Washington Post Threat "No Biden, No Peace"

 

 

As disgusting as much of the media has become, the Washington Post has hit a new low. 

 

 In a new op-ed written by Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University, the Left is telling us that unless Biden wins big, there will be a major insurrection and violence galore. Now remember, Ms. Brooks is a law professor in a major university. Based on an article she wrote for the far Left Atlantic, she's no big fan of our police either. And here, she's advocating for street violence as a tool to threaten voters. 

 Now, she doesn't exactly say so. What she hides this behind is that these are simply the results of 'research' by the Transition Integrity Project, something she cofounded. What they did was to construct series of 'war game's, hand pick some participants, and ask them to say what they would do in various election scenarios. And of course, a landslide for Joe Biden (whom she obviously supports, just like the Wapo) results in a relatively orderly transfer of power. 

Every other scenario that she'war-gamed' for the hand picked participants resulted in street-level violence and chaos. My, my. So it's quite clear that the American left is actually threatening the American public, 'vote Joe or it'll be hell.' And they're using a major newspaper to do it. 

 Actually, this is no secret. It's what the Left has been up to for the last 3 years. Now they're forewarning us directly just in case we haven't gotten the message yet. To those of us who have actually following what's been going on, this is what everything they have been doing this year has been to give a taste of what they have in store if they don't get their way. All of their behavior has been headed towards this. It's all been planned.In other words, they have had a strategy to attempt to intimidate you, manipulate you and scare you.

And now they're being open about it. Their message is simple. Just vote for Biden and get rid of Trump and you'll stay safe. Cross us, and it will be hell. If Trump gets re-elected, theyare saying, 'll be even worse than it is now. 

They're being very open about this. They’re just coming right out and telling you now that if Biden doesn't win, then your country is going to be violent and chaotic. And since this garbage was published at the Washington Post, they stand behind it.

 

 

 Will it really be that bad if Trump wins? Let's look at that. In the first place, let's remember that this stuff has only occurred in areas run by the Democrats, with mayors who handcuff their police, Governors with political reasons for letting things get crazy, and cities with far left  city councils and District attorneys who will drop charges and let violent rioters leave scot free. Many of them were bankrolled by tax free 'social justice organizations' run by George Soros. 

If you notice, there hasn't been anything like this in places with Republican mayors and city councils, governers or DA's. In Texas, for instance, there was a small fracus in Austin, definitely a blue run city. It didn't last long, the perps were promptly arrested and that was that. So what we would see,essentially is a temper tantrum in blue run jurisdictions. As a re-elected President Trump could definitely exercise the Insurrection statutes to stop it.

 We have a choice. We can cower to this blackmail and elect a figurehead President who will take his orders from his far left puppet masters. I guarantee they will destroy our economy, kill our second amendment, raise our taxes and destroy our suburban neighbrhoods and turn America into something very different in terms of our individual freedoms and liberty.

Trust me when I say that the 'safety' they're promising you will not be very safe at all. Just look at the cities they already run! They aren't very safe at all. Or we can stand up to these freedom hating, Marxist loving Lefties and keep America on the path we have already started on, one of prosperity, lower taxes, individual freedom, school choice, opportunity and policies that consider America first. Oh yes, and a president who stands up for America and is a real leader. 

 

Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Examiner, American Thinker, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, The Times Of Israel, Breitbart.Com, Yediot and other publications

Hungary's PM Viktor Orbán On Freedom; 'Brussels Must be Stopped!'

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is one of the leaders of Europe's anti EU, nationalist movement. Orbán led the Hungarians in defying the EU and not allowing unlimited Muslim 'refugees' into their country. As Viktor Orbán reminds his listeners, Hungary has historical experience on what that sort of thing means at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.

Every year on March 15, Hungarians celebrate the anniversary of their Revolution of 1848, when Hungary fought Austria in an attempt to gain its independence. The Hungarians almost won, but Austria was able to subdue them with help from the Russian Empire. Hungarian autonomy was finally achieved in 1867, when the Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Hungary was given equal status.

This is a speech Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave on March 15 to honor the revolutionaries of 1848, and to draw parallels with that time and what is happening in Europe today. And while some of the references referred to may not be immediately apparent, this is a speech worth hearing.

The Magyars referred to are the ancient tribe of Hungarians who founded the Kingdom of Hungary after migrating west from the Urals. They remain the predominant element of the population of Hungary today.

All credit to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the English subtitles.

Rise And Shine - Some Thoughts For The New Year

2015 has been quite a year, and in many respects, a disappointing one. Aside from the rise of ISIS and their attacks on the west, we have a dysfunctional Leftist ideologue as president, the economy is nothing like as rosy as it's being painted, many people justifiably feel that the Republican majority they thought they elected to stop President Obama's agenda has betrayed them and it seems like our deepest and most long held traditions, institutions and beliefs are being assaulted on every side. It literally seems like we're living in Yeats's 'Second Coming':

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

That lack of conviction is expressed by a lot of people who describe themselves as 'disillusioned.' Strange word that, disillusioned. It has a thoroughly negative context, symbolizing the loss of hope and ideals. No doubt some of you might be surprised to know that I consider it one of the most positive words in the English language.

To be disillusioned is a state of dropping illusions, the false sense of the state of affairs and seeing the truth for what it is. Is there anything that can be more positive and empowering than that? If I had to characterize 2015, I'd say it's been a year when more and more Americans - by no means all, but a steadily increasing amount - became disillusioned in the best sense of that word. We have had three bad presidents in a row, two of them abysmal and one merely overcome by his background and the force of events but nevertheless almost as destructive in his own way as the other two. We've become disillusioned, we increasingly realize how deep the rot has gone and we know we can no longer ignore it, as we have for the past quarter century. People sense the climate of the times.  The success of Donald Trump that cuts across partisan lines is proof of that.  In a very real sense, having suffered through the Left's Obama, Trump's supporters want Donald Trump to be their Obama, and to take revenge for our latest's president's not insignificant role in the plundering and degradation of our America. And the howls of dismay from the GOP establishment only enhances that emotion.

How that works out remains to be seen, but there is this to consider, for the disappointed and disillusioned. With everything that's happened, 2016 is still a year of hope. We still have a fighting chance to reclaim our beloved Republic from our enemies within and without who seek to twist, plunder and destroy it, especially in an election year. One of the blessings America enjoys from the Almighty is that having faced even darker times than we do today, America and the American Spirit have always revitalized themselves and prevailed. And somehow, the right leaders have always come along to lead the way through the darkness.

It can happen again if we want it to, because it is our innate nature as a country unique in the annals of history. The one thing that can stop it is to wallow our own despair and to surrender. That gives the victory to the Enemy, and serves us not at all.

Instead, take your cue from the two delightful little party animals above. Rise to the New Year with the happiness, the hope and the vigor that is our birthright. Let those who hate what America is and what it stands for, those who wish us ill, let them lament and despair as they are defeated and fade back into the woodwork and the crevices of history like the self-aggrandized cockroaches they are.

We have the chance to answer Benjamin Franklin's famous words after Philadelphia, when he told one of his fellow Americans that we had a Republic if we could keep it. Our answer, echoing back across the ages to our Founders and our forefathers should be a resounding 'Yes, we can.'

They risked everything for that Republic, quite literally their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.  We must be prepared to do likewise. If we, their heirs are unwilling to do less than that for ourselves and our posterity, we will no longer worthy of what they sacrificed so much to pass down to us. We will have meekly given up our birthright to be slaves unworthy of our freedom. So let us embrace disillusionment in its best sense. Let us resolve to rise and shine, and to do whatever is necessary. 

This is our opportunity to write a new chapter in America's history, to reclaim what it is and what it stands for, to take back what is ours. Welcome that struggle along with the New Year and don't place bets on America's failure and decline. The history of our Republic is littered with the failure of those whom have.

The Latest Faux Issue - Vaccinations

Our president, who ran our debt up to $18 trillion wants to submit as ridiculous budget to congress to raise spending another $4 trillion, something that would have gotten him laughed at and ridiculed in saner times. Not only that, but he threatening to veto any budget that doesn't raise spending.

To add to the mix, the president wants to raise taxes on American corporations, even though they're already close to the highest in the world.He also wants to increase the already high 'death taxes' and toss his green energy cronies another $7.4 billion in subsidies.

Food and utility prices continue to reach record highs as wages stay stagnant, healthcare premiums continue to skyrocket and gas prices, one of the few bright spots in the economy are starting to rise again.

And that's just the domestic side of things.

So instead of any of these issues, what are all the headlines about today? Vaccination. Mandatory vaccination of children.

Before we deal with how ridiculous and manufactured this is, full disclosure, my children were vaccinated.

The Left decided to create an issue out of this just like they did about birth control. And it's similar in that no conservative per se want to ban vaccinations, just like they didn't want to ban birth control. The key words are choice and mandatory.

This absolutely kills me. These are the same people on the Left who applauded amnesty for thousands of illegal aliens who came across the border without  any health checks whatsoever, and they claim to be concerned now about the spread of contagious diseases?



Being pro-vaccination is one thing. Forcing people to doit against their will is quite another.

Here's one of the stupider headlines out there, courtesy of the Soros gally slaves at Talking Points Memo: Doctor: 'I don't care if my kids make others gravely sick' (no link, stupidity is even more contagious these days than most diseases).

Aside from the fact the quote is,shall we say, not exactly a real quote, let's look at the premise. If my children are vaccinated against a certain disease, the chances are they aren't going to catch that disease, nor will other children whom are vaccinated. The kids that stand a far greater chance are those whom aren't vaccinated.

On the other hand, there are parents whom feel that vaccination leads to other diseases and problems.

Since there really isn't totally conclusive research on this either way ( although the evidence,in my view, leans towards the efficacy of vaccinations) really both sets of parent are rolling the dice, and the reality probably is that there's another, unknown genetic or biochemical factor involved.

So why should parents who don't want their kids vaccinated be forced to..and for that matter, just to flip the coin, why should my children be prohibited from being vaccinated if I want them to be?

Nor do I accept the argument that this is a question of 'public risk.'We seem to be asked to accept quite a bit of public risk these days when it comes to what the Left wants - body scans and shoe removal at airports instead of profiling, the confiscation of legal firearms, releasing violent felons back into society, the aforementioned illegal aliens, wholesale social engineering in many if our institutions in the name of 'choice' and 'diversity.'

So what's wrong with giving parents a choice here?

UPDATE: My good friend Snoopy over at Simply Jews makes a point worth considering:

Un-vaccinated kids are endangering not only themselves, which will be less of a problem*. Unfortunately, and I am taking it from a horse mouth, believe me, they are putting into a deadly danger a lot of adults that may die because of the kids.

The reason is that some (not all, but quite a high percentage) of vaccines don't work forever for a person that underwent the vaccination. Many of diseases that we were vaccinated against, are simply out of circulation, considered to be extinct, thus no one is required to repeat the vaccinations at a later stage.

Unfortunately, during the last twenty or so years, it appeared that quite a few diseases thought extinct, are anything but, just hiding in some remote corners of the world and waiting for un-vaccinated kids, who are the surest targets for bugs of all kinds, as it is widely known.

And what do you know - the next victims could be these innocent adults, vaccinated a lot of years ago and considered to be out of the danger zone. This scenario could kill literally millions before an answer to a specific bug is found.

So please consider this warning. The freedom of vaccination goes only so far. In this case, much as I dislike government intervention in anything, I should consider a forced inoculation. Except, of course, the cases where it is impossible for medical reasons.

By the way, I am not at all sure that the whole vaccination story is split by left vs right. Consider this moron Bill Maher:

And there are more of same ilk...

(*) I would say that the grown-ups that consider it their expression of freedom not to vaccinate their kids for (wrong) health, political or religious reasons, are deeply in the wrong - because they take the decision to endanger someone else's life.

A Few Words On 'Discrimination' And Freedom

Now here's a small item that caught my attention.

Apparently a gay couple stopped at a popular restaurant called Big Earl's Bait House and Country Store in Pittsburg Texas, a middling sized town in the corner of northeast Texas where the Lone Star State meets Oklahoma and Louisiana.

Their story is as follows; they stopped for breakfast,paid up and were told by their waitress not to return because 'we don't serve fags here.'

My, my.

Big Earl Cheney, who owns the restaurant has a somewhat different story. The waitress happens to be his daughter, and Cheney says her choice of words was her own.

“I don’t think I should have to discipline her. I think the parents of those children — or kids or being whatever they are — should discipline them or teach ‘em how to act in public. I don’t think it’s my place to discipline her.”

Cheney's story is that the couple were, shall we say, acting out in public.In other words, their being gay had nothing to do with it, but their behavior did.

“What I saw was one of them half way under the table with his legs stretched out into the other guy’s lap. And he kind of looked really possum eyed at me as they say it in East Texas, he kind of looked at me like ‘uh-oh’.”

“Homosexuality, Blacks, Hispanics — they all come in here — everybody comes in here to eat,” said Cheney. “I’ve served my country for over 20 years; I know what my freedoms are.”

He continued, “I’m not gonna have people coming in here with their butt showing; I’m not gonna have people coming in here naked; I’m not gonna have people coming in here having sex on the tables.”

Now, that is a rather different message than the one his daughter was sending with 'we don't serve fags here.' I'll leave it to the reader to decide which one applies.

The couple claims nothing inappropriate was going on. I can accept that at face value, but I also recognize that what's inappropriate might be very different for a gay couple in say, Austin than for an older, heterosexual restaurant owner in East Texas. I would also have to add that if the couple was just sitting there eating breakfast, one would have to wonder why anyone would single them out as gay. How would they tell? Were they wearing a sign?

Cheney has said he would refuse to admit the couple back into his restaurant. The gay couple maintains they were doing nothing wrong and were discriminated against.

As one of them said, “Nobody deserves to be treated disrespectfully at an establishment that just seconds ago accepted their money.”

Needless to say, the gay couple figured lawfare was the best response, but their attorney was unable to help out because of, in his words, local bigotry:

Gay Rights Attorney John Nechman says there really isn’t any legal recourse for Dewberry and his partner to take.

“We don't have protections in most parts of Texas for Gay and Lesbian people, other than in Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso,” says Nechman. “There’s really no protections to go after someone because they’ve made a slur. Now if they made a slanderous statement, a libelous statement, where they claimed for example that the two were committing an act that they didn’t do, there would be legal action to take against them.”

Lawyers, of course, love the idea that people have a right to be insulted and to sue at the drop of a hat. It's called job security.As well as a plague on society.

But let's examine this from a different point of view.

Two people enter a restaurant. They're served. Something about their conduct during that transaction makes the owner of the business uncomfortable, and they're asked not to return, admittedly in non-PC language.

So there are two possibilities...either the couple's conduct was such that they were told not to ever come back, or the staff and owners don't like homosexuals.Actually, both take us to the same place.

Has anyone reading this ever been 86'd from a bar or restaurant because of their conduct? I have, once because I decked someone who was drinking and got aggressive with me that I later found out was the bar's manager and another time because the idiot I was with pinched and groped a waitress.

In both cases, a business decision was made by a privately owned establishment to forgo my future custom by the business in question. Paying money does not give you a license to behave how you please, especially if you're annoying the other patrons or the staff, and that is a decision only the business in question can make.Actually, many restaurants and bars would even tell heterosexual couples to cool it if they were being overly affectionate in public. There's a time and place for everything.

But what if the couple was 'doing nothing wrong' as they put it, and the restaurant in question is being discriminatory, and simply doesn't want homosexuals in their establishment?

Let's say that you own a restaurant and decide, for whatever reason, that everyone who comes in has to wear a tie. The Bel-Air hotel in Los Angeles demands a jacket and tie for all male patrons, and has some particularly gruesome specimens they force any man who comes in without them to put on if he wants to eat and drink there. Because of that, there are a number of people who simply avoid going there, especially in a casual town like Los Angeles.The hotel has made a business decision for a private facility they own to give up a certain amount of income to enforce this policy and ought to have a perfect right to do so.

What about clubs that refuse to admit people if they're wearing what could be construed as gang colors or gang attire, and clearly post those exclusions? That policy disproportionally affects blacks, but undoubtedly has an affect on safety. Are they being racist, or making a business decision that impacts on their possible liability for any injuries patrons might suffer?

Let's say you own a restaurant or bar and decide, for whatever reason, that you can't abide people with blond hair. Same thing. You are making a private decision to indulge your own bigotry at the cost of a fair amount of money, and possibly the hire of some excellent employees.

If Big Earl is telling the truth and he has no problem with homosexual customers provided they act in a manner he feels is appropriate for his restaurant, you can't call him a bigot,merely a business owner who had made a decision he is entirely entitled to make. If he's lying and doesn't want gays in his restaurant, the same thing applies. It is his establishment and his choice to make.

The gay couple likewise have a choice to make. If they feel they were insulted (and it seems they were) there are other places to have breakfast. And they can certainly tell their friends not to patronize Big Earl's as well.

That's how a free society ought to work.

Justina Pelletier: Judge Awards 'Permanent Custody' To Mass. DFC

Judge Joseph Johnston has ruled that The Massachusetts Department of Families And Children (DFC) will have 'permanent custody' of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier, taking her away from her parents in spite of her own wishes and her rapidly declining health in state custody.

This case is a textbook example of child abuse promulgated by the legal system and an embedded bureaucracy, and it is worth looking at to see how far out of hand our ruling class has gotten.

Fourteen months ago, Justina, a Connecticut teen was being treated for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production.Her physician who had been treating her, Dr. Mark Korson at Tufts, wanted the girl to visit gastroenterologist Dr. Alejandro Flores at Boston Children's Hospital, who had treated Justina at Tufts in the past. Being loving and concerned parents, the Pelletiers made the appointment with Dr. Flores and duly went to Boston Children's Hospital to have Justina seen.

When they got there, instead of seeing Dr. Flores, Justina was essentially kidnapped. She was taken to emergency where a resident refused to let her see Dr. Flores. Instead, he decided that this was a psychiatric case and sent Justina to a psychologist who diagnosed her with somatoform disorder -- a mental condition in which a patient experiences symptoms that are real but are psychosomatic.

When the Pelletiers rejected the new psychiatric diagnosis and wanted to bring Justina back to Tufts, the hospital first tried to force the girl's parents to sign papers admitting her as a psychiatric patient and when they refused and understandably became insistent at taking their daughter out of Boston Children's, the hospital got the state Department of Family and Children involved and accused the parents of medical child abuse.

They were not permitted to bring Justina home or to another facility. Instead, the teen was kept at Boston Children’s psychiatric ward for nearly a year where her physical condition deteriorated while the parents unsuccessfully fought the system to get Justina released.The DCF has allowed the parents only one hour per week to visit their daughter, but always with DCF personnel present. DCF would not allow the parents to photograph their daughter, and even filed a motion to hold Lou Pelletier in contempt of court for speaking to national media.

"Tufts was working fine with her, diagnosed medically, going to school, ice skating and doing all those things," Lou Pelletier said. "Look at her then and look at her now."

The DCF also has refused to provide the medical care Justina's condition requires, will not allow her access to a priest or to communion (she's Catholic) has refused to make any accommodations for her education, with the result that she is now almost two years behind her classmates in school.

Three weeks ago, Judge Johnston approved a written agreement transferring care back to Tufts Medical Center from Boston Children’s Hospital. That still hasn't been done, as Boston Children's has refused to make any appointments with the doctors there in spite of Justina's condition.

This decision by Judge Johnston was in response to a motion presented by the 15-year-old’s court-appointed lawyer and the lawyers for her parents, Linda and Lou Pelletier. It called for the girl's parents to be awarded “conditional custody” of their daughter.

Instead, the judge has granted permanent custody of Justina Pellatier to the DFC...who have done absolutely nothing to help her.

In his order, Johnston noted that the court considered granting conditional custody to the Pelletiers but “very concerning conduct … does not give this court any confidence they will comply with the conditions of custody.” The evidence? That Lou Pelletier once threatened a DFC social worker, who was afterward removed from the case, and oh yes..the media presence.

“Instead of engaging in quality visits with Justina, the parents use profanity directed at MA DCF personnel in Justina’s presence,” Johnston’s ruling said.

Johnston also included that he thinks Lou and Linda Pelletier should be “psychologically and clinically evaluated,” but refused to have the state of Massachusetts do it, insisiting that it must be coordinated through the State of Connecticut’s own DCF.

You bring your daughter in for medical treatment, she gets kidnapped, you see her dying in front of your eyes and you lose it with some heartless bureaucrat drone who's keeping her prisoner? And when you finally get fed up with doing the dance for months and go to the media to try to shed some sunlight on what's happening to your child, you need to be “psychologically and clinically evaluated?”

To tell you the truth, if the Pellatiers hadn't done that, I'd think they needed to be psychologically evaluated.

This is one of those canary in the coalmine moments. It is the State shoving our noses in the fact that they own our children and they know what's best, and we're just the sperm and egg donors.

What's next? On May 25th, Judge Johnston is expected revisit the decision to award permanent custody in a follow-up court hearing on May 25. His ruling leaves it up to the state DCF to decide whether or when Justina should be returned to her family, which means she could end up in state care until she turns 18. If she survives.

Meanwhile, the Pelltiers haven't given up. They're appealing the decision and have filed a writ of habeus corpus against Massachusetts for wrongful imprisonment. Hopefully this will get Justina freed by order of the Appellate courts, although it might just be that the attention this is generating could get Justina Pellatier freed sooner..perhaps at the review hearing in May.

December 16, 1773 - The Boston Tea Party

240 years ago, a group of brave patriots decided they simply weren't going to take it anymore.

Today is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

What happened then has considerable resonance in our own times.

The colonies were under the thumb of a detached Ruling Class who decided that they could plunder their subjects at will. As part of that governance, the British parliament decided to forbid the colonists to but tea from anyone else but Britain in the 1773 Tea Act, and to pay a tax on it...without the American people having the slightest say in it.

The Tea Act and the tax were extremely unpopular, and protests had prevented the unloading of the taxed tea in three other colonies,New York, Charleston and Philadelphia. But the Massachusetts Bay Colony (as it was known then) was different.

There, the British appointed Royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, whose sons were tea merchants with a royal monopoly to sell it insisted that the tea be unloaded and distributed.

On the night of December 16th 1773, a gang of Bostonian patriots around 100 strong disguised as Indians boarded the Dartmouth, the Eleanor, and the Beaver and dumped 90,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor.Th efact that they chose to disguise themselves as Indians meant something besides merely concealing their identities. It meant that they were identifying themselves as Americans, a separate people.

It is worth noting something else here...this was an act of principle, not economics. Because the Tea Act eliminated various middle men and allowed the British East India company to sell directly to the crown appointed tea agents, the price actually lowered. What the colonists objected to was the right of the Crown to tax them at its whim without any representation in parliament. And when the governor refused to bow to the will of the people, they acted.

Parliament's response also showed that this was not about economics.No less than our own Benjamin Franklin declared that the destroyed tea should be paid for. Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to then British Prime Minister Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the tea, but the British government refused to accept payment.

Instead, the British responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which ended and degree of local self-government in Massachusetts and closed off Boston's harbor. That led to further protests throughout the colonies and had the effect of unifying them, ultimately leading to the First Continental Congress which petitioned King George III for redress, and further united those colonists opposed to Britain's tyranny. Lexington and Concord followed and the American Revolutionary War began in 1775.

Today, our own Ruling Class sees the Tea Party as their 'subjects' in flyover country, a bunch of ignorant. knuckle dragging rubes who need to be ruled by their elite betters. That's pretty much how the British Crown saw those early Americans.

Both the men and women whom supported the original Tea Party of 1773 and its modern equivalent share frustration with elites who simply could care less about their concerns and attack our freedom with taxation and regulation the American people mostly have little or no say over. The very term 'Tea Partier' or in its nastier form 'teabagger' has become code within the media and the elites for racists, reactionary, gun toting Jesus lovin' morons.

It is high time that Americans who still care about freedom and see America as a bastion of freedom and human dignity took a good long look at how that freedom and dignity is being eroded every day by those whom have set themselves up as our Ruling Class. And became worthy of our ancestors by doing something about it.

"Yes We Can" - Al-Qaeda's English Mag Publishes Wanted Dead or Alive List

Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute has the latest edition of Inspire, al-Qaeda's English language magazine. This edition features a 'Wanted Dead or Alive' hit list of targets for 'crimes against Islam' , with the heading 'Yes We Can' and 'A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away'.

(h/t, The Weekly Standard)

The list includes Molly Norris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Flemming Rose, Morris Swadiq, Salman Rushdie, Girt Wilders [sic], Lars Vilks, Stephane Charbonnier, Carsten Luste, Terry Jones, and Kurt Westergaard.

Geert Wilder, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Terry Jones and Kurt Westergaard are likely familiar to you. Wilders, Ali, and Jones are noted critics of Islamism and sharia, Rushdie is still under a fatwa by the Iranian mullahs for writing The Satanic Verses, and Westergaard is one of the cartoonists who drew the famous MoToons.

Molly Norris' huge crime was to initiate a project called 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' after the fracas ( which included a suspected terrorist attack) over a South Park episode that didn’t actually depict Mohamed, but made fun of the Islamo-seethe over the subject.

A fatwa was subsequently issued by a number of adherents of the Religion of Peace, and our own FBI claimed they couldn't protect her and advised her to go into hiding. Molly is an American citizen whose rights are presumably protected by our Constitution. That apparently counts for nothing next to appeasing Islam in today's America. She'll be hiding and living in fear the rest of her life.

Fleming Rose was the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that originally published the MoToon cartoons. He's already had a couple of close calls, as has Kurt Westergaard.

Lars Vilks is a noted Swedish artist who did a series of drawings of Mohammed. Swedish art galleries who planned to exhibit them were hit with numerous threats of violence and backed out, but the drawings were published in a couple of Swedish newspapers. While Swedish authorities refused to comply with demands from Swedish Muslim organizations that he be arrested and jailed, fatwas were issued, including one from the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq which has offered a bounty of $150,000 for his murder. There have been several attempts to earn it. While our FBI told Molly Norris to fend for herself, the Swedes at least defended his rights as a citizen and put Vilks under police protection. He will need it for the rest of his life.

I have no clue whom Morris Swadiq or Carsten Luste are, but I do know whom Stéphane Charbonnier is. He's a cartoonist and editor of Charlie Hebdo, a French humor magazine a bit like America's National Lampoon that published a satirical edition of the magazine guest edited by Mohammed - 'a hundred lashes if you don't die laughing'!

Apparently the Muslim sense of humor agrees more with the Ayatollah Khomeni's famous quote about there being no laughter in Islam. A number of France's Muslim organizations went berserk, calling for Charbonnier to be prosecuted and jailed. The magazine's offices were firebombed, its websites were hacked, several staffers were assaulted and Charbonnier is likewise under a death fatwa.

The magazine's offices now have a permanent police guard, and Charbonnier will also need security protection for life.

I can already hear your response...after all these are just fanatics, most Muslim are non-violent, et cetera, et cetera. We've been telling ourselves that for awhile now.

But the 'fanatics' are surprisingly numerous, energetic, and mainstream, and in some of these cases have the active support of governments in Muslim states.And most of the Muslim organizations in the western countries involved have taken a firm stand that this or anything else they deem 'critical' of Islam ought to be criminalized, so they're essentially legitimizing what's going on. While they've almost all made grudging, pro forma statements condemning violence, were it left to them everyone of these people would be punished harshly. Even if they're sincere about condemning violence, all they really disagree with is the penalty involved.

And more to the point, prominent Muslim voices disagreeing with these sentiments and standing up for the very freedoms they enjoy in western socities are few and far between.

I have a feeling that the very opposite would be true if Muslim writers, artists and publications were being threatened and attacked in this way by non-Muslims. Non-Muslim liberals of both the political and classic variety would be absolutely vociferous in standing up for the freedom of Muslims to express themselves.

In fact, we can already see it in the Leftist frenzy over 'Islamophobia'.

Do most Muslims believe in a free society, not only for themselves but for others? Is Islam compatible with a free society, especially when the population of Muslims increases to a significant degree? Can a free society survive once that happens?

Western governments, including our own are bending over backwards to avoid even thinking about those questions, let alone answering them. But eventually, they're going to have to be answered...and let's not forget that not answering them is also an answer. Molly Norris, Geert Wilders and some of the others on this list would undoubtedly have something to say about that.

An Assignment For My Readers This Weekend

Four days from now, America is going to make a decision that will very much affect what kind of nation we will become.It will affect our own lives and that of our posterity.

We have always been a nation blessed by our Creator, and given a rich bounty by Him as a free country and a beacon to the world.

For the next four days, I ask you to do what our Founders did in Philadelphia when they set out to create the framework of America. I ask you to pray.

Pray to Almighty G-d and ask for His grace and mercy on our country.Ask Him to guide our hands and show us the right path in accordance to His will.

And pray for the victory of freedom and righteousness.

Pray.

Fascism And Theft Surfaces In California

You may remember the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which gave government a legal option to use eminent domain not for public use like building roads or schools, but to transfer property to other private ownership for things deemed more lucrative for the local tax base, like large commercial buildings, industrial sites or resort properties.

Well, California has gone Kelo one better. They want to use it as a legal basis not to seize property, but to seize the mortgages on them and take the loans away from the investors who legitimately own the notes:

Eminent domain allows a government to forcibly acquire property that is then reused in a way considered good for the public—new housing, roads, shopping centers and the like. Owners of the properties are entitled to compensation, which is usually determined by a court.

But instead of tearing down property, California’s San Bernardino County and two of its largest cities, Ontario and Fontana, want to put eminent domain to a highly unorthodox use to keep people in their homes.

The municipalities, about 45 minutes east of Los Angeles, would acquire underwater mortgages from investors and cut the loan principal to match the current property value. Then, they would resell the reduced mortgages to new investors. …

For a home with an existing $300,000 mortgage that now has a market value of $150,000, Mortgage Resolution Partners might argue the loan is worth only $120,000. If a judge agreed, the program’s private financiers would fund the city’s seizure of the loan, paying the current loan investors that reduced amount. Then, they could offer to help the homeowner refinance into a new $145,000 30-year mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, which has a program allowing borrowers to have as little as 2.25% in equity. That would leave $25,000 in profit, minus the origination costs, to be divided between the city, Mortgage Resolution Partners and its investors.

To bring this down to a personal level, imagine you loaned someone $50 bucks, and he agreed to pay you back $12 a week for five weeks, a total of $60. Then a large thug armed with a revolver comes along and tells you he wants the loan papers or else, and all he's going to give you is $30 as payment in full. He then goes to his pal at the local pawnshop and has him write up a new loan for your friend at only $20 plus interest, to be paid not to you, but to the pawnshop. The thug and the pawnshop owner then split the profits. I doubt you'd put your hard earned money into a similar type of investment again.

Yes, this kind of criminal activity is just what the already unstable housing and mortgage market needs - a major disincentive for investors to go anywhere near mortgages for fear of getting robbed by politicians looking to bribe voters by appealing to 'the people'.

Not only that, but it will make it a lot tougher for future homeowners to buy a home. Because when risk increases, so does the rate of return. So this wonderful little tactic, if it spreads, will force lenders to raise bond yields to attract investors, if they can still be found, which will mean higher mortgage rates for borrowers.

Investors holding the current mortgages predict the move will backfire by driving up borrowing costs and further depress property values. "I don't see how you could find it anything other than appalling," said Scott Simon, a managing director at Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, a unit of Allianz SE.

Tell me..is this any different that what goes on in your typical Junta-style dictatorship?

Israeli PM Netanyahu's Independence Day Greetings

This speaks for itself...