critics who claim all conservatives or libertarians do is complain and criticize. They ask: “What’s your plan?” Well, here it is. Now, shut up and get out of the way. You’ve done enough damage. You caused enough chaos, crisis and pain. It’s time to let the responsible adults take over.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.

 

Questions for the European Left

September 16, 2014

             PilarRahola

This is quite a lady.  What she writes is more impressive because she is NOT Jewish.  Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilar_Rahola

Questions for the European Left   by Pilar Rahola

Why don’t we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona?Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?

Why aren’t there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?

Why aren’t there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam?

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel?

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?

Why don’t they defend Israel’s right to exist?

Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism?

And finally, the million dollar question: Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn’t care.

And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro-Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: “We want freedom for the people!”

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never  preoccupied when Hamas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don’t inform, they propagandize.

When reporting about Israel, the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel that there aren’t any accusations left to level against her.

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel, the indoctrination of children, and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: “Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel.”

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70’s and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of President Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East, he is unequivocally pro-Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of Foreign Minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no coincidence; it’s a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. And yet the Spanish left is the most anti-Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti-Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti-Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew, I have the historical responsibility to fight against hatred for the Jews and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles.

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say, that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty, I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn’t want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers