Jerry Brown: We Have Enough Wealth to Give College Admission to Illegals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKVPxnfHag

October 17, 2010
http://AmericasNewsToday.Com/ Listen to this Obama-Animal... Democratic California Gubernatorial Candidate Jerry Brown: We Have Enough Wealth to Give College Admission to Illegals

"We have enough wealth to continue to have a great university and get every kid into this school that can qualify. Now when I say every young man and young woman, I mean everyone -- whether they are documented or not. If they went to school, they ought to be here." [10-16-10]

Category:
News & Politics

KUHNER: President's socialist takeover must be stopped

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
-
The Washington Times
5:58 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

Yet Obamacare's most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens. Traditionalists - evangelicals, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews - have been made complicit in an abomination that goes against their deepest religious values. As the law is implemented (as in Pennsylvania) the consequences of the abortion provisions will become increasingly apparent. The result will be a cultural civil war. Pro-lifers will become deeply alienated from society; among many, a secession of the heart is taking place.

Mr. Obama is waging a frontal assault on property rights. The BP oil spill is a case in point. BP clearly is responsible for the spill and its massive economic and environmental damage to the Gulf. There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia's Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda. Billions will be dispensed arbitrarily in compensation to oil-spill victims - much of it to Democratic constituents. This is cronyism and creeping authoritarianism.

Mr. Obama's multicultural socialism seeks to eradicate traditional America. He has created a command-and-control health care system. He has essentially nationalized the big banks, the financial sector, the automakers and the student loan industry. He next wants to pass "cap-and-trade," which would bring industry and manufacturing under the heel of big government. The state is intervening in every aspect of American life - beyond its constitutionally delegated bounds. Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper.

To provide the shock troops for his socialist takeover, Mr. Obama calls for "comprehensive immigration reform" - granting amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. This would forge a permanent Democratic electoral majority. It would sound the death knell for our national sovereignty. Amnesty rewards lawlessness and criminal behavior; it signifies the surrender of our porous southern border to a massive illegal invasion. It means the death of American nationhood. We will no longer be a country, but the colony of a global socialist empire.

Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law. He is siding with criminals against his fellow Americans. His actions desecrate his constitutional oath to protect U.S. citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. He is thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. Mr. Obama's decision on this case is treasonous.

As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site. A Justice Department lawyer intimately involved in the case, J. Christian Adams, resigned in protest. Mr. Adams says that under Mr. Obama, there is a new policy: Cases involving black defendants and white victims - no matter how much they cry for justice - are not to be prosecuted. This is more than institutionalized racism. It is an abrogation of civil rights laws. The Justice Department's behavior is illegal. It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process.

Corruption in the administration is rampant. Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime. The Chicago way has become the Washington way. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a political hit man. He is an amoral, ruthless operator. It was Mr. Emanuel who reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter. It was Mr. Emanuel who offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. And it was Mr. Emanuel - as the trial of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has revealed - who acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. The only question was: What did Mr. Blagojevich want in exchange?

This is not simply sleazy Chicago machine politics. It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power.

The common misperception on the right is that Mr. Obama is another Jimmy Carter: an incompetent liberal whose presidency is being reduced to rubble under the onslaught of repeated failures. The very opposite, however, is true. He is the most consequential president in our lifetime, transforming America into something our Founding Fathers would find not only unrecognizable, but repugnant. Like all radical revolutionaries, he is consumed by the pursuit of power - attaining it, wielding it and maximizing it. Mr. Obama's fledgling thug state must be stopped.

If Republicans win back Congress in November, they should - and likely will - launch formal investigations into this criminal, scandal-ridden administration. Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has promised as much. Mr. Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com ) from 5 to 7 p.m.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

November 2 -- America's push-back. Last chance

October 21, 2010

By Wes VernonIn nation after nation, voters for decades have given charismatic Marxists the green light at the ballot-box. In each case, there were glowing promises of a better life — with government "activism" to solve all the problems or "transform" the nation from its allegedly bad old ways.

In nation after nation, once a transfixed majority handed the keys of power to the Pied-Piper of the moment, the hero figuratively abandoned his smiley mask and made Marxist moves intended to lock in his power for life.

Modern-day examples include Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (who so far has succeeded) and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras (who failed, but remember these guys never give up. Please note Daniel Ortega, Sandinista boss in Nicaragua).

Back in the USA

Here at home, we have the proverbial, almost scripted "emperor with no clothes.

"The smiley-faced resonant-voiced savior translated his adoring crowds into votes. It did not take him long to reach for power over the car companies and the banks, and through his appointees, he has set in motion efforts that would ultimately end or curtail your freedom of speech, as well as your freedoms with such lifestyle issues as what to eat, how to set your thermostat, what you should be allowed to drive, and your right to contribute to the candidates of your choice.

What we can do

This president — who runs this country with a chip on his shoulder that barely disguises his contempt for American traditions and values — is in political trouble. Good. We should keep him there.

Our immediate contribution toward that result is to outline some of the choices the voters have in this mid-term election.

California

There is no higher priority for America this election cycle than to defeat Senator Barbara Boxer (arguably the Senate jester) and replace her with the smart, articulate, and personable Carly Fiorina. For details, see this column posted last Monday "Barbara Boxer: incompetent, divisive, failed senator," 10/18/10.

(Carlyforca.com — Carly for California, Inc., 915 L Street, suite C-378 Sacramento, Calif. 95814, Ph. 877-664-6676)

Nevada

We said there is no higher priority than defeating Boxer. Notice we left room for a defeat that is equally important. Hot on the heels of Boxer in the clown contest is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. His gaffes include such prize-winners as that the U.S. has "a voluntary tax system," "Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today...which is really good," "This war [in Iraq] is lost," "Coal makes us sick," and "670,000...700,000 jobs lost. So we've made great progress.

"Reviews from most observers are that Reid's opponent — former state legislator Sharron Angle — mopped the floor with him in the Las Vegas debate. A columnist for the liberal New Republic summed it up, "Reid my lips. Last night was a disaster."

Angle scored a knockout punch when Reid attempted to demagogue Angle on her proposal to offer Social Security recipients under the age of 55 the option (not the requirement) of choosing alternatives to the current plan. (No change for those above that age or are already retired).

It was then that Angle shot back, "Man up, Harry Reid, you need to understand that we have a problem with Social Security." That challenge — reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's "There you go again" — was followed by the 61-year-old grandmother's scathing indictment of Reid's raid of the Social Security Trust Fund during his 24 years in the Senate. Noting Reid had racked up about one million dollars in a federal Thrift Savings Plan, Angle added for good measure, "If it's good enough for Harry Reid, it should be good enough for the rest of us."

Angle has fought for Nevada taxpayers in the legislature and in the courts — and won. She would be a fine senator.

(Friends of Sharron Angle — PO Box 33058, Reno, Nev.89533...sharronangle.com — 2 Rs in Sharron. Ph. 775-787-6017 Reno or 702-243-1976 Las Vegas)

Pennsylvania

Meanwhile in the east, Congressman Pat Toomey, a former House member, is contesting for the open U.S. Senate seat.

Toomey's opponent is Congressman Joe Sestak — good buddy of Bill Clinton's. In 2006, this column covered Sestak's race as he smeared his way into the House (not in Toomey's district; the latter gave up his safe House seat to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2004 GOP primary — the outgoing congressman's effort to dislodge the long-time incumbent fell short by an ultra-slim margin).

On Wednesday of this week, Toomey struck back at Sestak's Reidlike attacks on the Social Security issue.

Like Angle, he too believes in reform of Social Security without interfering with the commitment made to those who are retired or near retirement. Sestak's only idea of entitlement of reform, charged Toomey, is to raise taxes and cut benefits.

(toomeyforsenate.com — 3440 Hamilton Blvd. Allentown, Pa. 18103...(484) 809-7994)

Utah

The Social Security issue resonates in Utah, where the tradition of helping each other was illustrated during the Great Depression when descendents of the state's pioneers organized their own (church-run) welfare program.

The Republicans' U.S. Senate candidate is Mike Lee — who defeated incumbent Robert Bennett at the state's GOP convention (and about which this column reported to you last June), and went on to defeat a primary opponent. (See this column last June when all of this was spotlighted, as were Lee's qualifications.)

Mr. Lee — deservedly a Tea Party favorite and also backed by Senator Jim DeMint's conservative PAC — scores the current business-as-usual attitude on entitlements, including Social Security. To allow $50 trillion (that's trillion with a "tr") to pile up in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid indebtedness "is irresponsible," he says, while adding that current beneficiaries "must be held harmless."

Among Lee's issues are to end deficit spending, strengthen national security, reform the tax system, reduce government regulations, end the era of the lifetime politician, enforce existing immigration laws, and invest in technology, personnel, and physical infrastructure to secure the southern border. And those are just for starters.

Lee's Democrat opponent is a deli owner named Sam Grenato, who from all reports is a likeable guy. So was Harry Reid when he first ran. Some "likeable guys" have been known to do strange unlikeable things when they get to Washington.

Grenato's small business background did not distract the National Federation of Independent Business, which enthusiastically endorsed Mike Lee. The nonpartisan NFIB — founded in 1943 — declared, "Our small business membership in Utah knows that Mike will champion policies that will help small businesses do what they do best: create jobs and grow the economy.

"My friends and relatives in Utah assure me that Mike Lee is a shoo-in. Maybe, but I don't trust these "sure things." No student of "President Dewey" (that's Thomas E., whose presidential aspirations were upended by President Harry Truman in 1948) takes anything for granted. Mike Lee's campaign is doing well, but sometimes surprises can sneak up in the final days of the effort. Lee deserves your support.

(Friends of Mike Lee, 38 East Redpine Drive, Alpine, Utah 84004. mikelee2010.com)© Wes Vernon

Barack's Collapse Exposes the Profound Failure of Liberalism

Barack's Collapse Exposes the Profound Failure of Liberalism
Give Obama a Pat on the Back—of Butter—He’s Toast By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, October 24, 2010

Obama has utterly failed. He launched an entire presidency upon a tissue of lies, excuses, ignorance and a prickly cult of self-worship. But this proved so unstable it gave way beneath him mere weeks into his tenure. Now he free-falls into oblivion. Future historians might craft “theories”—obscuring his incompetence, blaming it onto outside forces or resolute foes. But those who witnessed his malfeasance know better.

google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
What was Barack’s biggest mistake? Laying all his chips on the table to bet on Liberalism. He was either too untutored to know socialism always fails; too cagey in craftily sabotaging Capitalism; not mentally fit for the task, or too indifferent to care. Take your pick. Since all of Oabama’s possible strategies would still lead to utter failure, it doesn’t much matter. He’s an anti-Reagan in almost every way possible to imagine.

Barack willed himself onto the shipwreck rocks, perhaps goaded by self-loathing animated by the secret knowledge he lacks any training or inclination for leadership. But wouldn’t any Marxist worth his salt agree Capitalism must be torn down and burnt to cinders before communism can rise on its ash?

But what is Liberalism and why did it fail Obama?

I. What is Liberalism?

There are two general movements in human history named “liberalism”—one beginning in the Reformation, the other, a modern pretender. We must always remember those of a general modern “Conservative” and “Libertarian” bent, hail back to the age of Classical Liberalism. Modern “liberalism” is actually a highly deceptive code word for socialism and leftism, and is not concerned with liberty, but redistribution of wealth and the control of the masses.

A. Real Liberalism, “Classical Liberalism,” aka Liberty
Real “Liberalism” starts back with the Reformation, when Martin Luther began the revolution which challenged the Church over the basis of salvation. When the Church did not back down on Luther’s demands, the protesters tore the Church asunder. Eventually, the battle became one for control over human decision making in all spheres of life. The rallying cry for Luther and his supporters became “Freedom!”, according to John Witte in Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation.

As Ralph Raico wrote,

Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals.

The demand for freedom to make decisions, outside of any human institution, is really the root of “Liberalism,” whose root word is “Liberty.” As the Reformation took on strength, new standards were established which eventually resulted in freedom being carved out in the areas of religion, economics, government, education, the arts, and science. Ultimately, both Protestantism and Catholicism helped craft a new vision, which writer Amy H. Sturgis describes in The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism: “The Reformation divided Christian teaching, leaving individualism in the hands of Protestantism via the “priesthood of the believer” doctrine and natural law theory to Catholicism ” The end result was creation of the modern world.

One writer describes original, or Classical Liberalism,

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government…Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty.

B. Faux Liberalism: Chains of Bondage
Hundreds of years after classical liberalism emerged, and then found a high point in the works of John Locke, and others, socialism was picking up steam. Socialist and communist writers had long struggled with making their ideas more palatable to the average person. According to Doug Rossinow, in Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America, a strategic connection between leftists and liberals resulted in what we now refer to as modern American liberalism. Rossinow describes this as “political zone where liberalism and radicalism overlapped.” This ultimately led to a misleading change of name, morphing from socialism, communism, or Marxism to “liberalism” created a lasting misconception. The confusion was understandable and continues to this day, comparable to re-branding the Atkins diet as “Veganism.” One writer describes the transition,

Most modern “liberals” as opposed to Classical Liberals are, in the end, merely soft-core fascists. The modern liberal agenda is to gain control of the institutional hierarchy of the state and then to use that power to implement their notions of what a just and humane society entails as they see it. How well has that worked out? Are today’s modern liberal democracies principally concerned with collective liberty, individual rights, the rule of law, and respect for property? Not really…

II. Modern Liberalism is Based Upon Untruths

We owe a great debt to Obama. Mostly for his willingness to recklessly follow socialistic liberalism to its logical conclusion, which is utter failure. Does Obama realize he’s been “punked”? That he’s been made to play the fool to move the ball further down the left side of the field? Does he even care? It doesn’t matter any longer as Obama will soon be stripped of his lieutenants in the House and Senate. Then let the blaming begin.

The fact that what is called “modern liberalism” is actually composed of socialist or Marxist ideas in stealth mode is all one needs to know in terms of the transparency of current leftists. But if ever an ideology were misnamed, “modern liberalism” must be it. First, there is nothing “modern” about current leftism, as the ideas were hatched around the French Revolution, and have not changed much since. More unsettling, there is nary a sentiment treasuring liberty, ie freedom, in the entire plank of the modern liberal agenda.

A. Consider These Leftist failures:
Family: Modern liberalism teaches the family is an artificial construct that has no profound meaning. For instance, a single mother is every bit as much of a complete family as a married mother and father. Further, a gay couple have every right to create a family, even if the children must be contracted out. We simply assume that all our decisions must be honored by nature or the gods, and cannot have bad outcomes. Yet the result has been a society that seems to have given up on the idea of romantic love, and treats all sexual topics in a transactional instead of a relational manner. Obama’s love of his daughters is canceled out by his bloody fight for all abortions, even partial-birth abortion. Liberalism is anti-life.

Education: Modern liberal ideas about education, focus upon the misbegotten ideas of John Dewey, an original signator of the Humanist Manifesto. Dewey was at minimum a radical atheist humanist, but many scholars believe he was a Marxist, as well. Dewey’s education method was based upon experiential instruction that eschewed the classics and sought to prepare youngsters for a trade or some other skill. In doing this he destroyed the world’s greatest public education system and replaced it with what we see today, a method resulting in Johnny not being able to think. Yet, this fits the Marxist world-view where the few elites rule the ignorant masses with an iron hand. But Obama agrees with Dewey, a fellow Pragmatist.

Immigration: Modern liberal immigration is premised upon the notion that the world is a giant country, and therefore all people who want to get into America are already its citizens. While this might seem insane, it is a crafty policy for those who would make these untutored foreigners instant citizens capable of voting the day they cross the border. But it goads illegals to jump the border, creating a permanent problem because all of these people have been rightly led to believe they might hit the lotto and receive instant citizenship. Barack won’t even increase border security for fear of offending Latinos, despite constant danger.

Economics: Modern liberal economics is based upon the idea that capitalism is a theft where the rich steal from the poor. And since there is no God, and only one life to find justice in, we must break down the wealth of the rich factory owners/millionaires/billionaires and give it back to the poor, from whom it was stolen. This simple, antagonistic, class-warfare Marxism, disproved a thousand times and killed dead as a duck, is yet back from the grave for another regime. Obama’s nearly $1 trillion Stimulus is a classic example of failed policy that made the situation worse than doing nothing at all.

Foreign Policy: Modern liberal foreign policy is premised upon the idea that if the stronger nations lay down their arms and kneel at the feet of the weak, they will be blessed for their love and mercy. Then peace will reign across the earth. Of course, appeasement has always egged bullies on, as Chamberlain could explain after Germany attacked Poland despite Hitler’s assurances. Obama seems to think that because he considers himself a “nice guy,” so will everyone else, and this will create good foreign relations. It hasn’t.

Taxation & Spending: Modern tax and spend liberalism is premised upon the notion that the more a society spends, the better place it will be. Instead, there is no causal relationship in taxing and spending for the good life, but an unfortunate negative relationship. In other words, after servicing basic needs, every dollar a society takes from its private citizens and spends for the public larder, the quality of life diminishes. Now America is about to experiment with the Obama’s giant tax hike, during a recession of epic dimensions. Now America enters a death spiral of ever increasing deficits, once interest is added.

Welfare: The modern liberal welfare state assumes that people who are in bad situations are there for no fault of their own, and must therefore be helped. Instead, outside of supporting the literally worst off—being handicapped, widowed and orphaned—all support for the indolent causes the numbers of poor to rise since they are being rewarded. What gets fertilized, grows. And now the medical system has been co-opted into the welfare state, and Americans are furious at Obama’s deafness on the issue, with 55% wanting it repealed.

Church & State: Modern liberal theory presumes that religion is a negative, as Marx taught, so must be pushed to the side. A wall must be built between church and state. The net result is that public policy is no longer infused with the West’s spirit of Christianity but, instead, increasingly becomes informed by humanism, secularism and atheism. The net result is moral impoverishment. In the meantime, Obama—when he is not slamming the church and Christianity, is doing what he can to encourage Islam.

Energy Policy: The earth is treated as a living being and mankind’s activities akin to a deadly attack against it. What is strange is how, even when Global Warming is exposed as a hoax, Obama ignores this, and insists Cap’n Tax, which only exists formally to fight Global Warming, must still be passed.

American Exceptionalism: Modern liberalism teaches there is no such thing as American Exceptionalism. Instead, there is only each state’s self-interest, according to Obama. Therefore, to help the globe, we must break down America and its delusions about being better than any other place. Many have detected a great anger in Obama towards America, which explains him saying, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

III. Why Liberalism Always Fails

Given modern liberalism’s presumptions, there are a few unavoidable facts that dictate socialism and Marxism must always fail.

A. Ignoring Human Nature
Human beings have a “human nature,” which according to Bible believers is largely resultant of being made in God’s image. Human nature was also noted by pagan classical writers, such as the Greeks and Romans. It is simple human nature to seek rewards for doing well, and the opposite for those who fail. But in the modern liberal mindset, where religion is dismissed as a fantasy for the dense, people are seen resembling robots.

Under socialist systems, its assumed everyone will work and be willing to share with others, even the lazy and indifferent. But, this never works. Yet, instead of adapting their socialist system to the realities of how people decision make and what motivates them, the typical communist tyrant rolls up his sleeves and begins to kill people who resist him. After awhile, killing people becomes an end in itself, as under Stalin.

B. Pretending ParasitesMake for A Strong Economy
Another huge shortcoming in modern liberal, aka socialist, theories is the belief an economy can absorb any number of free riders and still be functional. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people are on state aid and not working, because the industrious can always take up the slack. But when people realize they are not rewarded for their diligence, and further—that others who refuse to work will gain, motivation collapses.

C. No Belief in Right or Wrong
It is a truism that there is no right or wrong in a socialist or Marxist system, because there is no God to lay down the law, says T. B. Bottomore in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. This is a well-known problem within socialist circles which is routinely swept under the rug. But how can one claim that the greatest good is wealth-redistribution when there is no greatest good, by definition? A main reason hundreds of millions of people were liquidated in communist states in the 20th century is that the church was made defunct and Marx disputed the Ten Commandments. So there was no longer a set of over arching rules to block evil.

D. Lack of Scientific, Logical or Historic Rigor
It’s possible the ultimate problem with modern liberals is they have no mental rigor when approaching problem solving. So often policies are instituted which are either not tested, patently ill-advised or, worse—already attempted and failed. For example, socialism always debases an economy because of the problem of ignoring human nature, meaning the free riders destroy incentive for the entire group. Interestingly, according to Eric Voegelin, one can see the entire liberal world-view as an insane attempt to get rid of God and save mankind by the deeds of enlightened men, as first envisioned by Joachim of Floris done by his Dux e Babylon, ie the Duke of Babylon. The Duke was meant to build paradise on earth and wipe away every tear, while he was at it, while boldly abandoning all thought of a Creator/Redeemer.

IV. What Can We Do to Avoid Future Obamas?

America will be lucky if we can regain our feet after the Obama disaster. He’s either clueless, the best friend Marxists ever had, or both. But what can be done to avoid another Barack? In a word—education. We need to return to our roots and re-school ourselves on American history, from the Founders forward. This is the only way to avoid another illiterate leftist demagogue, like Barack. And we also need to retain to a society of virtues, by cultivating them in ourselves and family, and encouraging our friends in the same manner. This is the only way a democratic republic can avoid becoming a police state.

Based upon the fact that the American Founders built a lasting society, creating the fairest, most prosperous state ever conceived, we ought to move back to their ideals. And also not forget that the first settlers here came for religious freedom so they would have opportunity to practice Christianity, not treat it as a intellectual laughingstock and the Church as a modern-day leper colony.

(An essay that could get people thinking about the Founder’s ideas, based upon the negative rights found in the Constitution, and Obama’s positive rights of redistribution of wealth—can be discovered in Isaiah Berlin’s seminal essay, Two Concepts of Liberty.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kelly O'Connell Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.
Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com

The Five Stages of Liberal Grief for Obama

Reality of Obama's failure
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, October 21, 2010

There are five stages in the grieving process from Denial to Acceptance. American liberals are now moving through their own five stages of dealing with the decline and fall of the myth of Obama. The last time they had invested this much in a politician was the Kennedy Administration, yet there is no assassin’s bullet to explain the fall of Camelot for them here. Instead they have to come to terms with the reality of Obama’s failure.


And this is what their five stages look like.

1. Denial
Obama is the Messiah. He is perfect and can do no wrong. He will usher in a new era, make conservatives and Republicans irrelevant, and assemble the unstoppable machinery of a socialist state that will care for everyone. Progressive legislation will be instantly passed and implemented without delay. The Iraq War will just vanish. All the other wars will too. The world will love Obama, and so will America. The oceans will stop rising and even the most radical anti-war activists will learn to love their country again.

2. Anger
The damn wingnuts are obstructing Obama! Why do we even allow opposition parties? They’re all violent and dangerous bigots. We should put them in jail before they do something. The whole teabagging movement is a bunch of fat Wal-Mart shoppers funded by a vast right wing conspiracy! We are going to roll right over them and nothing is going to stop us! Under Obama’s leadership we’re going to smash the right. We’re going to pass laws, send Limbaugh to jail or give him a heart attack! See Rachel Maddow’s latest tweet. Olbermann is right. We have to take the fight to them! Under Obama’s leadership, we’ll win!!!

3. Bargaining
Obama is a bit weak, but when he sees we’re behind him, that will change. Okay so we might lose some Senate seats. The public is stupid. They don’t appreciate Obama. He’s just too good for America. They keep talking about jobs, when Obama is giving them green jobs, which are much better than regular jobs, because the planet likes them better. A single green job is worth a 1000 of their stupid old redneck jobs. But the natives just don’t get it. So we’ll lose some congressmen. Most of the ones we’ll lose are conservative Democrats anyway. We don’t need them. The party will be purified. Of course we’ll probably have to make some bipartisan coalitions with liberal Republicans, but the important thing is we’re still moving forward.

4. Depression
Where did we go wrong? Obama was a great candidate, but now he’s letting the right wing walk all over him. He couldn’t get much done even with a supermajority. And it’s going to be even worse now. The war is dragging on, the economy is terrible and everyone hates us! Why can’t Obama do what Olbermann and Paul Krugman are telling him to do? The netroots raised all that money for him, and now he’s just ignoring us. Are all politicians just liars and crooks who work for the military-industrial complex? Is there no hope even for a half-black man who references Jimmy Hendrix? Are we just doomed to be slaves in the belly of a vast corporation, like the one my dad wanted to me to work for, even though I kept telling him that my degree is in Media Philosophy?

5. Acceptance
Obama lied to me. He lied to all of us. He didn’t really care about any of the things, he said he cared about. I just feel so used. We’ll never get any real reform in this country because everything is in the hands of the big corporations. Maybe Hillary would have been better? Or what about John Edwards, he had great hair and solid progressive credentials, and then we dumped him for a half-black man who kept telling us everything would be alright if we just believed in him. John, come back! We still love you. I don’t care how many illegitimate babies you made! Oh to hell with this. I hate politics. I’m erasing my DailyKos diary and going backpacking in the Andes.

Coming out of a cocoon of propaganda isn’t easy. And those most affected by it are not the rank and file, who have enough contact with the real world to figure out that things are going south, long before the loyalist cadres do. The average Russian knew the Soviet Union was impoverished long before the mid-level party members who thought that things were great, because their lifestyle was above that of the average worker. The average German soldier knew the war was lost, because his battalion kept retreating. All the while the Nazi elite were still listening to Hitler promise that the war would be won with superweapons.

Leader-worship is one of the more devastating propaganda cocoons because it teaches faith in a man, raising him up to a superhuman stature. Just believe is the message. Bypass the rational parts of the brain and let the madness of the crowd make you feel uplifted. Experience the sense that history is being by you in this moment. Stop thinking and start worshiping.

But once people stop thinking, it becomes very hard to start again. Reason is a choice. Entire cultures remain hopelessly backward because they devalue thinking. Because of that they cannot do something as simple as recognize contradictory information. If you tell them two mutually incompatible facts, they will not recognize them as such. America has not gotten that bad just yet, but it’s no thanks to the people on top, who would very much like to see all Americans reduced to that intellectually vegetative state.

That is why politicians strive to convince people to believe in them, rather than to listen to them. Ideas and arguments can be rebutted, but there is no rebuttal to faith. The great trick of charismatic figures, real or unreal, is to bypass minds and go directly for souls. Rather than winning the battle of ideas, they convince their listeners to emotionally invest in them, in order to form a relationship with them. And once there is an emotional investment in a politician, contradictory information will be emotionally repulsed, rather than rationally debated.

Obama’s success lay in convincing people to make that identification. And an emotional identification can only be broken through an emotional reaction. Which of course leads to feelings of betrayal, anger and guilt. Naturally his best successes were with lonely and emotionally vulnerable groups, twenty-somethings lacking stable bonds and single women. Functioning in the role of a celebrity, he created a parasitic “I’m in the spotlight, and you’re out there supporting me” bond with his followers. Such bonds are not results oriented, but exist so long as they fulfill the emotional needs of the followers. A sense of betrayal kicks in when the followers sense that the man in the spotlight no longer stands for the things that made them want to identify with him. He has betrayed them. And they wonder if he was ever really true to them.

This false faith substitute generates a great deal of emotional intensity and wilful blindness. It is of course also doomed. Because people are only human. And making a man into an icon means that a wake up call will come sooner or later.

The media, the most visible element of the left, is still struggling to reconcile the fact of Obama’s failure, with their image of him. So they are forced to argue that Obama did not fail America, but rather that America failed Obama. That the idol is still unbroken, but that we did not live up to his standards. We were too ignorant, too unfaithful and weak-willed. The Fuhrer did not fail Germany, Germany failed the Fuhrer. It’s an old narrative which shows just how far people will go to avoid dealing with reality. They will toss aside the country, rather than the man. Even though they only supported the man because he promised to save the country. But the politician who demands that loyalty be transferred from the country to himself personally, is using his egomania to destroy the very values he claims to be working in defense of. That is the sort of man whose wife would say that she was never proud of the country, until her husband’s own personal success.

Blinded by the light from Chicago, the media went into what history will describe, as the largest and most comprehensive propaganda campaign in America on behalf of a single man. And still blinded by the glare of that light, they cannot understand why what worked in Chicago does not work in Washington D.C.

Libs Hate God And Tradition

Libs Hate God And Tradition?
Posted: Oct 20, 2010 9:40 AM PDT
Updated: Oct 20, 2010 2:13 PM PDT
760 KFMB AM Talk Radio
Tea Partiers: They're called cultists. Nazis. Racists.

The blitzkrieg of name-calling won't stop. They're called ignorant. Rednecks. Hate-mongers.

What an example of classic projection from the left...and it doesn't just come from pundits. This kind of spite and vitriol comes from elected officials; from state senators to the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States.

What happened to decorum?

We know there are plenty of those on our side who can be just as vitriolic...but it is an anomaly. There's a reason the libtards dispatched plants with ignorant talking points and Nazi/racist signs to the highly-publicized tea parties.

The nastiness on the left is not the exception, it's the RULE!

Take, for instance, Barack Obama's Christianity front. He is so damn quick to omit God from, like, everything. From THE BLAZE: Posted on October 19, 2010 at 6:27pm by Meredith Jessup
Faith - Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence

During a speech Monday, President Barack Obama [for a third time] omitted the Declaration of Independence‘s mention of man's "Creator" as the source of his "unalienable rights." While delivering remarks at a dinner fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in Rockville, Md., President Obama spoke about what he called the "essence" of the upcoming midterm election:

"As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Inalienable rights? Inalienable rights FROM WHO? The magic universe wizard?!

Liberals can't stand Christianity. They can't stand facts. They can't stand tradition. They can't stand history. These things get in the way of their agenda of government acting as a god. So instead, they sling mud.

Of course you can sling mud only so far... Hence the reason they can't fulfill a successful talk radio show. Bumper sticker slogans take up only so much air time, afterall...

It's also no wonder liberals can't stand the Tea Party Movement; it really is quite representative of America's general population... Most of whom are - (gasp) - white, Christian, and, regardless of their political persuasion... conservative at heart.

Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence

Obama omits 'Creator' again...


October 20, 2010 - 14:48 ET


GLENN: First of all, in this debate with Coons and O'Donnell, you have the evolution coming up again. Why is evolution coming up? It is critical. First of all, they're trying to paint her as a crazy Christian

PAT: Witch.

GLENN: Christian.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Who's going to jam everything down your throat in a Wiccan sort of way as a Christian. And so they are trying to make her look crazy. But more importantly, you have to understand why evolution is so important. And we just explained that for a second. But you remember if God didn't create, if things evolved, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator. It's interesting. You're not endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights because your rights evolve. Just like you go from a monkey to a man, you go from simple rights to higher rights, and somebody has to take those rights and give them to you and take them away or change them. This is again the evolutionary thinking of progressivism. President Obama just gave yet another speech.

PAT: And in it once again he omitted the word Creator from

GLENN: How many times, America, is this man going to talk about collective salvation, which is "I've got to save all the half monkey people or I don't get saved." It is, it is an affront to Christianity. And when I say Christianity, I know there are people like Jim Wallis, you know, who vehemently disagree. I know there are Marxists out there that believe in the liberation theology which is, again, collective salvation. I get that. And I know there are a lot of Christians out there that don't think I'm a Christian because I'm a Mormon. I testify to you now that Jesus Christ is my savior and He saved me. The only reason why I am alive today is because of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Period. So let's move on.

Here's what you need to understand. There is a difference in the idea of Christianity and how we all practice but not of the salvation and atonement of Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian, Jesus Christ is the savior. Through him your sins are washed away. He has the only power to save. Only Jesus Christ.

PAT: Well, what about collectively? Like if my salvation is tied into your salvation. So

GLENN: I don't know why you have to do this.

PAT: Say then that's the only way. If you're saved, then I can be saved.

GLENN: So it is an affront to Christianity. It is the antithesis, right? The exact opposite of what is preached, or supposed to be preached by Christians. That is the Gospel. Not the social gospel, not, you know, the new social justice that's the Gospel gospel, period. And if you want to change it, well, then just say "I'm changing it." But they don't ever do that. They let it evolve, slowly. Again, evolution. Now, what is the president saying in the speeches? How many times does he have to omit the word "Creator" in our Declaration of Independence? And then brush it off like it's not important? It is gigantic.

PAT: He's done it at least three times including this one.



http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdSU4zuzqG

PRESIDENT OBAMA: These truths to be self evident that all men are created equal...

GLENN: Pause, pause, pause.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Endowed with certain inalienable rights.

PAT: There it is. Endowed.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Life and liberty.

GLENN: Endowed by who?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Pursuit of happiness.

GLENN: Endowed by whom?

PAT: Well, it got the notice of Les Kinsolving who is a White House correspondent and he asked Gibbs about it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ-ovHVG4TU

KINSOLVING: questions. Twice in recent weeks the president has quoted on the Declaration

VOICE: It's been four times now.

PAT: It's four now.

GLENN: It's four.

REPORTER: Has omitted the declaration's reference to rights, quote, endowed by their Creator. Why did he omit this part of the declaration?

GIBBS: I haven't seen the comments, Lester, but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.

PAT: Again that wasn't the question.

GLENN: That's not the question. And, of course, he believes in the Declaration of Independence? Why would you say "Of course"? Woodrow Wilson didn't believe in the Declaration of Independence. Progressives don't believe in the Declaration of Independence! They believe it exists, they believe it was written, but in their honest moments, which you can find very few of them, will they tell you anything but this: "Declaration of Independence is an old document. It relates to the things that were going on in 1775 and 76, and there's very little we can take from it. It's not an official document, it has nothing to do with our law. It was a severance from a king, and it's really the the beginning of it is really not applicable to today, and the rest of it is just a list of demands."

Read the words of Woodrow Wilson and take it from there. Start there. And then look at all of the progressives and what they actually say about the Declaration of Independence. It is a document that they can quote but they don't believe it has any relevance at all. My gosh, they don't even think the Constitution has any relevance! And that one they know as real relevance. They know they've got to go to the Constitution, but they dismiss the Constitution. "Well, the Constitution is wrong. Well, that's just an old dusty document." Why would the Declaration of Independence have any meaning to them? It doesn't! It doesn't. And this is where one of the fundamental splits is in America. This is why there are two Americas right now. Because half of America has been taught that it doesn't really matter, it's all evolving, it's all breathing, we are evolving!

The other half of America was taught reverence. They were taught respect. They were taught that these words were sacred. That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. But those were sacred words! That's the essence of who we are. No. The "Creator" was put there for a reason. Why? If you want to just look at it as a stupid document that was just, oh, it's just 200 years old, it was some OT or something, I don't even know what it was about. You look at it as historic document. Why did they use the word "Creator" there? Why? Because it gave power to the individual to sever themselves from an oppressive government. The government's argument was, "You can't do that. You don't have any right to do that. We're the government. We're the king. You can't sever yourself from it. You are his subject." No. We are subjects of only one king. God is our king. Once you cut God out of it, you become a subject again.

Did you learn that in school? Better yet, are your kids learning that in school? Everybody tries to make it, "Well, look at what a ridiculous, what a stupid who cares if he said Creator." Who cares if he says Creator? First of all, every American should care for a couple of reasons. What was Franklin's definition of the American religion? Oh, yeah, that there is a God, we'll meet Him, he gets kind of testy sometimes, you should serve Him, and the best way to serve Him is to serve your fellow man. Let's concentrate on the whole "He gets testy sometimes." Can we be on the side of God, please? Can we recognize Him in our society? Can we recognize divine providence? If we don't, we shall perish. Period.

The Grey-Haired Brigade

"The Grey-Haired Brigade


They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers,
and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are "baby boomers” getting ready
to retire. Others have been retired for some time. We walk a little
slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were.
We have worked hard, raised our children, worshipped our God and grown old
together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill and
that is probably true.


But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to
be taken into consideration. In school we studied English, history, math,
and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age.
Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand
experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent
gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you
who don't know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to
as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank.
Yes, we lived those days.


We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there
are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We
won World War II and fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote the pledge
of allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore
the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the
battlefield. We didn't fight for the Socialist States of America, we fought
for the "land of the free and home of the brave.” We wore different
uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the Star Spangle
Banner, and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see
some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of
you have only read about in history books and we feel no obligation to
apologize to anyone for America.


Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one
good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died
for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is
going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There
are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders,
there is no way we are going to remain silent.


It was the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the
Democratic congress. You fell for the "Hope and change” which in reality
was nothing but "Hype and lies.” You have tasted socialism and seen evil
face to face, and have found you don't like it after all.


You make a lot of noise but most are all too interested in their careers
or "Climbing the social ladder” to be involved in such mundane things as
patriotism and voting.


Many of those who fell for the "great lie” in 2008 are now having buyer's
remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn't have sense enough
to see through the lies and instead drank the kool-aid. Now you're paying
the price and complaining about it.


No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is what you
voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of
Liberty and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.


Well, don't worry youngsters, the Grey Haired Brigade is here, and in less than
a month we are going to take back our nation. We may drive a little slower
than you would like but we get where we're going, and in November we're
going to the polls by the millions. This land does not belong to the man
in the White House or to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It belongs to
"We the People,” and "We the People” plan to reclaim our land and our
freedom. We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and
passing it along to our grandchildren.


So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance,
stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God
for the old geezers of the Grey-Haired Brigade.”


Author : Unknown

Muslims Confront Pope Benedict XVI - Saturday 18 September Demonstration in London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awSd-Pno1rY

The slaves of Allah confront the slave of Satan - Pope Benedict XVI at a demonstration in London. Saturday 18 September 2010.

This is almost impossible to believe

Non-Believers Under Muslim Law

Jews and Christians, called dhimmis

By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, October 3, 2010

Non-Believers Under Muslim Law

Discussed in this essay are the laws and status of those persons in Islamic lands who are not Muslims. This group is mainly composed of Jews and Christians, called dhimmis. What is important about this topic is it communicates better than any other method the true historic beliefs of Muslims towards Westerners. Therefore, it indicates how a good Muslim should view a non-believer, especially if they ever achieve control of a formerly non-Islamic state, like America.
The problem in Muslim lands for dhimmis (protected non-Muslims) is summed up by Patrick Sookhdeo, in Freedom To Believe, where he explains that most Muslim countries have dual justice systems with Western civil courts, and also Muslim Shari’ah (Islamic Law) courts. Most of these countries have signed various world human rights agreements. So how do these Islamic states get away with categorizing Muslim and non-Muslim with different status in the Muslim courts? By subverting these agreements under the Shari’ah, according to Sookhdeo.

Every Islamic country has different application of Shari’ah law. Further, modernity has made great inroads against regimes attempting to use primitive Muslim law. But enough Shari’ah remains in various countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to cause concern. Also, bear in mind America’s worst Muslim enemies call for pure Shari’ah. But the main lesson to take from this study is how Muslims see unbelievers and how they choose to treat them when no one is looking. This alone should help us better understand people like the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his secret aspirations.

I. World View of Islam

Islam is a survivor of the crucible of war. Muhammad’s society was quite warlike, and this ethos is fixed within the Islamic religion and societal norms. Thus we have the doctrine of jihad, which has been historically tied to battling the unbelieving world (jihad is best translated as “battle,” revealing the word can both mean “holy war” and “to struggle against” without any contradiction).

Also, strong is the Bedouin tribal ethos in the Arab mind to this day, according to Raphael Patai, in The Arab Mind. And the Islamic worldview is steeped in religion in a way Westerners cannot fathom, but the religion itself is bent on subjugation of each individual in the society, not mere conversion. This is why the very term Islam means submission.

A. House of War v. House of God

Muslims believe that the world is composed of two entities—Non-believers in the House of War; and Muslims in the House of Allah. One website writes:

Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual conflict: The House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where Islamic law (Sharia) is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al- Harb) comprises the rest of the world. The House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former.

B. Jihad: War as Mission

Jihad means to struggle or battle. While many Muslims and Western liberals insist the term is used primarily in a non-violent sense, this is misleading. The world view of Islam is based upon an us-versus-them model. Islam is doctrinally in a state of perpetual war against non-Muslims, even when a truce has been signed. This constant state of war-readiness of Islam is a key to understand their view of the world. Daniel Pipes explains:

Jihad is “holy war.” Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That’s how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632. It’s how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

C: Muslims in Foreign Climes

One of the great questions in the history of Islam is whether a Muslim living in non-Islamic lands must still follow all the dictates of the Shari’ah. Writes Michael Mumisa, in Islamic Law, Theory & Application,

While a non-Muslim under the protection of an Islamic government [dhimmi] is expected to obey all the laws of the Islamic state, is a Muslim under the protection of a non-Muslim state expected to obey all the laws of the host country most of which conflict with the Shari’ah law? These are questions whose answers are absent from classical or medieval Islamic literature or from a historical critical reading of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Yet, another eminent Islamic legal scholar, Abdur Rahman I. Doi, says in Non-Muslims under Shariah (Islamic law), that since the Shari’ah is God’s perfect law for mankind representing his infallible will, it is imperative that all believers obey this at all times, regardless where they reside.

This then sums up a conundrum: Whether a Muslim believes he should follow the complete Shari’ah, there exists a problem for conscientious Muslims in foreign lands as to which law is preeminent. This problem was addressed for Christians by Jesus in Luke 20:25 when He taught, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Render unto God what is God’s.” So, an upstanding Christian can be both a good citizen of an earthly state and also of God’s Kingdom.

D. Muslim States

Muslims have a different idea of what constitutes a “state,” as opposed to Western practice. Samuel Shahid, in The Myth of Islamic Tolerance cites how prominent Pakistani scholar Maududi explains this difference:

1. An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
2. Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
3. An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

Categories of Acceptable Unbelievers

A. Dhimmi: Jew & Christian

A dhimmi is a member of the class of persons in an Islamic country not Muslim but who follow the Bible, being Jews and Christians (other can include Sabians and Zoroastrians). Dhimmis are given a kind of protection in an Islamic state which is neither complete in scope, nor equal in application, as the following will show.

Warrant for Dhimmi comes from the chapter the Cow in the Qur’an 2:62:

Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

In accepting dhimmitude, the non-believers have to enter a pact called the Covenant of Umar, according to Bat Yeor in Dhimmi Peoples, Oppressed Nations. The Covenant dates from the 7th century, not long after Muhammad died, and outlines what dhimmis had to do then to stay in an Islamic state.

Jizyah: To have any status, whatsoever, a non-believer in a Muslim country must immediately enter into a treaty of war. This is essentially an agreement of a truce between the non-believer and the Islamic state. This only makes sense when considering that in Islam, there is a metaphorical House of War in which abide only enemy combatants, where non-Muslims reside. Then there is the House of Peace, or Allah, which is where all Muslims abide. Therefore, if a non-Muslim wants to reside in an Islamic state, he or she must officially renounce war through the Jizyah.

This is according to the Submission chapter in the Qur’an 9:29:

You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Jizyah literally means “penalty,” according to Shahida. It is described as a “fixed poll tax” by Joseph Schacht in Introduction to Islamic Law. It is described as a 10% tax and meant to cover the costs of defending the dhimmi, etc. Yet the jizyah is also meant to humble the dhimmi. According to Ye’or, the Jizyah “...symbolizes the subjugation and humiliations of the vanquished.” Ye’or details another tax put, being the kharadj, a land tax placed on lands where indigenous dhimmis reside, meaning these are at a decided economic disadvantage to Muslims.

Legal Status: A position of Muslim Shari’ah law is that under it, all are equal. This proposition is highly misleading. Not everyone has access to these rules. For example, a Dhimmi is not the legal equal of a Muslim, but a “second-class citizen,” according to Patai. So a Dhimmi can only give testimony against another Dhimmi, but not against a Muslim. This embargo is much more damaging than it sounds because the only form of acceptable evidence allowed in Shari’ah courts is verbal testimony. It also acts to keep dhimmis from suing or taking Muslims to court.

Further, all laws are said to apply to dhimmis, but if a dhimmi were attacked and killed by a Muslim, the latter cannot be put to death, but only forced to pay a fine based on status, or “blood price.” Since Islamic law generally does not impose imprisonment, this leaves dhimmis in a highly precarious position as regards enemies and safety. Many more examples like this abound.

Religion: According to Islam, both Jews and Christians are characterized by disobedience and by refusing to accept the Last Prophet—Muhammad. This lack of religious integrity is damning and so these dhimmis cannot express their religious beliefs without poisoning the Muslim state.

A realistic view of Islam, in terms of civil and human rights, is within the Muslim state no person has these types of American constitutional rights. They are unimagined in the Qur’an. But if anyone had such rights, it certainly would not be dhimmis. Shahid explains the basic modern restrictions against dhimmis in an Islamic state, which takes much from the Covenant of Umar.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on dhimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1. Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
2. Dhimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
3. Dhimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
4. Dhimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
5. Dhimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
6. Dhimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
7. Dhimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.
Other Dhimmi Restrictions: According to Ye’or, dhimmis were historically forbidden from raising a hand against a Muslim in self-defense, even if the aggressor is trying to kill them; to criticize Islam, the Prophet, or angels; to convert to any religion other than Islam; to marry a Muslim woman or concubine; to hold authority over a Muslim; to enter certain restricted towns; or have articles of clothing that were similar to Muslim styles.

Dhimmis also had to live in a separate part of town where their gates closed in the evening; have shorter houses than Muslims; to practice their religion only in secret; to bury their dead quickly and in silence in a non-Muslim style tomb; to wear special clothes not only indicating their dhimmihood, but also which sub-group they belonged to.

Dhimmis must walk humbly with lowered eyes and accept insults without answering back; to keep a humble and respectful attitude when encountering a Muslim; to leave Muslims the best seats; and to make haste when walking through Muslim town. When encountering a Muslim, these must pass on the (impure) left, while the anointed were encouraged to press them against the wall to rub in their loathsome status.

Dhimmis were not allowed to ride horses or camels, since this would create unjustified social status. Unbelievers could use donkeys, but only outside of town. These were often left the most socially debased professions such as grave-digger or garbage collector. Muslims were encouraged to not have social intercourse with dhimmis, but if this was necessary, to do so with utmost brevity while expressing unbridled contempt in the same breath.

Jews, in particular, are not to raise their voices in front of Muslims, practice the same trade as a Muslim; claim that Shari’ah Muslim law could be defective; rise an animal astraddle; mention religion to Muslims; squint to try and imagine Muslims in the nude; sound their ram-horn bugle the shofar; or lend money with interest—by which, it is warned, they could end up destroying the world, writes Ye’or.

Conclusion

The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.

Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.