FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Fix our flawed immigration system

Fix our flawed immigration system The good news is Congress cares about trying to fix our flawed immigration system and broken borders. The bad news is they want to do it with a solution that looks a lot like Obamacare—the “Gang of Eight” 844-page-plus “comprehensive” bill. The sad news is that such an “easy button” solution will not improve our immigration system. History shows that big bills designed to solve everything wind up creating as many problems as they address. They become loaded with payoffs for special interests and often introduce measures that work at cross purposes. The “comprehensive” bill fails at the start. Here are the top five reasons it cannot be fixed. 1. Amnesty. This bill grants amnesty. It creates a framework for legalization for the estimated 11 million people unlawfully present in the United States. Anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies, but there is too much opportunity for fraud—since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years. 2. Fiscal Costs to the Taxpayer. This plan does not account for the government benefits, especially welfare and entitlement benefits, that would be paid to those who are legalized over their lifetimes. The additional costs to taxpayers would be enormous. Some argue that amnesty would bring economic gains, but these would actually be captured by the formerly unlawful immigrants themselves. Legalization brings little economic benefit to the rest of us. 3. Government Spending. The bill is a Trojan horse for government spending, and in some cases, it appears the funding is unrestricted or ill-defined. Just one example is a $6.5 billion “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust,” which includes a $2 billion “slush fund” for border security. Our federal government currently spends $1 trillion more per year than it takes in, so adding on a new, unlimited spending commitment makes no sense at all. The entire cost of implementing the bill has yet to be determined. Further, the bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.” 4. “Border Triggers.” The bill requires certification of “border triggers” for stemming the tide of illegal border crossings before additional steps in the legalization process can proceed. But the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004. Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border. Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way. Amnesty creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the strategy laid out would drive up the cost of securing the border. Just throwing money at the border does not make sense. The policies adopted on both sides of the border are more important. For example, the Coast Guard is significantly underfunded and unprepared. America’s coastlines are already seeing a significant increase in illegal entry by sea, a trend that has been growing since 2007. 5. Lawful Immigration Reform. The bill “modernizes” lawful immigration and non-immigration visas. These modernizations include substantially lowering “chain” migration; abolishing the diversity lottery; expanding the visa waiver; increasing high-skill migration; and expanding temporary worker programs. Reforming the legal immigration system—in principle—is laudable. But trying to craft precise measures in a massive bill like this is difficult. For example, though it sounds innocuous, one provision in the legislation could lead to big problems. The legislation allows documents “issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe” to be used for identity and employment purposes. Numerous Indian tribes exist along the southern border, including the Texas Kickapoo, the Ysleta Del Sur, and, the largest, the Tohona O’Odham. Indian reservations already serve as drug pipelines and have been cited as weak links in border security. Given these issues, does it really make sense to add this exemption to legislation aimed at Fix our flawed immigration system The good news is Congress cares about trying to fix our flawed immigration system and broken borders. The bad news is they want to do it with a solution that looks a lot like Obamacare—the “Gang of Eight” 844-page-plus “comprehensive” bill. The sad news is that such an “easy button” solution will not improve our immigration system. History shows that big bills designed to solve everything wind up creating as many problems as they address. They become loaded with payoffs for special interests and often introduce measures that work at cross purposes. The “comprehensive” bill fails at the start. Here are the top five reasons it cannot be fixed. 1. Amnesty. This bill grants amnesty. It creates a framework for legalization for the estimated 11 million people unlawfully present in the United States. Anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies, but there is too much opportunity for fraud—since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years. 2. Fiscal Costs to the Taxpayer. This plan does not account for the government benefits, especially welfare and entitlement benefits, that would be paid to those who are legalized over their lifetimes. The additional costs to taxpayers would be enormous. Some argue that amnesty would bring economic gains, but these would actually be captured by the formerly unlawful immigrants themselves. Legalization brings little economic benefit to the rest of us. 3. Government Spending. The bill is a Trojan horse for government spending, and in some cases, it appears the funding is unrestricted or ill-defined. Just one example is a $6.5 billion “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust,” which includes a $2 billion “slush fund” for border security. Our federal government currently spends $1 trillion more per year than it takes in, so adding on a new, unlimited spending commitment makes no sense at all. The entire cost of implementing the bill has yet to be determined. Further, the bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.” 4. “Border Triggers.” The bill requires certification of “border triggers” for stemming the tide of illegal border crossings before additional steps in the legalization process can proceed. But the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004. Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border. Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way. Amnesty creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the strategy laid out would drive up the cost of securing the border. Just throwing money at the border does not make sense. The policies adopted on both sides of the border are more important. For example, the Coast Guard is significantly underfunded and unprepared. America’s coastlines are already seeing a significant increase in illegal entry by sea, a trend that has been growing since 2007. 5. Lawful Immigration Reform. The bill “modernizes” lawful immigration and non-immigration visas. These modernizations include substantially lowering “chain” migration; abolishing the diversity lottery; expanding the visa waiver; increasing high-skill migration; and expanding temporary worker programs. Reforming the legal immigration system—in principle—is laudable. But trying to craft precise measures in a massive bill like this is difficult. For example, though it sounds innocuous, one provision in the legislation could lead to big problems. The legislation allows documents “issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe” to be used for identity and employment purposes. Numerous Indian tribes exist along the southern border, including the Texas Kickapoo, the Ysleta Del Sur, and, the largest, the Tohona O’Odham. Indian reservations already serve as drug pipelines and have been cited as weak links in border security. Given these issues, does it really make sense to add this exemption to legislation aimed at

Let us look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt and why Muslims Kill

Let us look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt to see what this thing that the terrorists would like to impose on us is Why Muslims Kill The murderer is the new celebrity. He emerges out of nowhere with a rags to mass murder story, and is swiftly accorded all the trappings of fame. Reporters track down anyone who knew him to learn about his childhood and his main influences. Relatives and friends both contribute fuzzy anecdotes, mostly indistinguishable from the ones they would present if he were competing on American Idol or running for president. The disaffected form fan clubs around him. The experts discuss what his rise to fame means. Books are written about him and then perhaps a movie. And then it ends and begins all over again. The Tsernaev brothers, the living one and the dead one, are already receiving that treatment. Like most murderers they have already become more famous than their victims. More famous than the rescuers. The original Tamerlane is better known than any of his countless victims. The new one is already eclipsing his victims. Before long one of those Chechen bards whose videos he tagged into his playlist on YouTube will write a ballad about the Boston massacre and the circle will be complete. That ballad, murderous and vile, will still be more honest than most of the media coverage about the two Chechen Muslims has been. The media’s coverage is weighed down by its old fetish of murder as celebrity. The media covers murderers and celebrities in the same way. It writes exhaustively about them, but rarely meaningfully. The murderer, like the celebrity, is famous for being famous. And fame clips context and suppresses meaning. It becomes its own reference. A thing is famous for being known. It is known for being famous. It enters the common language as a reference. A metaphor. In the case of the Tsernaevs, the surface coverage, the endless rounds of interviews with friends and relatives, with anyone who ever met them or retweed them, is mandatory because it avoids the more difficult question of why they killed. The better news outlets answer with convenient terms like “radicalization” or “self-radicalization” and much of the public, primed to react to meaningless political jargon as if it had meaning, will think that they understand. A radical, they know, is a bad person, except for a brief period when surfers and ninja turtles could use it and still be good people. They don’t quite know why that is, but they also don’t know why high debt is good for the economy or why Islam is a religion of peace. Radical and extremist are convenient terms for dismissing people and subjects without discussing them. Mental shortcuts like that can be convenient. No one really wants to spend every waking moment debating the people who think that the moon landing was faked or that we are ruled over by miniature T-Rex’s who somehow look just like people. But when the body count gets high enough, dismissing it as extremism or radicalism doesn’t hold up. The question must be discussed. Muslim violence began a thousand years before the United States existed as an independent political entity The experts point to foreign policy, but Muslim violence began a thousand years before the United States existed as an independent political entity. The younger Tsernaev sibling scrawled something about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, prompted or unprompted, but Iraq is yesterday’s news and America is in Afghanistan because of the Muslim attacks of September 11. We can keep retracing every event and connecting it to a prior event, but the constraints of history will swiftly take us back to before Independence Hall, Columbus and for that matter the English language. If we are to flounder looking around for a first cause, we must either fetch up against the founding of Islam or try to make a case for Islamic violence predating Islam. Neither is very tenable. Dzhokhar can claim that he and his brother were defending Islam by murdering an 8-year-old, Hitler claimed that he was defending Germany by invading Poland and Japan is still waiting around for South Korea to thank it for protecting it from Western imperialism. Prisons are full of 300 pound men who beat their 90 pound wives to death in self-defense and spree killers who felt bullied and misunderstood and defended themselves with killing sprees. The kind of evil we see in movies, the serial killer who gleefully whisper about demonic pacts and the joy of killing, are a rarity. Even human monsters are human. They explain things in terms of their egos. They are always defending themselves against some form of oppression and looking for someone to sympathize with their outrage. Muslim terrorists are no different. The Taliban just poisoned a girls school as part of their campaign to defend Afghanistan from women who can read and write. Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus in defense of Palestine. Tamerlan Tsarnaev put down a bomb next to an 8-year-old boy in defense of Islam. Islam has a long history of needing to be defended against small boys, blind female poets and elderly cartoonists Islam, as one of the great world religions, has a long history of needing to be defended against small boys, blind female poets and elderly cartoonists. Sometimes Muslims have to defend Islam against each other, the way they are now doing in Syria. Other times defending Islam requires demolishing its archeological sites, the way that the Saudis are doing. Either way defending Islam is difficult work. Everyone in a war usually claims to be defending against something. But the younger Tsarnaev was not really angry about Afghanistan or Iraq. He wasn’t defending them. He was defending Islam. If you want to defend Afghanistan, then all you have to do is board a plane to Pakistan and then make the right contacts and find your way across the border to join a band of likeminded fellows fighting to defend your new country from women who can read. But to defend Islam, you can stay at home in Boston and kill little boys.. What is this thing called Islam? We can call it a religion, but that doesn’t tell us much. Defining religion is a famously tricky affair. The bombmaking instructions in Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine begin by telling the would-be defender of Islam that the key ingredient in building a pressure cooker bomb, like the one used at the Boston Marathon, is trust in Allah. There is a kind of faith in that, but it’s more like the kind of prayer you expect to hear Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson utter to a god that they made in their own murderous image. Serial killers praying to a patron deity of serial killers to help them murder little boys in defense of a religion whose faith is in the murder of little boys. But the whole thing need not be all that mysterious. Western man spent much of the last century threatening to fight to the death over the political and economic system that he would live under. Dispense with the label of religion and the sight of two angry young men setting off bombs in an American city is not all that alien. Neither is their motive. There are two Islams that we can conceive of; the private and the public. It is it not difficult to see which of these the Tsarnaevs were defending. Despite the morbid fantasies of the real Islamophobia industry, practiced by CAIR and the left, no one was holding down either of the brothers and shoving pork in their mouths or forbidding them from reading the Koran. The government has carved out broad swaths of entitlements for Islamic religion in a country where Iftar is celebrated in the White House and the Department of Justice sues any store that thinks twice of frowning at a Hijab. It’s the public Islam that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were defending. The private Islam forbids Muslims to eat pork or drink liquor The public Islam bars pork or liquor from being sold. The private Islam tells women to cover their hair. The public Islam establishes an entire system of police and judges to compel them to cover their hair. Western liberals like to think of Islam as a private religion, in the tradition of most of its extant religions, but it isn’t. Islam cannot function for very long as a private religion just as Communism could not function for very long as a private experiment on a few communal farms. It is an all or nothing system. Its fundamental expression is public. In private, it withers and dies. The private Islam need not be defended with bombs. The public Islam must be The private Islam need not be defended with bombs. The public Islam must be. And as with so many totalitarian systems, when it speaks of freedom, it means slavery, when it talks of peace, it means war, and when it claims defense, it means attack. Why did Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonate bombs at the Boston Marathon? They were engaged in an old disagreement over political systems. Terrorists of the left set off bombs to force a political revolution. Their Islamist fellow-travelers are doing the same thing. Dig away enough of the trappings of the celebrity murderer and you come to the ideas buried underneath all the rubble. The Tsarnaevs are not the first terrorists to kill Americans in the name of a political idea. If they are radicals and extremists, than so are the likes of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. What difference is there between the radicals who detonated bombs to impose the rule of the left and those who detonate bombs to impose the rule of Islam? When it comes to the Weather Underground, the media is eager to discuss their ends, but not their means. And when it comes to the Tsarnaevs, the media will discuss their means, but not their ends. Dealing with the violence of the left would only make the left look bad. And dealing with the agenda of the terrorists would make the left’s plan for a multicultural society seem unworkable. It would make it clear that terrorism is not random, but a violent means of imposing an idea. And it is the idea that is the issue. If we are going to discuss Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, let us spend a little less time on their endless parade of relatives and former friends, and a little more time on the idea in whose defense they chose to kill and maim so many. Let us discuss Islam, not just as an abstract idea, but as a concrete political system. Let us discuss it the way that we discuss the plans and platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties. Let us look at Saudi Arabia, at Pakistan and at the new Egypt to see what this thing that the terrorists would like to impose on us is. Despite thousands dead, a searching examination of that sort is exactly what the media would like to avoid. It does not want another “Better Red than Dead” or “Better Dead than Red” debate. It wants us to speak of foreign policy as an isolated American act and of random violence as arising from thin air. It does not want us to understand the nature of the struggle. It does not want us to know why we die. It is determined to keep from us the reason why Muslims kill. Let us look at Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt to see what this thing that the terrorists would like to impose on us is Why Muslims Kill The murderer is the new celebrity. He emerges out of nowhere with a rags to mass murder story, and is swiftly accorded all the trappings of fame. Reporters track down anyone who knew him to learn about his childhood and his main influences. Relatives and friends both contribute fuzzy anecdotes, mostly indistinguishable from the ones they would present if he were competing on American Idol or running for president. The disaffected form fan clubs around him. The experts discuss what his rise to fame means. Books are written about him and then perhaps a movie. And then it ends and begins all over again. The Tsernaev brothers, the living one and the dead one, are already receiving that treatment. Like most murderers they have already become more famous than their victims. More famous than the rescuers. The original Tamerlane is better known than any of his countless victims. The new one is already eclipsing his victims. Before long one of those Chechen bards whose videos he tagged into his playlist on YouTube will write a ballad about the Boston massacre and the circle will be complete. That ballad, murderous and vile, will still be more honest than most of the media coverage about the two Chechen Muslims has been. The media’s coverage is weighed down by its old fetish of murder as celebrity. The media covers murderers and celebrities in the same way. It writes exhaustively about them, but rarely meaningfully. The murderer, like the celebrity, is famous for being famous. And fame clips context and suppresses meaning. It becomes its own reference. A thing is famous for being known. It is known for being famous. It enters the common language as a reference. A metaphor. In the case of the Tsernaevs, the surface coverage, the endless rounds of interviews with friends and relatives, with anyone who ever met them or retweed them, is mandatory because it avoids the more difficult question of why they killed. The better news outlets answer with convenient terms like “radicalization” or “self-radicalization” and much of the public, primed to react to meaningless political jargon as if it had meaning, will think that they understand. A radical, they know, is a bad person, except for a brief period when surfers and ninja turtles could use it and still be good people. They don’t quite know why that is, but they also don’t know why high debt is good for the economy or why Islam is a religion of peace. Radical and extremist are convenient terms for dismissing people and subjects without discussing them. Mental shortcuts like that can be convenient. No one really wants to spend every waking moment debating the people who think that the moon landing was faked or that we are ruled over by miniature T-Rex’s who somehow look just like people. But when the body count gets high enough, dismissing it as extremism or radicalism doesn’t hold up. The question must be discussed. Muslim violence began a thousand years before the United States existed as an independent political entity The experts point to foreign policy, but Muslim violence began a thousand years before the United States existed as an independent political entity. The younger Tsernaev sibling scrawled something about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, prompted or unprompted, but Iraq is yesterday’s news and America is in Afghanistan because of the Muslim attacks of September 11. We can keep retracing every event and connecting it to a prior event, but the constraints of history will swiftly take us back to before Independence Hall, Columbus and for that matter the English language. If we are to flounder looking around for a first cause, we must either fetch up against the founding of Islam or try to make a case for Islamic violence predating Islam. Neither is very tenable. Dzhokhar can claim that he and his brother were defending Islam by murdering an 8-year-old, Hitler claimed that he was defending Germany by invading Poland and Japan is still waiting around for South Korea to thank it for protecting it from Western imperialism. Prisons are full of 300 pound men who beat their 90 pound wives to death in self-defense and spree killers who felt bullied and misunderstood and defended themselves with killing sprees. The kind of evil we see in movies, the serial killer who gleefully whisper about demonic pacts and the joy of killing, are a rarity. Even human monsters are human. They explain things in terms of their egos. They are always defending themselves against some form of oppression and looking for someone to sympathize with their outrage. Muslim terrorists are no different. The Taliban just poisoned a girls school as part of their campaign to defend Afghanistan from women who can read and write. Hamas fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus in defense of Palestine. Tamerlan Tsarnaev put down a bomb next to an 8-year-old boy in defense of Islam. Islam has a long history of needing to be defended against small boys, blind female poets and elderly cartoonists Islam, as one of the great world religions, has a long history of needing to be defended against small boys, blind female poets and elderly cartoonists. Sometimes Muslims have to defend Islam against each other, the way they are now doing in Syria. Other times defending Islam requires demolishing its archeological sites, the way that the Saudis are doing. Either way defending Islam is difficult work. Everyone in a war usually claims to be defending against something. But the younger Tsarnaev was not really angry about Afghanistan or Iraq. He wasn’t defending them. He was defending Islam. If you want to defend Afghanistan, then all you have to do is board a plane to Pakistan and then make the right contacts and find your way across the border to join a band of likeminded fellows fighting to defend your new country from women who can read. But to defend Islam, you can stay at home in Boston and kill little boys.. What is this thing called Islam? We can call it a religion, but that doesn’t tell us much. Defining religion is a famously tricky affair. The bombmaking instructions in Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine begin by telling the would-be defender of Islam that the key ingredient in building a pressure cooker bomb, like the one used at the Boston Marathon, is trust in Allah. There is a kind of faith in that, but it’s more like the kind of prayer you expect to hear Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson utter to a god that they made in their own murderous image. Serial killers praying to a patron deity of serial killers to help them murder little boys in defense of a religion whose faith is in the murder of little boys. But the whole thing need not be all that mysterious. Western man spent much of the last century threatening to fight to the death over the political and economic system that he would live under. Dispense with the label of religion and the sight of two angry young men setting off bombs in an American city is not all that alien. Neither is their motive. There are two Islams that we can conceive of; the private and the public. It is it not difficult to see which of these the Tsarnaevs were defending. Despite the morbid fantasies of the real Islamophobia industry, practiced by CAIR and the left, no one was holding down either of the brothers and shoving pork in their mouths or forbidding them from reading the Koran. The government has carved out broad swaths of entitlements for Islamic religion in a country where Iftar is celebrated in the White House and the Department of Justice sues any store that thinks twice of frowning at a Hijab. It’s the public Islam that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were defending. The private Islam forbids Muslims to eat pork or drink liquor The public Islam bars pork or liquor from being sold. The private Islam tells women to cover their hair. The public Islam establishes an entire system of police and judges to compel them to cover their hair. Western liberals like to think of Islam as a private religion, in the tradition of most of its extant religions, but it isn’t. Islam cannot function for very long as a private religion just as Communism could not function for very long as a private experiment on a few communal farms. It is an all or nothing system. Its fundamental expression is public. In private, it withers and dies. The private Islam need not be defended with bombs. The public Islam must be The private Islam need not be defended with bombs. The public Islam must be. And as with so many totalitarian systems, when it speaks of freedom, it means slavery, when it talks of peace, it means war, and when it claims defense, it means attack. Why did Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonate bombs at the Boston Marathon? They were engaged in an old disagreement over political systems. Terrorists of the left set off bombs to force a political revolution. Their Islamist fellow-travelers are doing the same thing. Dig away enough of the trappings of the celebrity murderer and you come to the ideas buried underneath all the rubble. The Tsarnaevs are not the first terrorists to kill Americans in the name of a political idea. If they are radicals and extremists, than so are the likes of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. What difference is there between the radicals who detonated bombs to impose the rule of the left and those who detonate bombs to impose the rule of Islam? When it comes to the Weather Underground, the media is eager to discuss their ends, but not their means. And when it comes to the Tsarnaevs, the media will discuss their means, but not their ends. Dealing with the violence of the left would only make the left look bad. And dealing with the agenda of the terrorists would make the left’s plan for a multicultural society seem unworkable. It would make it clear that terrorism is not random, but a violent means of imposing an idea. And it is the idea that is the issue. If we are going to discuss Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, let us spend a little less time on their endless parade of relatives and former friends, and a little more time on the idea in whose defense they chose to kill and maim so many. Let us discuss Islam, not just as an abstract idea, but as a concrete political system. Let us discuss it the way that we discuss the plans and platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties. Let us look at Saudi Arabia, at Pakistan and at the new Egypt to see what this thing that the terrorists would like to impose on us is. Despite thousands dead, a searching examination of that sort is exactly what the media would like to avoid. It does not want another “Better Red than Dead” or “Better Dead than Red” debate. It wants us to speak of foreign policy as an isolated American act and of random violence as arising from thin air. It does not want us to understand the nature of the struggle. It does not want us to know why we die. It is determined to keep from us the reason why Muslims kill.

On the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship

On the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship Presidential Executive Orders; Constitutional or Criminal? As new polls indicate that only 4% of Americans think more gun control is an important issue, and the United States Senate, even if just temporarily, did the right thing and voted to stop further infringement of the the 2nd Amendment, this illegal and imperial President has indicated he intends to “write law” via yet another unconstitutional Executive Order. Article II does not give any President the authority to write legislation or to adjudicate laws which affect the citizens of this country. The executive order can only be used, constitutionally, for the administration of government operations and employees. Article I, specifically gives legislation over the people to only the Congress. A common misconception which has been used to excuse the unlawful use of the Executive Order is that every President, including George Washington has used them. While this is “factually” correct, it is not true that George Washington abused it. His EO’s were limited to the operation of the Executive Branch and did not ever legislate laws for anyone outside of the government. However, the most wide reaching violation of the Executive Order came from one of this country’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was, for certain, noble, just and something long needed and overdue. For that reason, that Executive Order met small and disorganized opposition from the legislative branch and….... the precedent was set. Other Presidents then began ignoring the Constitution while the Congress sat by like twiddle-dee and twiddle-dumb. The Executive Order issued on December 7th, 1941, by the left’s most popular and loved President, FDR, ordered the rounding up of and imprisoning American citizens. This order was not only unconstitutional relating to Article I, but it violated every right and protection our Constitution guaranteed to the people. Over the years, because neither the Congress nor the Courts have stepped in to stop the power grab by the executive branch, the violations of our Constitution, by most Presidents, has persisted, increased and now is on the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship. It has become so pervasive and common that the implementation of Executive Orders is described thusly: “Regulations issued by the president that do not require Congressional approval, become law after 30 days.” First of all, where did that decree come from? Its certainly not found in the Constitution. And notice how they so cavalierly confront the Constitution by pronouncing the order as ” becoming law”, an authority the President does not have. When an executive order creates or amends Federal regulations or creates or amends existing law, those orders are illegal and are impeachable offenses. The executive order was intended to give authority to the Chief Executive to set rules for how the executive branch would operate. Not to a allow the circumvention of the authority of the other two branches. As TPATH has stated on other occasions, if any aspect of our Constitution is ignored, for any reason, all aspects of it are in jeopardy. Congress, over the decades, having neglected their legal oversight concerning legislation and more recently allowing the eligibility requirements as defined in Article II, Section 1, to go unenforced, has endangered our country to the point where calling it a Republic seems almost ludicrous. If we are to survive, not as wards and serfs of the state, but a free people, the Congress had better step up and stop the illegal use of the Executive Order and thereby halting this dictator “wannabe” before it’s too late. If its not already. On the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship Presidential Executive Orders; Constitutional or Criminal? As new polls indicate that only 4% of Americans think more gun control is an important issue, and the United States Senate, even if just temporarily, did the right thing and voted to stop further infringement of the the 2nd Amendment, this illegal and imperial President has indicated he intends to “write law” via yet another unconstitutional Executive Order. Article II does not give any President the authority to write legislation or to adjudicate laws which affect the citizens of this country. The executive order can only be used, constitutionally, for the administration of government operations and employees. Article I, specifically gives legislation over the people to only the Congress. A common misconception which has been used to excuse the unlawful use of the Executive Order is that every President, including George Washington has used them. While this is “factually” correct, it is not true that George Washington abused it. His EO’s were limited to the operation of the Executive Branch and did not ever legislate laws for anyone outside of the government. However, the most wide reaching violation of the Executive Order came from one of this country’s greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 was, for certain, noble, just and something long needed and overdue. For that reason, that Executive Order met small and disorganized opposition from the legislative branch and….... the precedent was set. Other Presidents then began ignoring the Constitution while the Congress sat by like twiddle-dee and twiddle-dumb. The Executive Order issued on December 7th, 1941, by the left’s most popular and loved President, FDR, ordered the rounding up of and imprisoning American citizens. This order was not only unconstitutional relating to Article I, but it violated every right and protection our Constitution guaranteed to the people. Over the years, because neither the Congress nor the Courts have stepped in to stop the power grab by the executive branch, the violations of our Constitution, by most Presidents, has persisted, increased and now is on the verge of creating and Imperial Dictatorship. It has become so pervasive and common that the implementation of Executive Orders is described thusly: “Regulations issued by the president that do not require Congressional approval, become law after 30 days.” First of all, where did that decree come from? Its certainly not found in the Constitution. And notice how they so cavalierly confront the Constitution by pronouncing the order as ” becoming law”, an authority the President does not have. When an executive order creates or amends Federal regulations or creates or amends existing law, those orders are illegal and are impeachable offenses. The executive order was intended to give authority to the Chief Executive to set rules for how the executive branch would operate. Not to a allow the circumvention of the authority of the other two branches. As TPATH has stated on other occasions, if any aspect of our Constitution is ignored, for any reason, all aspects of it are in jeopardy. Congress, over the decades, having neglected their legal oversight concerning legislation and more recently allowing the eligibility requirements as defined in Article II, Section 1, to go unenforced, has endangered our country to the point where calling it a Republic seems almost ludicrous. If we are to survive, not as wards and serfs of the state, but a free people, the Congress had better step up and stop the illegal use of the Executive Order and thereby halting this dictator “wannabe” before it’s too late. If its not already.

Terrorism denial isn't just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans

Terrorism denial isn't just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans Terrorism Without a Motive Means, opportunity and motive are the three crucial elements of investigating a crime and establishing the guilt of its perpetrator. Means and opportunity tell us how the crime could have been committed while motive tells us why it was committed. Many crimes cannot be narrowed down by motive until a suspect is on the scene; but acts of terrorism can be. Almost anyone might be responsible for a random killing; but political killings are carried out by those who subscribe to common beliefs. Eliminate motive from terrorism and it becomes no different than investigating a random killing. If investigators are not allowed to profile potential terrorists based on shared beliefs rooted in violence, that makes it harder to catch terrorists after an act of terror and incredibly difficult before the act of terror takes place. The roadblock isn’t only technical; it’s conceptual. Investigations consist of connecting the dots. If you can’t conceive of a connection, then the investigation is stuck. If you can’t make the leap from A to B or add two to two and get four, then you are dependent on lucky breaks. And lucky breaks go both ways. Sometimes investigators get lucky and other times the terrorists get lucky. Federal law enforcement was repeatedly warned by the Russians that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dangerous, but operating under the influence of a political culture that refused to see Islam as a motive for terrorism, it failed to connect the dots between Chechen violence in Russia and potential terrorism in the United States, and because it could not see Islam as a motive, as a causal factor rather than a casual factor, it could find no reason why Tamerlan was a threat not just to Russia, but also to the United States. Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn’t a motive, it’s a bland description The missing motive factor has led to a rash of lone wolf terrorists whose acts are classified as individual crimes. Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn’t a motive, it’s a bland description. The motive was obvious in Hasan’s background and his behavior; but the military, an organization that by its nature has to be able to predict the actions of the enemy, had been crippled and left unable to see Islam as a motive. The current working concept is that by refusing to allow our military and law enforcement to identify Islam as a motive, we are stifling terrorist recruitment by preventing Muslim from identifying terrorist attacks with Islam. This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives. Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward. The investigators of terror are not the instigators of terror. A police detective arresting a rapist does not create rape. An FBI agent arresting a terrorist does not create terror. Identifying a crime does not create the crime. It makes it easier for law enforcement and the public to fight that crime. The insidious infiltration of blowback theory into terrorist investigations has dangerously subverted the ability of investigators to get to the truth and to catch the terrorists. Blowback theory assigns each act of Islamic terror an origin point in our actions. Everything that Muslim terrorists do is caused by something that we did. To those who believe in this linkage, the only way to fight Muslim terror is to stop inspiring it. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat ourselves. Blowback theory has been dressed up in academic language and expert jargon, but all it amounts to is Stockholm Syndrome with a lecture hall. Its essential postulate is that if we become more passive in our responses, a strategy that is usually described with the complementary term, “smart”, as in “smart war” and “smart investigation”, then the enemy will become more passive in response to our passivity because we are no longer inspiring his violence. Smart wars and smart investigations are those that don’t offend Muslims. The cost of the smart war in Afghanistan has been a very expensive and bloody defeat. The cost of the smart investigation can be seen in the streets of Boston or in Fort Hood. Any smart tactic based on inaction and ignorance, on throwing away advantages to seem less provocative, is not smart; it’s stupid. When things go unsaid because they are politically incorrect, then they will eventually go undone. And when they are both unsaid and undone, then it becomes impossible to think them. The concepts fade out of reach, the connections in what, Hercule Poirot, called the little grey cells, are no longer made and what was once a familiar mental shortcut becomes an entirely alien concept. Defeating ourselves in order to defeat Islamic terrorism is a dead end because we are not the source of that terrorism; we are its target. When we handicap ourselves out of a misguided notion that the best way to fight terrorism is with one hand tied behind our backs and an eyepatch on one eye, then Americans die. Islamic terrorism, once the starting point of any rational investigation, has become an uncomfortable endpoint uttered by uncooperative suspects who refuse to go along with the stress-motivated killing spree defense their lawyers are eager to put forward for them. It is the dark thing at the end of every investigation that politicians don’t want to talk about, reporters don’t want to write about and prosecutors grow reluctant to discuss for fear of offending judges and stifling career prospects. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? Without Islam as a motive, there is no way to fight the larger threat except as a discrete collection of seemingly random events. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? The official answer is nothing. One was a boxer and another was an army doctor and the third is just an Egyptian student or a Somali bank clerk. They have no motive in common except that of Islam. Motives identify links. They make it easier to stack events together as a trend. They make it possible to predict the next attack by looking at the common denominators that matter as opposed to the ones that don’t. And above all else, they combine together to give us a rational picture of the world so that we understand what we are experiencing and what we have to do about it. A man dropped onto a battlefield without having the concept of an army or a war will be bewildered and horrified by the incomprehensible experience of large numbers of individuals shooting at him for no reason. “Why do they all want to kill me?” he thinks. “Was it something I did?” Crime is personal. War is impersonal. The murderer has personal motives for his actions, but the motives of the soldier are irrelevant. In war, it is the organization that matters more than the individual. Wasting time predicting the movements of individual armies instead of soldiers is not productive. Attempting to understand terrorists as individuals, rather than members of a mass movement is equally a waste of time. Media accounts have presented various exculpatory motives for Tamerlan Tsarnaev ranging from the possible head injuries he may have suffered as a boxer to the murder of a best friend that investigators suspect he may carried out. All these motives are irrelevant, not because they may not have some figment of truth to them, but because they stopped mattering once he became what he was. One soldier may join the army because his girlfriend broke up with him, another because he lost his job and a third because he wants to impress his friends. Those motives may all be true, but they don’t matter. Once organized into a collective, their individual motives stop mattering and the collective motive takes over. Islamic terrorism is a collective motive Islamic terrorism is a collective motive. There is limited variation in the tactics and the thinking of terrorists. Whatever they may have been before they fully committed themselves to the war against civilization is an incidental matter. And the only piece of individual identity that matters is still the collective one of their Islamic background. That is still the greatest predictive factor of terrorism. The Islamic terrorist abandons his individuality and takes on an identity that asks him to love death more than life. His motives are no longer personal, but collective. He is a soldier in the Islamic war against civilization. His marching orders may come from Jihadi videos and magazines, but they provide him with training and an esprit de corps sufficient to the purposes of his campaign of terror. To strive to understand him as a father or a son, as a boxer or a doctor, is a waste of time. These biographical footnotes no longer represent him. They are the things he has discarded to become a messenger of death in obedience to a faith that values death more than life. Without understanding that, the terrorist becomes a cipher, another nice young man who suddenly turned violent, and the trend of terrorist attacks ceases to be a pattern and becomes a rash of horrifying incidents that can happen at any time. Terrorism is a form of war Terrorism is a form of war. It cannot be won without understanding that there is a battlefield and an enemy fighting for control of that battlefield. Without that understanding, our superiority in strength and our possession of the battlefield can only result in a temporary stalemate leading to a permanent defeat. Terrorism denial turns terrorist attacks into a cipher without a motive. If Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev had not carried out their attack at a public event in the age of the ubiquitous camera, then how long would law enforcement have chased down dead ends or searched for the Tea Party tax protesters that the political establishment expected them to find? Without a motive, there is no place to begin searching. Without Islam, there is no motive. Terrorism denial isn’t just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans. Terrorism denial created a space in which the Tsarnaev brothers were free to plot and kill. Terrorism denial cost the lives of three Americans and the bodily integrity of hundreds of others. Denying the Islamic motive for terror, makes it harder for law enforcement officer to do their job and easier for Muslim terrorists to do theirs. Terrorism denial isn't just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans Terrorism Without a Motive Means, opportunity and motive are the three crucial elements of investigating a crime and establishing the guilt of its perpetrator. Means and opportunity tell us how the crime could have been committed while motive tells us why it was committed. Many crimes cannot be narrowed down by motive until a suspect is on the scene; but acts of terrorism can be. Almost anyone might be responsible for a random killing; but political killings are carried out by those who subscribe to common beliefs. Eliminate motive from terrorism and it becomes no different than investigating a random killing. If investigators are not allowed to profile potential terrorists based on shared beliefs rooted in violence, that makes it harder to catch terrorists after an act of terror and incredibly difficult before the act of terror takes place. The roadblock isn’t only technical; it’s conceptual. Investigations consist of connecting the dots. If you can’t conceive of a connection, then the investigation is stuck. If you can’t make the leap from A to B or add two to two and get four, then you are dependent on lucky breaks. And lucky breaks go both ways. Sometimes investigators get lucky and other times the terrorists get lucky. Federal law enforcement was repeatedly warned by the Russians that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dangerous, but operating under the influence of a political culture that refused to see Islam as a motive for terrorism, it failed to connect the dots between Chechen violence in Russia and potential terrorism in the United States, and because it could not see Islam as a motive, as a causal factor rather than a casual factor, it could find no reason why Tamerlan was a threat not just to Russia, but also to the United States. Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn’t a motive, it’s a bland description The missing motive factor has led to a rash of lone wolf terrorists whose acts are classified as individual crimes. Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn’t a motive, it’s a bland description. The motive was obvious in Hasan’s background and his behavior; but the military, an organization that by its nature has to be able to predict the actions of the enemy, had been crippled and left unable to see Islam as a motive. The current working concept is that by refusing to allow our military and law enforcement to identify Islam as a motive, we are stifling terrorist recruitment by preventing Muslim from identifying terrorist attacks with Islam. This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives. Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward. The investigators of terror are not the instigators of terror. A police detective arresting a rapist does not create rape. An FBI agent arresting a terrorist does not create terror. Identifying a crime does not create the crime. It makes it easier for law enforcement and the public to fight that crime. The insidious infiltration of blowback theory into terrorist investigations has dangerously subverted the ability of investigators to get to the truth and to catch the terrorists. Blowback theory assigns each act of Islamic terror an origin point in our actions. Everything that Muslim terrorists do is caused by something that we did. To those who believe in this linkage, the only way to fight Muslim terror is to stop inspiring it. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat ourselves. Blowback theory has been dressed up in academic language and expert jargon, but all it amounts to is Stockholm Syndrome with a lecture hall. Its essential postulate is that if we become more passive in our responses, a strategy that is usually described with the complementary term, “smart”, as in “smart war” and “smart investigation”, then the enemy will become more passive in response to our passivity because we are no longer inspiring his violence. Smart wars and smart investigations are those that don’t offend Muslims. The cost of the smart war in Afghanistan has been a very expensive and bloody defeat. The cost of the smart investigation can be seen in the streets of Boston or in Fort Hood. Any smart tactic based on inaction and ignorance, on throwing away advantages to seem less provocative, is not smart; it’s stupid. When things go unsaid because they are politically incorrect, then they will eventually go undone. And when they are both unsaid and undone, then it becomes impossible to think them. The concepts fade out of reach, the connections in what, Hercule Poirot, called the little grey cells, are no longer made and what was once a familiar mental shortcut becomes an entirely alien concept. Defeating ourselves in order to defeat Islamic terrorism is a dead end because we are not the source of that terrorism; we are its target. When we handicap ourselves out of a misguided notion that the best way to fight terrorism is with one hand tied behind our backs and an eyepatch on one eye, then Americans die. Islamic terrorism, once the starting point of any rational investigation, has become an uncomfortable endpoint uttered by uncooperative suspects who refuse to go along with the stress-motivated killing spree defense their lawyers are eager to put forward for them. It is the dark thing at the end of every investigation that politicians don’t want to talk about, reporters don’t want to write about and prosecutors grow reluctant to discuss for fear of offending judges and stifling career prospects. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? Without Islam as a motive, there is no way to fight the larger threat except as a discrete collection of seemingly random events. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? The official answer is nothing. One was a boxer and another was an army doctor and the third is just an Egyptian student or a Somali bank clerk. They have no motive in common except that of Islam. Motives identify links. They make it easier to stack events together as a trend. They make it possible to predict the next attack by looking at the common denominators that matter as opposed to the ones that don’t. And above all else, they combine together to give us a rational picture of the world so that we understand what we are experiencing and what we have to do about it. A man dropped onto a battlefield without having the concept of an army or a war will be bewildered and horrified by the incomprehensible experience of large numbers of individuals shooting at him for no reason. “Why do they all want to kill me?” he thinks. “Was it something I did?” Crime is personal. War is impersonal. The murderer has personal motives for his actions, but the motives of the soldier are irrelevant. In war, it is the organization that matters more than the individual. Wasting time predicting the movements of individual armies instead of soldiers is not productive. Attempting to understand terrorists as individuals, rather than members of a mass movement is equally a waste of time. Media accounts have presented various exculpatory motives for Tamerlan Tsarnaev ranging from the possible head injuries he may have suffered as a boxer to the murder of a best friend that investigators suspect he may carried out. All these motives are irrelevant, not because they may not have some figment of truth to them, but because they stopped mattering once he became what he was. One soldier may join the army because his girlfriend broke up with him, another because he lost his job and a third because he wants to impress his friends. Those motives may all be true, but they don’t matter. Once organized into a collective, their individual motives stop mattering and the collective motive takes over. Islamic terrorism is a collective motive Islamic terrorism is a collective motive. There is limited variation in the tactics and the thinking of terrorists. Whatever they may have been before they fully committed themselves to the war against civilization is an incidental matter. And the only piece of individual identity that matters is still the collective one of their Islamic background. That is still the greatest predictive factor of terrorism. The Islamic terrorist abandons his individuality and takes on an identity that asks him to love death more than life. His motives are no longer personal, but collective. He is a soldier in the Islamic war against civilization. His marching orders may come from Jihadi videos and magazines, but they provide him with training and an esprit de corps sufficient to the purposes of his campaign of terror. To strive to understand him as a father or a son, as a boxer or a doctor, is a waste of time. These biographical footnotes no longer represent him. They are the things he has discarded to become a messenger of death in obedience to a faith that values death more than life. Without understanding that, the terrorist becomes a cipher, another nice young man who suddenly turned violent, and the trend of terrorist attacks ceases to be a pattern and becomes a rash of horrifying incidents that can happen at any time. Terrorism is a form of war Terrorism is a form of war. It cannot be won without understanding that there is a battlefield and an enemy fighting for control of that battlefield. Without that understanding, our superiority in strength and our possession of the battlefield can only result in a temporary stalemate leading to a permanent defeat. Terrorism denial turns terrorist attacks into a cipher without a motive. If Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev had not carried out their attack at a public event in the age of the ubiquitous camera, then how long would law enforcement have chased down dead ends or searched for the Tea Party tax protesters that the political establishment expected them to find? Without a motive, there is no place to begin searching. Without Islam, there is no motive. Terrorism denial isn’t just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans. Terrorism denial created a space in which the Tsarnaev brothers were free to plot and kill. Terrorism denial cost the lives of three Americans and the bodily integrity of hundreds of others. Denying the Islamic motive for terror, makes it harder for law enforcement officer to do their job and easier for Muslim terrorists to do theirs.

America has a President who advances values and policies opposed to the beliefs of a vast number of Americans

America has a President who advances values and policies opposed to the beliefs of a vast number of Americans The Revolution Passed in the Night Many things are holding the headlines hostage, the terrorist attacks, the crippling effects of Obamacare, the prospect of expanding war in Syria, and as always Iran. There is one over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact that America has a President who advances values and policies diametrically opposed to the traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans. From bowing to foreign leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to fundamentally transform America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many the Manchurian Candidate. Elected the first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of America into a welfare state. His bureaucratically imposed policies such as Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are blatant end runs around the authority of a Congress that overwhelmingly rejected both. The alarming reality we all must face is that for the first time in American history we may actually have a president who is anti-American. Barack Obama is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric. Such as: “In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” (Emphasis added.) “And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth ...” (Emphasis added.) “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties—says what the states can’t do to you—says what the Federal government can’t do to you—but it doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that…”(Emphasis added.) These positive rights are what Progressives have been trying to establish since FDR floated his idea of a second bill of right which included: •The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation •The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad •The right of every family to a decent home •The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health •The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment • The right to a good education Now all of these sound great and in a perfect world might make up a laundry list of prizes falling out of the cornucopia of utopia. In a real world they would mandate a government large enough to provide everything and powerful enough to take everything away. The whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the government which is in essence a charter of negative liberties. President Obama goes on to state, “Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes—especially for the wealthy—our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty. Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.” And of course there is his infamous “You didn’t build that” statement which exposes his complete misunderstanding of what it takes to start and grow a business. With a leader such as this whose basic understanding of America is at such odds with those who once constituted the majority of the citizens and the continuity of our History is it any wonder that so many feel as if they are living in a conquered nation? Conquered by who? As Pogo once told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Or as Garet Garrett, quipped as he chronicled the fall of the Republic and the rise of the American bureaucratic Empire said, “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.” America has a President who advances values and policies opposed to the beliefs of a vast number of Americans The Revolution Passed in the Night Many things are holding the headlines hostage, the terrorist attacks, the crippling effects of Obamacare, the prospect of expanding war in Syria, and as always Iran. There is one over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact that America has a President who advances values and policies diametrically opposed to the traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans. From bowing to foreign leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to fundamentally transform America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many the Manchurian Candidate. Elected the first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of America into a welfare state. His bureaucratically imposed policies such as Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are blatant end runs around the authority of a Congress that overwhelmingly rejected both. The alarming reality we all must face is that for the first time in American history we may actually have a president who is anti-American. Barack Obama is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric. Such as: “In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” (Emphasis added.) “And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth ...” (Emphasis added.) “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties—says what the states can’t do to you—says what the Federal government can’t do to you—but it doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that…”(Emphasis added.) These positive rights are what Progressives have been trying to establish since FDR floated his idea of a second bill of right which included: •The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation •The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad •The right of every family to a decent home •The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health •The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment • The right to a good education Now all of these sound great and in a perfect world might make up a laundry list of prizes falling out of the cornucopia of utopia. In a real world they would mandate a government large enough to provide everything and powerful enough to take everything away. The whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the government which is in essence a charter of negative liberties. President Obama goes on to state, “Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes—especially for the wealthy—our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty. Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.” And of course there is his infamous “You didn’t build that” statement which exposes his complete misunderstanding of what it takes to start and grow a business. With a leader such as this whose basic understanding of America is at such odds with those who once constituted the majority of the citizens and the continuity of our History is it any wonder that so many feel as if they are living in a conquered nation? Conquered by who? As Pogo once told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Or as Garet Garrett, quipped as he chronicled the fall of the Republic and the rise of the American bureaucratic Empire said, “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

Very few Americans understand how the Constitution defines “dollars” or the monetary powers

WERE ARE THE ORGANIC LAWS IN THIS PART OF OUR THE PEOPLE CONSTITUTION IT IS NOT PEOPLE ! Coinage Act of 1792 Constitutional Currency Very few Americans understand how the Constitution defines “dollars” or the monetary powers and prohibitions delegated to Congress and the States. As a result, Americans take many unlawful monetary policies for granted, because they have known nothing different and have not questioned the national government’s authority to do the things it has done. Every American should question if the government has the authority to emit a legal-tender paper currency irredeemable in silver or gold coin. If they have the authority to seize the people’s gold like the FDR administration did in 1933. If they are authorized to make the notes of private banks obligations of the United States and legal tender or allow private banks, through an administrative agency exercising unlimited discretion, to draw money from the Treasury without specific appropriations made by law.[1] The answers to these questions are laid out in seven constitutional clauses that define “Money” and the powers both delegated to and prohibited from the national and State governments in regards to monetary policy. These seven clauses are the standard by which every act of Congress and State law, dealing with monetary policy, must be but has seldom been measured. Four clauses in Article I, Section 8 define the monetary powers delegated to Congress. “The Congress shall have Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;[2]… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,[3]…To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States[.][4]”“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]”[5] The first two clauses of the four only authorize Congress to borrow, coin, and regulate the value of “Money”. The third clause requires Congress to provide for the “Punishment” of counterfeiters, and the last clause limits the reason for which money can be drawn from the US Treasury. Only one clause of the seven defines the monetary powers prohibited to the State governments. “No State shall…emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts[.]”[6] Finally, two clauses of the seven specifically refer to “dollars”, “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”[7] “…where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars;”[8] thereby using a term that had a definite meaning to everyone who both framed and ratified the US Constitution. By constitutionally defining the term “dollars” we can unravel much confusion modern Americans have about the constitutional monetary system and it will help decipher the other five monetary clauses. The dollar, as referred to in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and the Seventh Amendment, is a “Money Unit” defined by specific grains of fine silver equivalent to “New Spanish Dollars” in 1786. We know this because in 1785, Congress “Resolved, That the money unit of the United States of America be one dollar.”[9] Then, “in 1786, the Congressional Board of Treasury…calculated that “[t]he Money Unit or Dollar will contain three hundred and seventy five grains and sixty four hundredths of a Grain of fine Silver”, and will be worth as much as the New Spanish Dollars.”[10] Later, the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed the grains of silver in the dollar to 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Alexander Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, did this to more accurately equate the US dollar to the value of a Spanish milled dollar prevalent at that time. The Coinage Act of 1792 also defined the amount of gold in American gold coins, so their nominal values of $10 and $20 would be proportional to ten and twenty silver dollar coins, respectively. By the national government’s 1785 resolution, the Board of Treasury’s 1786 definition and because everyone who ratified the Constitution understood the meaning of “dollars” according to these two actions, a dollar is statutorily fixed, by the Constitution, as being a silver coin comprised of a specific number of grains of fine silver “worth as much as the New Spanish Dollars”, which the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed at 371-1/4 grains. This is significant because it is the standard of value by which the national government must maintain and measure all other “Thing[s]” with respect to monetary value. Congress is no more able to redefine what constitutes a “dollar[ ]” than they are able to redefine the length of a “year”. Both terms are used by the Constitution and both have very specific meanings. The Coinage Act of 1792 more precisely defined the dollar in relation to milled Spanish dollars and any other adjustments would not serve to improve the standard unit of United States “Money.” “Money” as defined by the Constitution also has a very specific meaning. We know from the monetary powers delegated to Congress that “Money” has to be coined, therefore it has to be made of metal and as pursuant to common law it has to be of intrinsic value.[11] From the monetary prohibitions placed upon the States we see both gold and silver were meant to comprise the coinage system in the United States, which also comports with common law from which the framers of the Constitution developed the monetary clauses. Putting all of this together, Constitutional “Money” is gold or silver coin whose value is measured against a silver coin of 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Copper may also be used as “Money”, because it is a semi-precious metal, but its value must be measured against the silver dollar as defined by the Coinage Act of 1792. This brings us back to the questions Americans should ask about the government’s monetary policies. Since the Tenth Amendment specifies that Congress is only allowed to exercise authority where it is specifically written in the Constitution, it should be clear Congress can only borrow, coin, and regulate the value of coins in relation to the silver dollar standard. They are also obligated to provide for the punishment of counterfeiters. Conversely, they are prohibited from making any other monetary policy to include emitting paper currency of any kind as legal tender, withdrawing money from the US Treasury without “Appropriations made by Law”, or allowing surrogates to do the things they are prohibited from doing, because it is not specifically authorized in the Constitution. The national government is also not authorized to confiscate the property of American citizens without due process of common law. Unfortunately, they have done all of these things and are still currently doing most of them. The only thing that is stopping us from demanding our national government uphold our Constitution is us. Nobody but politicians and their friends are benefiting from our current monetary system, and most importantly, to do anything else other than to uphold the Constitution is contrary to the “supreme Law of the Land.” This should at least be one issue upon which most all Americans can agree; restore the constitutional monetary system. [1] E. Vieira, Jr., Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, Rev ed. (Chicago, IL: RR Donnelley & Sons, Inc.),38. [2] Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 [3] Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 [4] Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 [5] Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 [6] Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 [7] Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 [8] Amendment VII [9] 29 Journals of the Continental Congress, ante note 331, at 499-500. [10] Vieira, 89. [11] Vieira, 69. WERE ARE THE ORGANIC LAWS IN THIS PART OF OUR THE PEOPLE CONSTITUTION IT IS NOT PEOPLE ! Coinage Act of 1792 Constitutional Currency Very few Americans understand how the Constitution defines “dollars” or the monetary powers and prohibitions delegated to Congress and the States. As a result, Americans take many unlawful monetary policies for granted, because they have known nothing different and have not questioned the national government’s authority to do the things it has done. Every American should question if the government has the authority to emit a legal-tender paper currency irredeemable in silver or gold coin. If they have the authority to seize the people’s gold like the FDR administration did in 1933. If they are authorized to make the notes of private banks obligations of the United States and legal tender or allow private banks, through an administrative agency exercising unlimited discretion, to draw money from the Treasury without specific appropriations made by law.[1] The answers to these questions are laid out in seven constitutional clauses that define “Money” and the powers both delegated to and prohibited from the national and State governments in regards to monetary policy. These seven clauses are the standard by which every act of Congress and State law, dealing with monetary policy, must be but has seldom been measured. Four clauses in Article I, Section 8 define the monetary powers delegated to Congress. “The Congress shall have Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;[2]… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,[3]…To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States[.][4]”“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]”[5] The first two clauses of the four only authorize Congress to borrow, coin, and regulate the value of “Money”. The third clause requires Congress to provide for the “Punishment” of counterfeiters, and the last clause limits the reason for which money can be drawn from the US Treasury. Only one clause of the seven defines the monetary powers prohibited to the State governments. “No State shall…emit Bills of Credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts[.]”[6] Finally, two clauses of the seven specifically refer to “dollars”, “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”[7] “…where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars;”[8] thereby using a term that had a definite meaning to everyone who both framed and ratified the US Constitution. By constitutionally defining the term “dollars” we can unravel much confusion modern Americans have about the constitutional monetary system and it will help decipher the other five monetary clauses. The dollar, as referred to in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 and the Seventh Amendment, is a “Money Unit” defined by specific grains of fine silver equivalent to “New Spanish Dollars” in 1786. We know this because in 1785, Congress “Resolved, That the money unit of the United States of America be one dollar.”[9] Then, “in 1786, the Congressional Board of Treasury…calculated that “[t]he Money Unit or Dollar will contain three hundred and seventy five grains and sixty four hundredths of a Grain of fine Silver”, and will be worth as much as the New Spanish Dollars.”[10] Later, the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed the grains of silver in the dollar to 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Alexander Hamilton, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, did this to more accurately equate the US dollar to the value of a Spanish milled dollar prevalent at that time. The Coinage Act of 1792 also defined the amount of gold in American gold coins, so their nominal values of $10 and $20 would be proportional to ten and twenty silver dollar coins, respectively. By the national government’s 1785 resolution, the Board of Treasury’s 1786 definition and because everyone who ratified the Constitution understood the meaning of “dollars” according to these two actions, a dollar is statutorily fixed, by the Constitution, as being a silver coin comprised of a specific number of grains of fine silver “worth as much as the New Spanish Dollars”, which the Coinage Act of 1792 fixed at 371-1/4 grains. This is significant because it is the standard of value by which the national government must maintain and measure all other “Thing[s]” with respect to monetary value. Congress is no more able to redefine what constitutes a “dollar[ ]” than they are able to redefine the length of a “year”. Both terms are used by the Constitution and both have very specific meanings. The Coinage Act of 1792 more precisely defined the dollar in relation to milled Spanish dollars and any other adjustments would not serve to improve the standard unit of United States “Money.” “Money” as defined by the Constitution also has a very specific meaning. We know from the monetary powers delegated to Congress that “Money” has to be coined, therefore it has to be made of metal and as pursuant to common law it has to be of intrinsic value.[11] From the monetary prohibitions placed upon the States we see both gold and silver were meant to comprise the coinage system in the United States, which also comports with common law from which the framers of the Constitution developed the monetary clauses. Putting all of this together, Constitutional “Money” is gold or silver coin whose value is measured against a silver coin of 371-1/4 grains of fine silver. Copper may also be used as “Money”, because it is a semi-precious metal, but its value must be measured against the silver dollar as defined by the Coinage Act of 1792. This brings us back to the questions Americans should ask about the government’s monetary policies. Since the Tenth Amendment specifies that Congress is only allowed to exercise authority where it is specifically written in the Constitution, it should be clear Congress can only borrow, coin, and regulate the value of coins in relation to the silver dollar standard. They are also obligated to provide for the punishment of counterfeiters. Conversely, they are prohibited from making any other monetary policy to include emitting paper currency of any kind as legal tender, withdrawing money from the US Treasury without “Appropriations made by Law”, or allowing surrogates to do the things they are prohibited from doing, because it is not specifically authorized in the Constitution. The national government is also not authorized to confiscate the property of American citizens without due process of common law. Unfortunately, they have done all of these things and are still currently doing most of them. The only thing that is stopping us from demanding our national government uphold our Constitution is us. Nobody but politicians and their friends are benefiting from our current monetary system, and most importantly, to do anything else other than to uphold the Constitution is contrary to the “supreme Law of the Land.” This should at least be one issue upon which most all Americans can agree; restore the constitutional monetary system. [1] E. Vieira, Jr., Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, Rev ed. (Chicago, IL: RR Donnelley & Sons, Inc.),38. [2] Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 [3] Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 [4] Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 [5] Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 [6] Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 [7] Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 [8] Amendment VII [9] 29 Journals of the Continental Congress, ante note 331, at 499-500. [10] Vieira, 89. [11] Vieira, 69.

The demise of evil

This divorce of moral significance from the words we choose likely will not end soon. The demise of evil Evil should not surprise Americans. We’ve seen it so many times and in so many degrees and variations – in those who tolerated some people having to sit in the back of the bus, in children who torment animals, in bankers who knowingly sold junk financial products and helped to destroy the economy and in men who set bombs in front of innocent bystanders at a marathon. The list is almost endless for those who look. But still it shocks, as if the concept is unfathomable, as if 19 men didn’t kill thousands of innocent Americans only 12 years ago. And as if the Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on trial for murdering children born alive is some kind of fluke of history. I was reminded of this reading the many news reports about Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , the two men accused of the Boston marathon bombings. So many described the pair as “normal” young men, especially Dzhokhar, the younger of the two Russian-born Chechen brothers. One classmate of the 19-year-old Dzhokhar at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth told Politico, “He was a pothead, a normal pothead. I couldn’t even imagine him being mad at someone, let alone hurting someone.” Another told a USA Today reporter, “He was really social and hilarious. He was one of those people who would crack one joke and make your night.” Really? Was that all there was to him? I wonder if any of his fellow party goers asked him about the things that mattered to him or his deepest desires. None of the quotes that I have seen about him speak to that side of the young man who reportedly confessed to planting two bombs with his brother that killed three people and injured more than 200 and assaulting and killing a police officer. To be fair, of course it is shocking when someone you know does something terrible. But it is as if collectively we do not understand that evil exists except for the moment it happens or as an event to cover, not as something present in human nature itself. Turn on the news or watch any sitcom and this becomes immediately apparent. All lifestyle choices are equal in American culture as are all faiths, which has almost silenced substantive discussions about the largest issues in life for people living in fear of being labeled a racist, homophobe or hater. Our language reflects this decision to suspend critical thought. Many news outlets, for example, no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.” Among the reasons for the change is that interest groups find the term dehumanizing and lacking in diversity. The Associated Press (AP) said it is changing its widely used “Stylebook” because “‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.” Likewise the government does not like to label people or actions with terms that could provoke questions about the non-judgmental dominant worldview. That is why the murder of 13 innocents at Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan in 2009 is classified as “workplace violence” instead of a terrorist attack despite his screaming of “Allahu Akbar” during the massacre and despite the numerous emails found between him and the radical American- born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. This divorce of moral significance from the words we choose likely will not end soon. One in three under 30 claim no religious affiliation and so many of the rest of us view faith as a means to self-fulfillment rather than a worldview with right and wrong. But no matter how hard we try to erase judgment from our vocabulary and culture, it cannot eliminate the dark side of human nature. And because our language reflects how we think and vice versa, as George Orwell noted in “Politics and the English Language,” understanding, anticipating and ultimately labeling evil will become more difficult for Americans. “If you see something, say something” is a good idea for identifying suspect bags, but what will be the strategy for identifying suspect minds in the U.S. when “evil” has been removed from the “AP Stylebook”? This divorce of moral significance from the words we choose likely will not end soon. The demise of evil Evil should not surprise Americans. We’ve seen it so many times and in so many degrees and variations – in those who tolerated some people having to sit in the back of the bus, in children who torment animals, in bankers who knowingly sold junk financial products and helped to destroy the economy and in men who set bombs in front of innocent bystanders at a marathon. The list is almost endless for those who look. But still it shocks, as if the concept is unfathomable, as if 19 men didn’t kill thousands of innocent Americans only 12 years ago. And as if the Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on trial for murdering children born alive is some kind of fluke of history. I was reminded of this reading the many news reports about Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , the two men accused of the Boston marathon bombings. So many described the pair as “normal” young men, especially Dzhokhar, the younger of the two Russian-born Chechen brothers. One classmate of the 19-year-old Dzhokhar at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth told Politico, “He was a pothead, a normal pothead. I couldn’t even imagine him being mad at someone, let alone hurting someone.” Another told a USA Today reporter, “He was really social and hilarious. He was one of those people who would crack one joke and make your night.” Really? Was that all there was to him? I wonder if any of his fellow party goers asked him about the things that mattered to him or his deepest desires. None of the quotes that I have seen about him speak to that side of the young man who reportedly confessed to planting two bombs with his brother that killed three people and injured more than 200 and assaulting and killing a police officer. To be fair, of course it is shocking when someone you know does something terrible. But it is as if collectively we do not understand that evil exists except for the moment it happens or as an event to cover, not as something present in human nature itself. Turn on the news or watch any sitcom and this becomes immediately apparent. All lifestyle choices are equal in American culture as are all faiths, which has almost silenced substantive discussions about the largest issues in life for people living in fear of being labeled a racist, homophobe or hater. Our language reflects this decision to suspend critical thought. Many news outlets, for example, no longer use the term “illegal immigrant.” Among the reasons for the change is that interest groups find the term dehumanizing and lacking in diversity. The Associated Press (AP) said it is changing its widely used “Stylebook” because “‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.” Likewise the government does not like to label people or actions with terms that could provoke questions about the non-judgmental dominant worldview. That is why the murder of 13 innocents at Fort Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan in 2009 is classified as “workplace violence” instead of a terrorist attack despite his screaming of “Allahu Akbar” during the massacre and despite the numerous emails found between him and the radical American- born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. This divorce of moral significance from the words we choose likely will not end soon. One in three under 30 claim no religious affiliation and so many of the rest of us view faith as a means to self-fulfillment rather than a worldview with right and wrong. But no matter how hard we try to erase judgment from our vocabulary and culture, it cannot eliminate the dark side of human nature. And because our language reflects how we think and vice versa, as George Orwell noted in “Politics and the English Language,” understanding, anticipating and ultimately labeling evil will become more difficult for Americans. “If you see something, say something” is a good idea for identifying suspect bags, but what will be the strategy for identifying suspect minds in the U.S. when “evil” has been removed from the “AP Stylebook”?

Friday, April 26, 2013

Why My Family Came to America

Why My Family Came to America More than any other nation in history, the United States has made itself a new home for immigrants in search of a better life. It embraces those who come to this country honestly—often with nothing more than their work ethic—in search of the promises and opportunities of the American Dream. As a second-generation American, I think of this promise often. Each and every day, when I see my grandfather’s Ellis Island records hanging on my wall, I remember what he went through to come to this country. I remember how he left behind all he had ever known in Hungary to escape discrimination and the destruction left in the wake of World War I; how he gave up everything so that he could offer his children and grandchildren the promise of freedom and opportunity in a new land. His story is not unique. Since our nation’s founding, millions of immigrants have come to our shores with a similar dream, each bringing with them new experiences and pieces of their cultures that together form part of what makes this nation great. Over the past several decades, however, immigration policy has become confused, unfocused, and dysfunctional. America lacks a simple system to attract the qualified immigrants who can help our economy and contribute to our nation. Millions of unlawfully present immigrants are undermining America’s core principle of the rule of law, while the legal naturalization process isn’t working as well as it should. Large-scale immigration without effective assimilation threatens social cohesion, along with America’s civic culture and common identity. This is particularly true when immigrants are assimilated into the welfare state rather than into a society of opportunity. It is high time for an immigration policy that serves immigrants and citizens alike. As an important part of this, we must find ways to reform our legal immigration system to create a process that is truly fair, orderly, and efficient. Indeed, currently there are close to 4.5 million individuals waiting in line to come to this country legally—and some have been waiting for as long as 24 years. These numbers make one thing clear: America needs meaningful immigration reform. It must, however, be done in a deliberative and thoughtful manner. It must also seek to uphold the rule of law, welcome individuals through a legal framework, and discourage future flows of unlawful immigrants. By recognizing these facts and beginning to work on solutions where we can all agree, we can rebuild an immigration process in harmony with our highest principles and best traditions. Why My Family Came to America More than any other nation in history, the United States has made itself a new home for immigrants in search of a better life. It embraces those who come to this country honestly—often with nothing more than their work ethic—in search of the promises and opportunities of the American Dream. As a second-generation American, I think of this promise often. Each and every day, when I see my grandfather’s Ellis Island records hanging on my wall, I remember what he went through to come to this country. I remember how he left behind all he had ever known in Hungary to escape discrimination and the destruction left in the wake of World War I; how he gave up everything so that he could offer his children and grandchildren the promise of freedom and opportunity in a new land. His story is not unique. Since our nation’s founding, millions of immigrants have come to our shores with a similar dream, each bringing with them new experiences and pieces of their cultures that together form part of what makes this nation great. Over the past several decades, however, immigration policy has become confused, unfocused, and dysfunctional. America lacks a simple system to attract the qualified immigrants who can help our economy and contribute to our nation. Millions of unlawfully present immigrants are undermining America’s core principle of the rule of law, while the legal naturalization process isn’t working as well as it should. Large-scale immigration without effective assimilation threatens social cohesion, along with America’s civic culture and common identity. This is particularly true when immigrants are assimilated into the welfare state rather than into a society of opportunity. It is high time for an immigration policy that serves immigrants and citizens alike. As an important part of this, we must find ways to reform our legal immigration system to create a process that is truly fair, orderly, and efficient. Indeed, currently there are close to 4.5 million individuals waiting in line to come to this country legally—and some have been waiting for as long as 24 years. These numbers make one thing clear: America needs meaningful immigration reform. It must, however, be done in a deliberative and thoughtful manner. It must also seek to uphold the rule of law, welcome individuals through a legal framework, and discourage future flows of unlawful immigrants. By recognizing these facts and beginning to work on solutions where we can all agree, we can rebuild an immigration process in harmony with our highest principles and best traditions.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Terrorism,LET US BEGIN HERE AT HOME

LET US BEGIN HERE AT HOME The American mosque is an outpost of tribal Islamism A Tribal War in Boston Terrorism, like urban crime, is one of those things that you’re not supposed to think about too much. It’s fine to talk about your emotions after a bombing or a mugging. You can even share stories and eventually learn to laugh about it. What you cannot do is talk about where it comes from except in the vaguest terms of social conditions. Like pollution from industry or corruption from government, it’s one of those toxic spinoffs of our modern society. It’s just there and we don’t much talk about it. Islamic terrorism is considered a social problem in Europe. Ask an expert and they’ll talk your ear off about unemployment, racism, overcrowded housing and the same long list of reasons used to explain urban crime. The United States is slowly coming around to that same point of view. Forget the great debate between whether people kill people or guns kill people. The conclusion reached by most governments before your grandfather was born is that social conditions kill people. The Tsarneav brothers are being talked about in the same way that most serial killers are. “They were so nice. What made them do it?” It’s the empty repetition of a question to which no one really wants to hear the answer. “What could have made them do it?” isn’t a genuine question, it’s a ceremonial washing of the hands. A ritualistic statement that we couldn’t have known anything was wrong. How could we? They were so nice. Tamerlan Tsarneav slapped around one girlfriend, dragged another into a barefoot, pregnant and veiled arrangement, and went around telling everyone they were infidels. Sure he might have settled down at some point, picked up his membership card in the requisite front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood and limited his terrorist activities to donating to Islamic charities that just happen to do business in the middle of war zones. He could have stuck to beating his wife in the privacy of his home and told his neighbors that America would one day be destroyed knowing they would only nod and walk away humming, “But he’s so nice”. The United States is full of moderate Muslims just like that. They are the people politicians point to as proof that not all Muslims are terrorists, just the ones who actually blow up things. Tamerlan Tsarneav was indeed a social problem, but not the one most liberals think he is. He wasn’t unemployment, racism or lack of parking spaces. He was the social problem we don’t talk about because it’s off limits. The empty space in the narrative. The one that terrorism comes from. The Europeans would talk about integration. But what was there for Tamerlan to integrate to? A coterie of white academics looking to get jobs on climate change commissions? A rainbow coalition of minorities taking pride in victimization while demanding their piece of the pie? And who was he? American? What does being American mean? Chechen? Who are they? They’re Muslims. They’re killers. When being American got too hard, Tamerlan rolled the dice and they came up Chechen. They came up Muslim. And we all know the rest of the story. Eurocrats worry endlessly about how many Tamerlans in London, Paris and Oslo roll those dice only to see them come up Pakistani, Algerian and Somali. But they can’t talk about what’s wrong with that. Back in the Tsarneav homeland, clans fight each other to the death, wiping out entire families to the last child. Here is a brief description of one man’s vendetta. “He wanted to kill off all the men in the other family, and he devoted his life to that goal. He would hide someplace where he thought one of his enemies might pass by, staying there for weeks at a time if necessary. In the end, he killed about 20 people.” That should sound familiar to anyone who sat in front of the television watching the aftermath of the Boston bombings. And here’s another. “The oral tradition abounds in tales of feuds sparked by the theft of a chicken culminating in the death of an entire Teip.” What is a Teip you might ask. A Teip is a Chechen clan. Everyone has one in Chechnya including foreigners. To have a place in the society, you must have a Teip of your own. Otherwise. “This man has neither a Teip nor a Tukkhum.” Where was Tamerlan’s Teip in America? Americans don’t talk about their Teips. Instead Tamerlan found the same Teip that so many other Pakistanis, Egyptians, Somalis and other Muslim immigrants find when they live in a non-Muslim country. Tamerlan’s Teip, like Nidal Hasan’s Teip, was Islam. Tamerlan took possession of his Teip. And then he began to kill on behalf of his Teip. You can call it the Clash of Civilizations or a clash of clans. At the Boston Marathon, the Tsarneav brothers began killing the members of the Boston Teip or the American Teip in defense of the honor of the Islamic Teip. We can call this sort of thing terrorism, and it is, but it’s also something much more primitive and much less calculated. The Afghan soldiers murdering American soldiers often do it unprompted and sometimes even without any prior planning. They do it because in tribal cultures honor is complicated and murder is casual. Life is cheap, especially the lives of men without teips. Americans were under the impression that Tamerlan was a member of Teip America. He wasn’t. Teip America is fine for some some natives, but it was much too big for him. It had no shape or purpose. Nothing for him to claim possession of and defend. Teip America gave him everything for free and wouldn’t even let him fight to take it. Teip America gave him the good life, but took away his honor. But what does all this Teip talk have to do with the modern world? It is an article of faith that any number of people can come to this country and bring their diverse Teips with them, and aside from some picturesque native foods and unique post-colonial grievances, they all become part of the tapestry of Teip America. Chechnya is a modern place now. Sure it has warlords, kidnappings and Sharia punishments, but who are we to judge them? And Tamerlan Tsarneav grew up in the United States. What could the crazy backward mores of his society, which we mustn’t judge, have anything to with his killing spree? There are more relevant things that we could talk about, like race, class and the availability of parking spaces in Boston. Even now the politicians begin trooping down to the local mosque to press the flesh with the “moderates” who are the last best hope for preventing another marathon massacre. But what is an American mosque really? Some are still mono-cultural, dominated by Lebanese, Turkish or Bangladeshi immigrants. Many however are more expansive. They are artificial Teips based on religion, rather than nationality or race. Their existence is innately Islamist. The American mosque is an outpost of tribal Islamism. It’s an artificial community that primes members of tribal cultures to identify with and defend a religious Teip. That is the system that the Saudis have invested a good deal of money into building because it provides them with an endless flow of cannon fodder. We are not a melting pot or a beautiful tapestry of diversity. What we are is often something more prosaic. Clans. The clans may be broadly defined, but they are still there and if you doubt it, then go try an urban neighborhood that you are not meant to walk. The clan structure is weak and the leaders are often absent. Some clans are full of single mothers and itinerant male warriors. Others are traditionally patriarchal. Some clans form alliances based on language, geography or religion. That is multiculturalism. It is a clumsy alliance of Teips pretending to represent all the Teips. Multiculturalism, like most forms of liberal consensus, shut out any contradictory realities. But there are Teips here other than the coalition of community groups united to demand more money for social services centers. There are older Teips in America that come from the desert and the mountains. Teips that care nothing for building more LGBT youth centers and a great deal about honor and territory. Tamerlan found his Teip in Islam. So have many Islamic terrorists and political Islamists. Their Teip is not one that we talk about. It is the Teip that is at war with all the other Teips. It is at war with the basic idea of Multiteipism that the entire broken system it is trying to topple over is based on. And the story is the same in Europe. It is the same in Canada. It is the same in Australia. It is the same everywhere. We can’t talk about this of course because we are modern people and we know that’s not how things work. We know that we are lucky to be living in a society with such rich diversity. Our diversity is our strength. The more divided we become, the stronger we will be. And if occasionally bombs go off or heads fly or planes crash into skyscrapers, we will walk away muttering, “But he was so nice.” LET US BEGIN HERE AT HOME The American mosque is an outpost of tribal Islamism A Tribal War in Boston Terrorism, like urban crime, is one of those things that you’re not supposed to think about too much. It’s fine to talk about your emotions after a bombing or a mugging. You can even share stories and eventually learn to laugh about it. What you cannot do is talk about where it comes from except in the vaguest terms of social conditions. Like pollution from industry or corruption from government, it’s one of those toxic spinoffs of our modern society. It’s just there and we don’t much talk about it. Islamic terrorism is considered a social problem in Europe. Ask an expert and they’ll talk your ear off about unemployment, racism, overcrowded housing and the same long list of reasons used to explain urban crime. The United States is slowly coming around to that same point of view. Forget the great debate between whether people kill people or guns kill people. The conclusion reached by most governments before your grandfather was born is that social conditions kill people. The Tsarneav brothers are being talked about in the same way that most serial killers are. “They were so nice. What made them do it?” It’s the empty repetition of a question to which no one really wants to hear the answer. “What could have made them do it?” isn’t a genuine question, it’s a ceremonial washing of the hands. A ritualistic statement that we couldn’t have known anything was wrong. How could we? They were so nice. Tamerlan Tsarneav slapped around one girlfriend, dragged another into a barefoot, pregnant and veiled arrangement, and went around telling everyone they were infidels. Sure he might have settled down at some point, picked up his membership card in the requisite front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood and limited his terrorist activities to donating to Islamic charities that just happen to do business in the middle of war zones. He could have stuck to beating his wife in the privacy of his home and told his neighbors that America would one day be destroyed knowing they would only nod and walk away humming, “But he’s so nice”. The United States is full of moderate Muslims just like that. They are the people politicians point to as proof that not all Muslims are terrorists, just the ones who actually blow up things. Tamerlan Tsarneav was indeed a social problem, but not the one most liberals think he is. He wasn’t unemployment, racism or lack of parking spaces. He was the social problem we don’t talk about because it’s off limits. The empty space in the narrative. The one that terrorism comes from. The Europeans would talk about integration. But what was there for Tamerlan to integrate to? A coterie of white academics looking to get jobs on climate change commissions? A rainbow coalition of minorities taking pride in victimization while demanding their piece of the pie? And who was he? American? What does being American mean? Chechen? Who are they? They’re Muslims. They’re killers. When being American got too hard, Tamerlan rolled the dice and they came up Chechen. They came up Muslim. And we all know the rest of the story. Eurocrats worry endlessly about how many Tamerlans in London, Paris and Oslo roll those dice only to see them come up Pakistani, Algerian and Somali. But they can’t talk about what’s wrong with that. Back in the Tsarneav homeland, clans fight each other to the death, wiping out entire families to the last child. Here is a brief description of one man’s vendetta. “He wanted to kill off all the men in the other family, and he devoted his life to that goal. He would hide someplace where he thought one of his enemies might pass by, staying there for weeks at a time if necessary. In the end, he killed about 20 people.” That should sound familiar to anyone who sat in front of the television watching the aftermath of the Boston bombings. And here’s another. “The oral tradition abounds in tales of feuds sparked by the theft of a chicken culminating in the death of an entire Teip.” What is a Teip you might ask. A Teip is a Chechen clan. Everyone has one in Chechnya including foreigners. To have a place in the society, you must have a Teip of your own. Otherwise. “This man has neither a Teip nor a Tukkhum.” Where was Tamerlan’s Teip in America? Americans don’t talk about their Teips. Instead Tamerlan found the same Teip that so many other Pakistanis, Egyptians, Somalis and other Muslim immigrants find when they live in a non-Muslim country. Tamerlan’s Teip, like Nidal Hasan’s Teip, was Islam. Tamerlan took possession of his Teip. And then he began to kill on behalf of his Teip. You can call it the Clash of Civilizations or a clash of clans. At the Boston Marathon, the Tsarneav brothers began killing the members of the Boston Teip or the American Teip in defense of the honor of the Islamic Teip. We can call this sort of thing terrorism, and it is, but it’s also something much more primitive and much less calculated. The Afghan soldiers murdering American soldiers often do it unprompted and sometimes even without any prior planning. They do it because in tribal cultures honor is complicated and murder is casual. Life is cheap, especially the lives of men without teips. Americans were under the impression that Tamerlan was a member of Teip America. He wasn’t. Teip America is fine for some some natives, but it was much too big for him. It had no shape or purpose. Nothing for him to claim possession of and defend. Teip America gave him everything for free and wouldn’t even let him fight to take it. Teip America gave him the good life, but took away his honor. But what does all this Teip talk have to do with the modern world? It is an article of faith that any number of people can come to this country and bring their diverse Teips with them, and aside from some picturesque native foods and unique post-colonial grievances, they all become part of the tapestry of Teip America. Chechnya is a modern place now. Sure it has warlords, kidnappings and Sharia punishments, but who are we to judge them? And Tamerlan Tsarneav grew up in the United States. What could the crazy backward mores of his society, which we mustn’t judge, have anything to with his killing spree? There are more relevant things that we could talk about, like race, class and the availability of parking spaces in Boston. Even now the politicians begin trooping down to the local mosque to press the flesh with the “moderates” who are the last best hope for preventing another marathon massacre. But what is an American mosque really? Some are still mono-cultural, dominated by Lebanese, Turkish or Bangladeshi immigrants. Many however are more expansive. They are artificial Teips based on religion, rather than nationality or race. Their existence is innately Islamist. The American mosque is an outpost of tribal Islamism. It’s an artificial community that primes members of tribal cultures to identify with and defend a religious Teip. That is the system that the Saudis have invested a good deal of money into building because it provides them with an endless flow of cannon fodder. We are not a melting pot or a beautiful tapestry of diversity. What we are is often something more prosaic. Clans. The clans may be broadly defined, but they are still there and if you doubt it, then go try an urban neighborhood that you are not meant to walk. The clan structure is weak and the leaders are often absent. Some clans are full of single mothers and itinerant male warriors. Others are traditionally patriarchal. Some clans form alliances based on language, geography or religion. That is multiculturalism. It is a clumsy alliance of Teips pretending to represent all the Teips. Multiculturalism, like most forms of liberal consensus, shut out any contradictory realities. But there are Teips here other than the coalition of community groups united to demand more money for social services centers. There are older Teips in America that come from the desert and the mountains. Teips that care nothing for building more LGBT youth centers and a great deal about honor and territory. Tamerlan found his Teip in Islam. So have many Islamic terrorists and political Islamists. Their Teip is not one that we talk about. It is the Teip that is at war with all the other Teips. It is at war with the basic idea of Multiteipism that the entire broken system it is trying to topple over is based on. And the story is the same in Europe. It is the same in Canada. It is the same in Australia. It is the same everywhere. We can’t talk about this of course because we are modern people and we know that’s not how things work. We know that we are lucky to be living in a society with such rich diversity. Our diversity is our strength. The more divided we become, the stronger we will be. And if occasionally bombs go off or heads fly or planes crash into skyscrapers, we will walk away muttering, “But he was so nice.”