Tag Archives: political correctness

We Need to Be Honest; Dispensing With the Spin

Daquella Manera (CC)

As we consider the anniversary of September 11th – now, both 2001 and 2012, it is important to consider some simple truths. These truths eluded our government and the nation in the early days after September 11th, 2001, because partisan politicians in Washington, DC, erected walls that kept our law enforcement and intelligence communities from honestly informing each other about the threats to our nation and her citizens. Even more disturbingly, today, little has changed. Twelve years after the initial attacks by al Qaeda on our country, most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are left unaddressed and an administration has been elected to office that refuses to identify the enemy for their common bond.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”

Before September 11th, 2001, we, as a nation, were unfamiliar with not only Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but also the whole of the Islamist dogma. Now, after the slaughter of four brave Americans in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, our nation’s leadership, hobbled by the Progressive tenet of political correctness, refuses to accurately identify the enemy; to identify the root cause for the overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world.

Before September 11th, 2001, we were ignorant of the lesson found in Sun Tzu’s quote. After September 11th, 2012, our leadership simply ignores Sun Tzu’s wisdom.

It is indisputable that with precious few exceptions, the perpetrators of almost every terrorist act in the world today have a direct connection to Islamist jihadis; who, in turn, exist solely under the ideological umbrella of the religion of Islam. Those who argue to the contrary are either uninformed, deniers, fools or intellectually stunted. Yet our current leadership exists so crippled by their ideological dogma that they, purposefully, refuse to identify the obvious enemy; the enemy who has declared, in no uncertain terms, that Islam will reign supreme; that they intend to conquer the world in the name of their religion.

A perfect example of this pig-ignorance comes in the issue of Syria.

Whether you believe President Obama and his team are inept in their foreign policy, unconcerned about anything but the “fundamental transformation” of the United States domestically, or sympathetic to the Islamist cause – or perhaps all three, the notion that there is a side to champion in the Syrian conflict is ignorant folly. Yes, Bashar al Assad is a tyrant, brutal to his own people in his quest to retain power in that country. And it is a distinct possibility that he or his field commanders may have used chemical weapons against civilians as well as rebel forces. But intervening in an effort to champion al Assad’s opposition literally places the United States in an alliance with those who support and fight in the name of al Qaeda, the very people who both slaughtered 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 more on September 11th, 2001, and viciously murdered four Americans, including a US ambassador on September 11th, 2012.

Additionally, each action and non-action taken by this administration has not only decreased the standing of the United States in the Middle East, but has facilitated the rise of Islamists to positions of influence throughout the region. Even the Obama Administration’s objection to the Egyptian military’s deposing of the illegitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood to government, in the aftermath of Mubarak’s fall from power, favored Islamists; those who would establish Sharia law and band together to form a regional caliphate.

So, the base question that each and every American should be asking him or herself is this. What the hell are we doing? Why are we aligning or aiding any faction, movement or government that exists sympathetic or in allegiance to anything Islamist?

Further, why haven’t we had the courage – as a free people – to ask the questions that politically correct Progressives and the intellectually squeamish run from, like:

▪ Why isn’t the Islamist ideology held accountable for the violent actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

▪ Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia – the protectors of the most holy locations in the Islamic religion, been held to account for not only the actions of their charge, but for literally exporting the most virulent strain of Islam (Wahhabism) to foreign shores?

▪ Why are our elected officials so adverse to recognizing – and then stating as their positions – that the tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Charters of Freedom and in Western ideology?

▪ Why – why – are our leaders so frightened of identifying an enemy who has declared war on the West – and the United States and Israel, specifically, for years and years and years…?

▪ Why – why – is the West so terrified of confronting the evil that exists in the Islamist ideology; the evil that cuts the heads of innocents, eats the organs of its foes, burns Christian churches to the ground as they execute priests and nuns; the evil that wants to finish what Adolf Hitler started with regard to the world’s Jewish population?

▪ And why, why, why, do we elect idiot politicians who make excuses for bloodthirsty jihadis, even to the points of denying that “Allahu Akbar!” is an Islamist battle cry and lobbying for weaponry and alliance?

The issue of whether the United States should act because chemical weapons were used in Syria is a serious matter. The use of WMD is something that the entire world community should take very seriously. But when both sides of the conflict despise you; when both combatants in the fight hold you, your nation, your nation’s citizens and the whole of the Western world in contempt, perhaps that fight; perhaps the action needed in the aftermath of the use of those WMD, must come from within that faction’s own world. If the use of WMD is so outrageous to the whole of humanity, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain should take action against Syria, the rebels or whoever else is eventually found to be guilty of this atrocity.

To wit, the fact is undeniable: Whoever wins in Syria will not be a friend to the United States and the West, so aiding one side over another is a pretty stupid investment of blood and/or treasure.

And while the debate on the use of WMD in Syria is one that should be undertaken, it should be undertaken with the pre-condition that we in the West – and especially we here in the United States – realize that Islamists are not our friends, evidenced not only by their actions, but by their words; their threats, their promises and their declarations.

The battle – both ideologically and physically – between the West and Islamism is a fundamental battle between good and evil; between the cultures of personal liberty and oppression. Islamism, Sharia and all of the Islamist tenets that entangle that dogma in conquest, oppression, violence and the worship of death, exist as nemesis to the free world; the enemy of freedom itself.

That limp-wristed politicians, Progressives and sympathetic apologists from the West refuse to admit the obvious doesn’t make the fact any less real. It just makes the West – and the people of the West – subject to the dangers, subject to the murderous violence, that Islamism projects onto the world.

On this observance of September 11th, 2001 – and now September 11th, 2012, I, again, offer my condolences to all those directly affected by the loss of life, and offer my appreciation to all those who have answered the call to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

On this observance of the “September 11ths,” I stand unashamed to say, I know who the enemy is…both inside and outside the gates.

Conservative Media Elites, Progressives & The Blood of Boston

04232013

Well, bravo to the mainstream media – at least the Conservative mainstream media – for finally putting two-and-two together in understanding the role that political correctness plays in the ongoing conflict with violent jihadists and fundamentalist Islam. To say that they showed up “fashionably late” to the party is borderline sarcastic. Nevertheless, the subject has finally been broached and those of us who have had “three lanterns” in the church tower for over a decade are appreciative that this moment in time has come to pass. But this finally arrived at equation is just the first layer of a much deeper and more troubling convergence. And we all – each and every one of us – have to pray that a fickle news media will not “declare victory” in this singular realization.

For years, many of us in the new media have bared the full weight of speaking truth to power – power in this case being not only elected government, many of whom still choose to exist in denial of the facts, but the elites in the mainstream media as well, where fundamentalist Islamic violence is concerned. Many of us have been demonized and marginalized not only by those of a more liberal bent who level charges of bigotry and Islamophobia at us, but by those in the elite Conservative media who stood dedicated to ignore us for not having slapped down the $125,000 to get a “journalism” degree. Many outlets, both mainstream and on the Internet, cowered in the face of the issue, choosing not to run articles about the facts surrounding jihadi violence or ignoring the intellectual credentials of writers who carved out great swathes of their lives to fully understand the issue; autodidactic or otherwise.

It could be said that at this moment, those who have been ignored or rebuked by the “big boys and girls” with million-viewer television and 50,000 watt flamethrower radio shows, will prove their grit; prove their patriotism, by embracing the reality that it is the message, the education of our citizenry that matters, and not whether we gain fame or wealth examining an issue that threatens the very existence of a free world. As for me, I hope to be judged a patriot for the information I have advanced in an unselfish manner; simply asking for organizational support from time to time so that a roof could be maintained overhead and food could be placed on the table. Some answered unselfishly, most did not.

But now, after all of the “al Qaeda is on the run” rhetoric has been laid to waste, and the eyes of many in the Conservative mainstream media have been focused, it must be stated, without reservation, that our nation faces not a singular foe in a foreign ideology that seeks to expunge the American way of life from the face of the Earth, but three very real and very potent threats that, at present, are well on the path to seeing the demise of the United States of America, Islamofascism being only one of the three.

For years, I and others, including my wife Nancy, a dedicated educator and a formally trained constitutional expert, have been explaining the concept of “The Perfect Storm”; the convergence of three potent threats that together present a threat to our way of life in the United States, and through its destruction, the free world. Our non-profit organization, BasicsProject.org, is dedicated to educating the public on this “Perfect Storm.” Yet, for years the elites in the mainstream media have refused to acknowledge the hypothesis; have refused to allow our voices to be heard. So, it was with great happiness I began hearing the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly – Beck being the first among them to do so, and going “all in” in his efforts, I might add – identifying the role of political correctness in the advance of Islamofascism. It is my hope of hopes that they are inclusive of the grassroots and autodidacts in their efforts because, quite frankly, without a constant push for the citizenry to learn, this will become just another news story; just another cycle, and everyone will soon return to watching “Desperate Housewives of the Jersey Shore in Gator Country,” or whatever inane garbage is captivating the low- and no-information voters today.

“The Perfect Storm” scenario consists of an external threat (Islamofascism) coupled with and facilitated by an internal threat (Progressivism, whose chief manipulative tenet is political correctness) targeting a constitutionally illiterate American populace (a population who fails to understand the worth and value of their rights). Is this a Right-Left or Democrat-Libertarian-Republican issue? No. This is an American issue and one that extends to the free world, as well.

Islamofascism, rooted in an almost fanatical devotion to Sharia Law, places the theocratic dogma of Islam above the inalienable rights realized and codified in the Charters of Freedom – the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Bill of Rights (Nancy would also include the Magna Carta, and she is right to do so). In doing so, the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press; all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and ensuing Amendments, are subjugated to the will of Sharia. A cursory examination of Sharia Law’s compatibility with the freedoms identified in the Charters of Freedom results in the realization of a total incompatibility between the two. One cannot live a life devoted to Islam and Sharia Law, and recognize the US Constitution as the law of the land, ergo; Islamofascism is a direct threat to the US Constitution.

Progressivism, essentially an American Fifth Column, emanates from the ideology of the Marxist/Leninist Era, and presents a menace from within. This ideology was first empowered under the Wilson reign – which advanced the lie of a “living Constitution” so as to expand government beyond the enumerated powers, and then enjoyed resurgence during the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Today, this ideology, anathema to the Charters of Freedom, is taught at every level of our public education system – from pre-school to graduate school – in the form of “political correctness,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity.” This ideology – embraced by the likes of the “social justice” crowd – has evolved into a unique yet visionless one, and one which holds that our most basic constitutional tenets are the central cause for many of the social ills here in the United States and around the world.

This Secular-Progressive, Democratic-Socialist and/or neo-Marxist American Fifth Column ideology claims that our Constitutional Republic is, in fact, a Democracy, which our Founders and Framers vehemently opposed; understanding that Democracy did and does not protect minority rights. It employs the democratic process to promote moral relativism, multiculturalism and political correctness, doing so in an effort to silence those who would defend the basic foundational American principles, while pursuing an American form of Socialism in their place. This system of beliefs serves not only to grotesquely blur the lines between good and evil, bad behavior and civic responsibility, it goes to great lengths to negate the concepts all together.

The Progressive ideology promotes the utilization of an artificially created sense of self-esteem within our children while striving to denigrate the notion of individualism in deference to the group-think mentality, or the “it takes a village” philosophy, leaving them ill-prepared for the competitive world in which we live, and dependents of a state unable to compete at all.

The precepts of the American Fifth Column work to eliminate the benefits and rewards of a competition based free market society by instituting the notion that absolute socio-economic equality can be attained through government mandated entitlement and control, usurping the freedom of choice and alienating our constitutionally mandated individual liberty to define and pursue happiness. Anyone who dares to challenge the Progressive ideology is castigated as a “bigot,” a “racist,” and/or any litany of “phobes,” all in an effort to execute Rule No. 12 from Progressivism’s bible, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky (who literally dedicated his book to Satan):

Rule No. 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

With just this very basic understanding of Progressivism – and I urge you to read more on this (DiscoverTheNetworks.org has an indispensable summary of the movement accessible here) – it is obvious to the honest that Progressivism is not only antithetical to Americanism, but a direct threat to the Charters of Freedom.

Couple these two major threats to our nation, to our Founding Documents, to our liberty, with the fact that since the Progressives’ capture of the American education system, the importance of studying history has been marginalized, so much so that our nation, but for what can only be described now as an alarmed minority, stands constitutionally illiterate; unable to understand the value of the inalienable rights mandated by our Founding Documents and bequeathed to us by Natural Law, not government.

I liken it to the old adage about two children who have received the same bike, one given the bike, the other made to earn the bike. Invariably, the child who was given the bike was more prone to neglecting it, not understanding its worth, while the child who was made to earn the bike; that understood its worth, maintained it. This basic truth applies to our American Heritage and the continued welfare of our nation.

Without a solid understanding of the basic principles used by our Founds and Framers in establishing our Constitution it is impossible for Americans to recognize the worth of the American ideal. When the full values of freedom and liberty are not realized it becomes easy to incrementally relinquish our rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Today, we do not have a populace, a citizenry, which is literate in constitutional philosophy; that understands the worth of their rights…and so they cede them. Further, without a basic understanding of the value of our founding principles and the worth of the American ideal, the American public is less inclined to be concerned with an unfettered access to un-manipulated, fact-based information; information needed to address many of the serious issues facing our nation, our nation’s leaders and the world; issues like violent jihad on the streets of Boston, New York, Any Town, USA.

With regard to the Boston Marathon bombings, it is without question that the Progressives among us have blood on their hands. Progressives in the media, in elected office and in leadership positions have consistently and absolutely denied the American public their right to examine the violent tenets of Islam by saying that to do so wouldn’t be “politically correct,” by saying it would be “insensitive to Muslims,” or that those who want to examine the facts surrounding the truth about the dichotomy between Islam and terrorism are “racists,” “bigots,” Islamophobic or otherwise “intolerant.” Progressives are the ones who concocted the politically correct policies that keep law enforcement from even using the word “Middle Eastern” when putting out a BOLO about a suspected terrorist. Progressives are the ones who established political barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, stunting our nation’s ability to defend our citizenry from the savage acts of the hate-filled.

Progressives will undoubtedly call me a “racist,” a “bigot,” and an “intolerant Islamophobe” because I dare to speak the truth; because I have dared, for over a decade, to speak the truth, about Islam, about Progressivism and about our constitutionally illiterate culture, doing so at great personal expense; unrecognized by the now finally engaged elite Conservative media. So be it…if that is the price I must pay to be a good citizen; if that is the price I have to pay to be a good American.

I just pray, in my anonymity, that now the media elites have been born into awareness about “The Perfect Storm,” that they see the story through to its successful resolution; that they don’t drop this issue of national survival for the next “blonde girl goes missing” news item of another Lindsay Lohan DUI-Rehab-Back-to-Spoiled-Brat story. Honestly, all of our lives, all of our freedoms, depend on whether they do or not. That’s why there is freedom of the press…for now.

Ayn Rand’s Answer to the Left’s Bullying

r-AYN-RAND-large570

r-AYN-RAND-large570

Smug, self-righteous leftists bully anyone who dare disagree with their doctrinaire suppositions. This is a cynical but effective ploy that is socially castrating millions of sane, but otherwise intimidated potential critics. Rational, logical, and clear-thinking Americans are silencing themselves for fear of being ostracized by the true believers of various marxian faiths.

The leftist Thought Police wield the weapon of political correctness to silence any and all criticism of the left’s campaign to hijack the U.S. government to accomplish its authoritarian ends. The best way to counter-act such shameless political correctness is contained in an excerpt of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction work “The Virtue of Selfishness“:

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, today’s political debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the “liberals,” the second by the “conservatives.” The champions, in this respect, are the “liberal” Republicans who practice both; the first toward their “conservative” fellow Republicans – the second, toward the Democrats.

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers.

The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all ages and cultures, but seldom on so wide a scale as today. It is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity, but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture. It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment – not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite’s of one’s own.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

When one give reasons for one’s verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one’s reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral “hit-and-run” driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.

Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle – and when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest in protesting that “moralizing” should be kept out of intellectual discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality is to sanction it.

The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important to be certain of one’s premises and one’s moral ground. It illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions, wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals – those who recklessly leap into battle, armed with nothing but a few random notions floating in a fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings, hopes and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis.

In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right; one has to know that one is right.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:

“If this be treason, make the most of it.”

(Ayn Rand, July, 1964)

America’s Trojan Horse

trojan horse

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is asking hard questions of DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. He might as well have asked Eric Holder for “Fast and Furious” documents. In our constitutional republic, the main purpose of government is to protect the God-given rights of the citizens it represents. The goal of Rep. Gohmert was to get to the heart of an issue that should concern all Americans across all party lines: Did Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano know she gave a visa and a classified security clearance to a known terrorist facilitator and sympathizer, Hani Nour Eldin.

Eldin is a member of Egypt’s parliament and a member of Egypt’s Gamaa Islamiya group which is listed as a known terrorist organization. Eldin attended multiple meetings last month at the behest of the president and DHS – some of which were conducted at the White House. Issue number two: did Napolitano know that the DHS advisory council member (appointed by Obama), Mohamed Elibiary, used his security clearance (that Napolitano gave him) to access and download classified documents with his personal computer and shop the information to media outlets?

Napolitano couldn’t really answer any of Gohmert’s questions other than telling him that it was “objectionable” to attack or accuse someone because they are Muslim, (classic liberal response, Gohmert asks hard questions and he is deemed “bigoted” or “racist”). Rep. Gohmert also asked Napolitano if she was aware of the fact that Elibiary was affiliated with a charity here in the states named the Freedom and Justice Foundation. This is important because the name of the now defunct foundation here in America also shared its name with the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt. The Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt is the legislative arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration has been very open to advice from the “Council on American Islāmic Relations” aka (CAIR) which have been named an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation court case that took place in northern Texas. You will remember, that this is the court case that named all the people responsible for using the giving nature of Americans to secretly fund terrorist activities all around the globe.

If the stonewall tactic looks familiar to you, it should, it worked for Eric Holder at the Fast and Furious hearings. If congress keeps pushing this issue as it should, I foresee Obama pulling rank and invoking executive privilege once again. As a nation we are in a very precarious era. When agencies have absolutely no congressional oversight, we become a dictatorship or a monarchy by definition. The current administration that promised to be the most transparent, is anything but. It seems Obama “leads” better by fiat rather than inside of a constitutional construct.

As a nation, we need to show courage and begin a debate about what role Islam is going to play in our government. Will we cower when liberals attack and call us “bigoted” for asking relevent and important questions? We can not. We must stand courageous in the face of name calling. When we have come to a place in our society where the secretary of DHS is not concerned about men using their personal computers to access classified government information, and known terrorist sympathizers holding meetings in the White House, we are in grave danger. If Janet Napolitano is not going to perform her job as secretary of DHS, why do we have a DHS? We should not cower from the debate simply because it’s politically incorrect to broach these subjects or because of a political agenda. We have already done that, in 1999 when Osama Bin Laden stated that blood would run in the streets of New York city, no one stood against his statement. We also done the same with the Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, over and over people in the know were reporting to the FBI that he was very anti-American and a possible threat, the FBI did not investigate because they were fearful the investigation would be seen as an “Islāmic witch hunt”. All because of political correctness, thirteen people were shot in cold blood. The man had S.O.A. on his government (Army) business card, S.O.A. meaning Soldier Of Allah. To add insult to injury the government will still not call the acts perpetrated by Hasan a terrorist act, they consider it an incident of “work place violence”. Also, I don’t remember anyone mentioning gun control after Hasan killed thirteen.

We recently seen how political agenda has driven the gun control debate after the tragic shooting spree in Aurora, Colorado. Before the victims were all properly identified news anchors were already blaming those they disagree with politically, pushing accusations on Tea Party members. Guns needed to be outlawed so people would be “safe”. Just a day later, an Afghan police officer opened fire on American contractors killing three. No where did you hear anyone calling for the outlaw of guns in Afghanistan. One shooting spree fits the liberal agenda narrative, and one did not. So one gets the nod for a refreshed attack on the second amendment rights of American people, and one is ignored, because only one story is politically expedient. I bring this up because I want the American people to drive the debate regarding Islam in the government, and not another terrorist attack, God forbid.

Discrimination — The Politically Incorrect Guide

Choose the car you like, the woman you marry, or the supermarket you shop at, and you “discriminate.” We all discriminate every minute of our lives—to discriminate means to choose between endless options that suit your needs, values, or preferences. Personal discrimination means having the right to choose what you do with your body, values, and the money or property you own .

When we “discriminate” with our property, we exercise our right to make choices. But sometimes we make bad choices that offend others. Some people don’t wish to sell to, buy from, or associate with minorities, Catholics, old people, homosexuals, or women with children. People can be irrational or bigoted in a thousand ways.

However, respect for each other’s freedom ironically requires that we respect each other’s right to make decisions that may offend some people. For example, if a homeowner doesn’t want to rent his upstairs apartment to bald men, homosexuals, or Indonesian women, that should be his right, because it is his home.

The homeowner may be “prejudiced” against certain people, but he has the right to make that choice with his own property. The person denied the apartment, while their feelings may be offended, had no claim to that apartment, for it was not their property in the first place. In free trade between people who respect each other’s property and freedom of choice, you have the right to buy or sell anything, but only if the other person is willing to trade with you. Every trade requires the free consent of both parties.

Remember, an insulted would-be tenant also has free choice. He can decide who he rents from. Doesn’t a tenant also “discriminate” against a homeowner if he chooses not to rent the apartment because it is dirty, in a neighborhood too far from where he works, or because he doesn’t like the owner’s race or personality?

The same applies to all privately-owned property in a free country. The owner of a restaurant has the right to not serve someone who can’t order in English. It’s his restaurant. A private-school owner has the right to say, “I will only admit Asian students with wealthy parents.” It’s his school. These businessmen may be fools to believe bad things about whole groups of people, but they have the right to be fools with their own property.

A school or business owner earned the money and took the risks to buy that school or business. However, if he irrationally excludes too many people as customers, he may soon find himself out of business and bankrupt. The free market often punishes a business owner for being stupid or bigoted.

We all dislike bigots, but one man’s bigotry is another’s truth. No one has the right to dictate our opinions or moral values, or to control our property without our consent. That’s what property rights means.

Yet, anti-discrimination laws violate this principle. These laws say a man can’t choose who he wants to do business with. This means that government now presumes to control that man’s mind, hard-earned property, personal decisions, and freedom of choice. It means tyranny.

If government officials can tell us what opinions we can or can’t have about other people, it can also tell us what we can or can’t do with our bodies, property, and even our children. It can wipe out our freedom of choice. Isn’t that what compulsory public schools do against parents? Isn’t that what a suffocating web of government regulations does to all businessmen? Haven’t the bureaucrats, like a spreading cancer, eaten away ever more of our choices, our freedom, and our property rights?

Also, in the end, anti-discrimination laws end up hurting the very people they want to help. The more that government strangles businesses with a suffocating web of anti-discrimination, wage, health, and environmental regulations, the worse off minorities get. A massive Federal government needs massive deficit spending. That pumps up inflation. Inflation sharply raises the cost of living for everyone, which hurts low-income minorities most of all.

Strangling government regulations also cripple small businesses and either stop them from opening, or restrict their expansion. That means less jobs for minority workers. Also, every time Congress raises the minimum wage, small-business owners who can’t afford these raises have to fire some of their minority workers.

It is only governments, at any level, that have no right to discriminate. Government’s purpose is to protect all citizens’ liberty. Also, government bureaucrats do not earn or create property. They mostly loot money (through taxes) from some people to give to others. They therefore don’t have the right, for example, to tell all restaurant owners in white neighborhoods that they can’t serve Blacks (as some states did with Jim Crow laws). That violates the right of a non-bigoted restaurant owner to serve whoever he pleases. Such laws also violate the political and economic liberty of a black person.

One reason discrimination against Blacks lasted so long in many southern states was because Jim Crow laws legalized segregation, but these laws were created by local governments. Such laws forbid competition between bigots and non-bigots. The restaurant or bus company who serves all people makes more money and has a greater chance at success. Bigoted businessmen lose money. In the end, without government-enforced discrimination laws, the free market would wipe out most organized discrimination.

In short, we, as individuals or businesses, have the right to “discriminate” with our own minds, bodies, and property. I say this not because I agree with bigots, but to protect our most fundamental liberties, the liberties that, in the end, are the only real protection for those “discriminated” against.

The Sacred Cow of Racism

Racism sucksHonest discussions on issues of race are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Reporters and pundits are usually too afraid to speak on any issue that might be connected to race, unless it is to label someone a racist. Concerning racist language, I do not believe anyone should intentionally slander or use hurtful words against another race, culture, gender or person. But hurtful words exist and are a part of history with numerous examples in many American literary works. The writings of Mark Twain and the poet Carl Sandburg come to mind. People today refer to the slang word “nigger” as the “N” word, afraid to actually say it within the literary context in which it may be found, thereby equating it with vulgarities and obscenities that are censored and bleeped out. I do not personally think this word should be used in a derogatory manner, BUT, to place it on the same level as vulgar and obscene four letter words that are unmentionable is ridiculous. I do not believe the word should be used in an offensive manner to denigrate and offend, but most of the ones who are crying “foul” have made a career of being offended. Vote pandering liberals and race baiting Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have almost succeeded in having the word removed from history, literature, and classic films, labeling anyone who might use or read the word in a quote, as a white supremist, card carrying Klan member who would lynch all Blacks if only given the opportunity.

All references to race are not racist. Facts are facts and cannot be changed. According to the media, in the quest to not offend, when a murder occurs and the suspect is a Black person, then excuses may be made for his or her behavior. But if a Black person is killed by a white person, the White murderer is painted as racist. If a certain crime statistic reveals a higher percentage of Blacks or Hispanics are incarcerated as opposed to Whites, the cry “racism” is heard, yet, if the data is accurate, facts are facts. That is not racism, just factism. Truth is color blind.

A common cry from some Blacks of today is that of victimization. They are “victims” in a White man’s world. The truth is, they really have been victimized…..by White and Black liberals. Liberals who claim to be for the little guy, the poor and the minorities, have actually created a slave system of government dependency, thereby robbing these groups of the liberty to be all they can be, discovering their untapped potential. They have been successful in hypnotizing many Blacks, including Black ministers, into believing they cannot make it on their own and their economic salvation lies in the Democrat party and the promises of self appointed Black saviors. But the tide is turning and there is a growth in conservatism among Blacks today, as they throw off the man made shackles, reject government socialism, accept responsibility and begin to think for themselves. Until more Blacks take this step, they will remain in the racist world of Jesse Jackson.

Does any of this mean there is no such thing as racism? Certainly not. Racism is still an ugly part of humanity, and is probably as old as the human race. Real racism is wrong. There is a test which can be used to determine if you are racist. For instance, if you believe any individual is going to act a certain way or be predisposed to do certain things simply because of their color of skin or ethnicity, then you are a racist. If you think someone is more likely to be lazy, steal, be immoral, etc. simply because they are of a certain race or ethnic group, then you are racist. Also, if you promote or demote anyone based on race, then you are a racist. That includes voting for or against anyone based on race. Many have shamelessly admitting to voting for Obama because he was Black. That is racism.

If a certain act, acts, lifestyle, or philosophy seem to be more prevalent in one people group than in another, then culture is the culprit, not race. For instance, a people group speaks a certain language, not because of some inward racial programming, but because of culture and geographical location. There is, however, one inward trait which is inherited by all, regardless of race, and that is depravity. Sin is inherited by all from father Adam and only ONE person ever missed inheriting sin…..Jesus Christ. And that was simply because Joseph, who was descended from Adam, was not His father. The presence of sin is the root cause of racism and bigotry in mankind and will always exist.

A common fallacy today is the assumption that racism and discrimination are the same. Everyone discriminates. I discriminate when choosing what to watch on TV, or what to view as entertainment, or who I want to spend time with. Is that wrong? I explained this one day in a college class I teach. When I got off on the issue of race and prejudice, some of the students, Black and White, began to get uncomfortable. I told the students to take notice at lunch time and watch as students left the campus to go eat at different restaurants in town. My point was that birds of a feather would flock together. Sure enough, some of the guys segregated from the girls and went together, some girls teamed up and went out with one another, and several of the Black students gathered and went out to eat together, as well as our non-traditional students (non-traditional because they are older than the younger college kids and have families) who “discriminated” against all the rest, and grouped together. Did any of these groups discriminate against any of the other groups? No. They made discriminate choices concerning who they wanted to spend time with, but did not discriminate AGAINST anyone. At gatherings, religious and secular, I have seen men gather with men to fellowship, women gather with women, and among the children, boys with boys, girls with girls, rednecks with rednecks, professionals with professionals, but you get the picture. People of similar gender or interests or backgrounds or culture, gravitate to one another. They are not shunning others, just simply choosing their comfort zone. When allowed to choose, humans, as a rule, choose to segregate with their own kind, whether by race, gender, class or socioeconomic level.

Bottom line: Talking about facts of race is not racism. Choice based on race alone is racism. All discrimination is not wrong, and mutual segregation by choice is a normal accepted practice.

Joseph Harris has been a college professor and pastor since 1987 and his writings have appeared on WND, Sword of the Lord, Intellectual Conservative, Conservative Daily News, Land of the Free, and Canada Free Press. [email protected]

Why Herman Had to Go

Herman Cain was the Great Black Hope. At least for me, he was. I had listened to Herman on the radio and called into this show on occasion. The man was a veritable cornucopia of information and his facts were always verifiable.
Many of his callers urged him to run for President as they (and I) felt that a man of his integrity, intelligence and success in the business world was what was necessary to turn the economy of this country around. We felt he would be a leader we could be proud of and the country would look up to for guidance in a world gone mad.
Herman began speaking at Tea Party Rallies around Georgia and then in different states. His popularity grew as he was exposing himself to a national audience. Many new callers were listening to the streaming of his radio show on the net stating that they had heard him at a Tea Party or seen his speech on CSPAN.
After much soul searching and praying, Herman decided to give up his radio show and run for the office of the President of the United States of America! We were so proud of him and we backed him all the way.
Herman started out slow, but his campaign began to reach more and more people, His ability to relate to the man on the street, his humor, his good natured way of coming across to his audience, (without a teleprompter, I might add) were all part of his appeal to down to earth Americans. His solutions to the economic situation were appealing to people who were hurting from Obama’s disastrous economic policies.
Herman started to be heard on conservative radio talk shows. Everyone who interviewed him, liked him and his 999 Plan. Then, he was on the various news programs, resulting in more and more support for Herman in spite of his several faux pas. Several high powered talking heads, like Dick Morris, were bringing his message to the people on the net and on radio and TV.
Herman rose to the top of the polls and someone or several some ones, threw a monkey wrench into the works. Women came forward to accuse Herman of sexual improprieties. The first two actually helped Herman’s campaign as he continued to rise in the polls and his contributions increased. But the last woman, who accused him of an actual sexual affair which she said lasted for 13 years was a campaign killer. Her accusation came at a time when Herman, who had lost support in the polls, once again topped a Rasmussen Poll the week before Thanksgiving.
I’m not going to go into the similarities of these 3 women’s backgrounds. You can do that research yourself since the main stream media won’t tell you what they are, nor will they tell you that there is no proof of these accusations. Herman was in a very bad position and he had divulged that his wife didn’t know about his friendship with this woman or his financial help to her. After talking to his wife, he decided to suspend his campaign. This only means he can continue to collect contributions in order to pay his campaign debts.
Herman will continue to talk, to push The Fair Tax, to promote American Ideals and Ideas across this nation. He’s not going to be silenced IN the political arena. He will thwart the people who started this smear campaign.
In my educated political opinion, there were several reasons those people –decided to attack Herman. One of them is that the Democratic Party cannot have a black man running around America telling black people, or any other person on the Welfare Plantation, that they don’t need the government to support them or to keep them out of the free market system. He will continue to bring thE message that, with perseverance and ambition, anyone can be rich in this country. Obama’s campaign cannot lose even 1% of the black vote and be re-elected. Herman would have taken more than 1% of that vote and he would have taken other votes that Obama is counting on. His color did matter in this election, even if those of us who backed him argued against his color being the reason we supported him. But it only mattered to the Democratic Party who practices the agenda of race baiting.
Herman was the only candidate to hint at the danger of Islam. It indicated that he would not adhere to the philosophy of diversity, which has ruined the cultures of our European ancestors. And he was berated for it and raked over the coals before the issue disappeared. I honestly believe Herman knew the fears the American people have about radical Islam taking over America.
But the most important reason that Herman had to be gotten rid of was his stance on restructuring the tax system. Right now, the Democrat and Republican power structure have American workers under their thumb with a taxation system that is communist inspired. A graduated tax system is expounded upon in The Communist Manifesto, which I have written about in a previous article, http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/08/the-new-enemy-part-ii-marxism/. This draconian taxation system, which is not only theft of a person’s labor but immoral, is part and parcel of the American Income Tax Amendment. The Congress controls your money. It also controls how your money is spent. As we’ve seen, the people in Congress don’t care that we have objections to, not only the tax system itself, but the way our money is spent.
Herman promoted, and will continue to promote, The Fair Tax, his 999 Plan being a stepping stone to the adoption of this system as our national taxation system. You can view the particulars of The Fair Tax at www.fairtax.org.
Herman would have lifted the yoke of taxes based on your hard work and given you a system that allowed you to choose when to be taxed. It would have been an equal tax on every person who bought a new product, whether it be an article of clothing, a car or a new house. In essence, Herman wanted to turn you back into a citizen of the United States instead of continuing to be a subject of the Federal Government and the IRS. By doing that, Herman would have taken the major tool of those that require you to be under their thumb. He would have broken it, discarded it, and thrown it onto the trash pile of bad ideas and Unconstitutional laws. Herman would have freed you, and that is not in the best interests of those who have made Congressional Representation their life’s work.
I say, God Bless you, Herman, keep up the good fight, and maybe others will listen to your message and finally, we can start the long road back to the vision of the Founders of this once great nation.