Monday, November 12, 2018

Anti-Semitism and Conservatism

Two observations based on recent events:

#1 The wave of anti-Semitic hate spreading around the world right now is frightening.  To any objective observer it should be clear that President Trump is the strongest supporter of the Jewish people we’ve ever had leading the free world.  The worst thing the left could say with any credibility is that his support for Jerusalem might anger anti-Semites, but we don’t make decisions based on the heckler’s veto.

What is causing this rise in anti-Semitism?  Who are the biggest threats?  Muslim extremists?  White Nationalists?  Could it be that those on the political left are the leading cause of anti-Semitism by their constant verbal attacks on Israel, which paint them as the oppressors and the Palestinians as the heroes?  I think so; at least they have the biggest voice, since they control most of the media.

#2 The kind of violence we have seen lately (the massacre in Pittsburgh, the vandalism of a synagogue in Irvine, CA) plays into the hands of liberals and their attempts to blame conservatives for Anti-Semitism, even though an increasing part of it is coming from liberals.  But we do occasionally see anti-Semitic expressions and actions on the part of people who otherwise identify as political conservatives.  So I strongly wish that conservatives could disown and disavow anti-Semites once and for all.

I look at the Pittsburgh shooter and I wonder what did a Jew or Jews collectively ever do to this man to make him hate so much?  The answer is probably nothing; it's just that he filled his head with all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories.  Life dealt him a bad hand, and he had to blame somebody.  But this kind of insane violence isn't the constitutional republic we call America; and principled conservatives need to drive a stake through the heart of this evil so it no longer rears its ugly head.

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Statehood for Washington, D.C?

There is a petition going around to grant statehood to Washington, DC.  Proponents argue that "The United States is the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies voting representation in the national legislature to citizens of the capital.  In addition to paying federal taxes, District residents pay local taxes and bear all the responsibilities associated with citizenship."

The proponents even quote Vice President Pence, who supported statehood for the District of Columbia in 2009, when he was a Representative in Congress (prior to being Governor of Indiana).  They conveniently omit mention of the fact that Vice Pres. Pence has changed his opinion in the years since.

What proponents of statehood for D.C. don't consider is, if the US is the only nation that denies voting representation in Congress to its capital city, then why not abolish the District of Columbia and return the land and population to Maryland and Virginia?

A little history: The "Residence Act" on July 16, 1790, approved the creation of a capital district located along the Potomac River on the country's East Coast.  The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the District is therefore not a part of any state.  The states of Maryland and Virginia each donated land to form the federal district.

So returning the land and the people living on it to those respective states would give them voting representation in Congress.  Rhode Island may be a small state, but a one-city state with the voting power of a state is preposterous.  Why not the State of Chicago?  Or the State of Los Angeles?  Or maybe a separate state of New York, New York?

If every city the size of Washington, D.C. wanted to be a separate city, it would add 22 states to the US.  The New York City boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx are twice the size of Washington, D.C.  The Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn are four times as large.

There are 693,000 people in Washington, D.C.  I don't have the exact numbers of people who would be added to Maryland and Virginia if the land were returned to each state.  But if it were divided anywhere close to equally, that would be slightly under 350,000 people added to each state.

The population of Maryland is 6 million; the population of Virginia is 8.5 million, making them 12th and 19th among the 50 states.  The addition of 350,000 people would move Maryland up one notch and not move Virginia up in the rankings at all.  They can handle it.  And if they say they can't, it is most likely because they and the residents of Washington, D.C. want to add seats in Congress for one particular political party.  Care to guess which one?

(Before anyone objects, I readily admit my own biases in the matter.  But I also believe my argument stands on its own merits.)

Friday, August 17, 2018

Antifa vs. Brown Shirts: Two Peas in a Pod

It appears that I was ahead of my time. As a freshman in high school (well before anyone postulated the "horseshoe theory), I wrote a paper (not as a class assignment but for myself) in which I I concluded that the commonly-regarded "two ends" of the political spectrum not merely formed a horseshoe but, in fact, a complete circle.

The real spectrum is between totalitarianism on the one hand and the constitutional rule of law with democratic elections and freedom of choice on the other. But these are better represented as opposite sides of a circle than either a straight line or a horseshoe.

Fascism and Socialism both oppress people in totalitarian systems, regardless whether it is popularism on the left or right that draws people toward one of these views. Both draw people into regimented movements where freedom disappears.

This is why Orwell's "1984" could be describing either a Communist or a Fascist government. It does not matter: personal freedom has been destroyed in either case. There is only the will of a dictator that everyone must obey, whether that is termed as "the collective good" or whatever. So whether you go to the left or the right, when you move away from a constitutional republic, you end up in the same place.

And on a practical level, I would say that anyone who cannot see the similarity between Antifa and the Nazi Brown Shirts is biased and blind. Antifa may be opposing what they call fascism, but their violent intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them means that if they had the political upper hand, they would impose their ideology just as rigidly as any Fascist or Communist government ever has, most likely under the charisma of a leader who would rise to the top and become a Big Brother.

It is also worth remembering that Nazism stood for "National Socialist German Workers' Party." The only thing that separated German "National Socialism" from Soviet Socialism and the borderless, globalist socialism we are seeing today was pride in their nation and race and the fact that some private ownership of property was retained, as long as it served the national interest.

(For those not familiar with it, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite ends political spectrum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. This view tends toward the view I proposed except they didn't close the circle.)

See also:

Monday, July 30, 2018

Scientists identify mystery liquid in Egyptian sarcophagus

From here, where there are more photos.
A POOL of murky, red liquid found around three mummies in an Egyptian sarcophagus has been analysed by scientists.

THE unsettling red liquid pooled around three decomposed mummies found inside a 2000-year-old burial chamber in the historic port city of Alexandria in Egypt has taken on a life of its own.

Horrifying images of a trio of skeletons floating in the murky soup led to rumours the “mummy juice” contained medicinal or supernatural properties, with locals anxious to bottle the stuff.

Others feared its odd colouring signified the presence of a metal such as mercury.

The large, black granite sarcophagus was unearthed in the Sidi Gaber district earlier this month and cracked open despite fears that doing so would unleash an ancient curse.

The General Secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Dr Moustafa Waziri dismissed early speculation the tomb could contain the remains of Alexander the Great, saying instead it may have belonged to a priest.

However, the discovery of possible arrow damage to one of the skulls means the bones probably belonged to military officials, according to a statement released by Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities yesterday.

Authorities also revealed the liquid was neither “juice for mummies that contains an elixir of life” nor “red mercury” but something far more pedestrian — sewage water.

But the ugly — or in this case — smelly truth has failed to scare off the believers, even inspiring an online campaign.

A petition entitled “let the people drink the red liquid from the dark sarcophagus” has attracted more than 16,000 signatures.
A screenshot of the petition
“We need to drink the red liquid from the cursed dark sarcophagus in the form of some sort of carbonated energy drink so we can assume its powers and finally die,” petition founder Innes McKendrick wrote by way of explanation.

Workmen found the black granite tomb five metres underground during construction of an apartment building in the historic Mediterranean port city.

Dr Waziri said the skeletons had partially disintegrated because sewage water from a nearby building had leaked into the sarcophagus through a small crack in one of the sides.

The 30-tonne coffin, the largest yet found in Alexandria, prompted a rash of theories in local and international media that it may be the resting place of Alexander the Great, who founded the city that still bears his name in 331BC.

The legendary Macedonian leader died in 323BC in Babylon, in what is now Iraq, but his remains were later moved to Alexandria. The exact location of his burial remains a mystery.

Dr. Waziri said it was unlikely the remains found this week belonged to any notable members of the Ptolemaic dynasty (332BC-30BC) associated with Alexander the Great, or the subsequent Roman era.

Fears of an ancient curse stem from a string of deaths reportedly associated with those involved in opening of Tutankhamun’s crypt in the early 1900s.

“We’ve opened it and, thank God, the world has not fallen into darkness,” Mr Waziri said last week.

“I was the first to put my whole head inside the sarcophagus, and here I stand before you — I am fine.”

The sarcophagus is the latest of a series of notable archaeological finds this year in Egypt.

Others include a 4,400-year-old tomb in Giza and an ancient necropolis in Minya, south of Cairo.

The opening of this sarcophagus last week coupled with the total lunar eclipse on Friday (also referred to as a "Blood Moon") has made a number of people of varying perspectives from conservative Christians to New Agers speculate this could mean the end of the world.  I think a greater sign of the end of the world is the more than 30,000 people (the number was climbing at the rate of about one ever second while I was looking at it) who signed the petition on so they can "finally die" (as the author of the petition put it).

I am certain these people aren't Christians.  God says in the Bible, "all who hate me love death" (Proberbs 8:36).  The increasing number of not merely "nones" (those having no religious affiliation) but the increasing lostness and despair (Nihilism) in our society is one of the signs given in Scripture that will precede the end times.  It is worth pondering the following passage:
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.  (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8)

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

The Left's Child Separation Scam Exposed With a Single Tweet

The latest scam by those on the Left is to claim that the Trump administration created the policy of separating children from their illegal immigrant parents at the border.

The scam is so ridiculous that it can easily be destroyed by a single tweet:


Separating minors from their illegal immigrant parents is NOT a new policy invented by the “cruel” Trump administration.  It was signed and enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and enforced by every President since then.

In a May 30, 2018 Newsweek article entitled, "OBAMA HELD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN SHELTERS COMPARED TO TRUMP WHITE HOUSE," the magazine reported:

Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency's custody on April 29, according to the Washington Post.

In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.  (See also the video below.)
President Trump defended the prosecution of those who illegally enter the United States during a speech Monday before a meeting of the National Space Council: “The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility.  It won’t be.  You look at what is happening in Europe and other places, we can’t allow it to happen to the United States.  Not on my watch,” Trump declared.

Trump urged Democratic lawmakers to accept his immigration priorities in legislation which would end the practice at the border.  The President also referenced the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe, which he also tweeted about Monday morning:

The president is 100% correct.  The ones responsible for their children being separated from them are the adults who chose to cross the border illegally.  Further the law was created by Democrats and the Trump administration is simply following the law.

What is the difference between illegal immigrants having their children taken from them and American citizens who are sent to jail being separated from their kids?  None.  Break the law and you'll have your children taken from you.  It is strange that those complaining now said NOTHING during the Obama administration.  (Remember the picture circulating on the news last week of children sleeping in cages.   It was later debunked: THE PHOTO WAS FROM 2014!)

But there are some facts the President didn't mention (I guess the length of a Tweet makes it hard):

1. The United States is a compassionate country.  We admit two-thirds of the world's legal immigrants each year--MORE THAN ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED! According to Wikipedia:

Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year. Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign born population from 1990 to 2000.
2. Under President Obama's "Catch and Release" policy, those who showed up at legal entry points with children were admitted with only a promise to show up for an immigration hearing, which many never did.  This led to an epidemic of abductions south of the border and child trafficking.  Many of those showing up with children were not actually their parents.  Separating children, which is what the 1996 law provides for and which is only temporary, allows authorities to verify whether the children are actually theirs.

A conveniently overlooked part of Trump's Tweet is his call for Congress to change the law.  Trump has repeatedly urged Democratic lawmakers to accept his immigration priorities in legislation which would end the practice at the border.  But Democrats don't want to do this as long as they have an issue they think they can use to their political advantage.

So what might a change in the law look like?  Well, here is my suggestion:

1. Build a border wall and employ border security that actually discourages illegal immigration.

2. Enlarge the legal border entry stations so that they can handle the number of legal immigration applications.  We did it for generations of immigrants at Ellis Island and other entry points.  We can do it now.

3. Establish guidelines and categories for legal amnesty requests that are so clear that determinations can be made at the border.

This can happen and it will as soon as those on the Left start working with the President instead of weaponizing the immigration issue.

Photos used to support claim that Trump keeping children in cages--all revealed to have been taken in 2014!

Democratic Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar admited to CNN that the Obama administration attempted to cover up the child migrant situation during that administration.  “It was kept very quiet under the Obama Administration.  There were large numbers of people coming in.  The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” Cuellar told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield.


Tuesday, May 29, 2018

State Dept.: North Korea Using Executions, Torture Against ‘Serious Threat’ of Christianity

From here:
The U.S. State Department affirms in its annual International Religious Freedom Report, published Tuesday, that the communist regime controlling North Korea “considered Christianity a serious threat, as it challenged the official cult of personality and provided a platform for social and political organization and interaction outside the government.”

The State Department – citing United Nations reports, NGOs, and media organizations specializing in North Korea coverage – found that Kim Jong-un’s regime regularly employed “arbitrary executions, political prison camps, and torture amounting to crimes against humanity” against anyone suspected of adhering to any faith, but targeted Christians in particular throughout 2017.
Read the rest.

Monday, May 28, 2018

After Killing the Muppets with Leftist Propaganda, Disney Murders ‘Star Wars’

I went to see Star Wars: The Last Jedi a few months ago and came out saying "Well, they gave Star Wars 'the Disney treatment'--all 'Grrrl Power' and multiculturalism.  They have killed Star Wars."  Now an article on Breitbart News makes the same point about what Disney is doing, with the facts to back it up.  It is a brief article, but I cannot do it justice by trying to excerpt it, so I encourage you to read the whole thing here.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Sen. Joe Lieberman: Why US Embassy Jerusalem move happened and why it matters

This is a historic day. Why did it finally happen and why does it matter? Senator Joe Lieberman explains:

From here:
In 1995, I had the privilege of working in the U.S. Senate on the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act (JERA) with a bipartisan group of colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader, Bob Dole of Kansas and Senator Pat Moynihan of New York.

Our bill found that “Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital,” and “Since 1950, the City of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.” In fact, at the time, Israel – a fellow democracy and one of our closest allies in the world – was the only place in the world where we did not locate our embassy in the city designated by the host country as its capital.

Our legislation aimed to eliminate that inequity by mandating that “Jerusalem should be recognized (by the U.S.) as the capital of the State of Israel and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem.” There was broad bipartisan support for the JERA in the Congress, but not in the administration. Part of the reason for that opposition was the traditional struggle for influence over foreign policy between Congress and the president. But more was about the particular historical moment.

Two years earlier in September 1993, the so-called Declaration of Principles of Interim Self-Government (also known as the Oslo Accords) was signed at the White House by Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat. It laid out a timetable for the resolution of “final status” issues including Jerusalem. Hopes were high then for a permanent two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. People who argued against the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act said that it would diminish or extinguish those hopes by determining the status of Jerusalem.

We supporters of JERA said that was clearly not true, that our legislation would not affect the implementation of the Oslo Accords at all but simply treat Israel like every other country in the world and respect its right to designate its own capital. In fact, the United States already owned a piece of land in West Jerusalem on which we intended to eventually build our embassy, and that piece of land had been part of Israel since its re-establishment in 1948. Unless one thought that a two-state solution would involve Israel ceding sovereignty over land in Jerusalem that had been Israeli since 1948, which no one did, there was no way the Jerusalem Embassy Act would affect final status negotiations pursuant to the Oslo Accords. In fact, we argued in Congress, that moving our embassy to Jerusalem could ease the way to a two-state solution by giving Israel the confidence that the peace process, which we supported, would not result in Israel’s right to its historic capital being diminished.

Nevertheless, the Clinton administration said that a premature focus on Jerusalem could undermine negotiations and complicate the chances for peace, so President Clinton would veto the legislation.

To avoid that veto, a compromise was agreed upon that was practical and lead to enactment but was not based on reality or principle. A new section was added to our legislation which enabled the president and his successors to suspend the law from becoming effective every six months if he determined that such suspension was “necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.”

That amended legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 93-5 and the House, 374-37. President Clinton still refused to sign the law but let it go into effect without his signature ten days later, as is provided by law. At the time, the president said the act “could hinder the peace process. I will not let that happen and will use the legislation’s waiver authority to avoid damage to the peace process.”

That is exactly what President Clinton and his successors, Presidents Bush and Obama, did repeatedly over the next 22 years, until December 6, 2017 when President Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and ordered that the American Embassy be relocated to that capital. On February 23 of this year, President Trump announced that our Embassy would open in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, to coincide with the 70th Anniversary of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

In the Arab world, concerns have been expressed but the focus of the Arab world is, like Israel, on the great threat from Iran. It is true that hopes for the peace process are much lower today than they were in 1995, even though the Trump administration correctly continues to work for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In sum, when President Trump finally implemented the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995, the sky – as far as we know – did not fall, as so many had long predicted.

There is a larger lesson to be learned from this story. America remains the strongest nation in the world and should never hesitate to make important foreign policy decisions that we believe are consistent with our national values and interests, because of predictions by others of the worst possible reaction to those decisions. Otherwise, we are likely to diminish our national strength and compromise our national values and interests.

That lesson is worth remembering in a number of other foreign policy decisions President Trump has made or will soon make, including pulling the U.S. out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement and negotiating with North Korea.

Joseph I. Lieberman is chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a former U.S. senator from Connecticut, and the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States.

Sunday, May 06, 2018

Texas Woman Prays While Others Gawk at Suicidal Man

From KSAT, where there is video;
A Texas woman prayed for a suicidal man as police attempted to talk him down from jumping to his death. Other bystanders spent their time taking cell phone photos of the impending tragedy while others shouted obscenities at him.

KSAT ABC12 saw the woman praying and asked her about her decision. The woman, Grace Hernandez, told the reporter that with Mother’s Day approaching, she “felt compelled to pull over and pray.”

Her prayers were answered as police successfully talked the man down from the billboard where he contemplated his demise.

Hernandez said she also prayed for the police and first responders who worked fearlessly to save the man’s life.

“My prayer is not just for him,” Hernandez said. “My prayer is for everyone that’s around this because you don’t know what could happen. I’m just grateful God heard my prayers.”

Others who watched took a different tack and actually encouraged the man to jump, the news outlet reported.

Officials reportedly transported the man to an area hospital for evaluation.
POSTSCRIPT -- I normally have a high regard for Texans--their Christianity, their conservatism, their manners (which I realize are not necessarily characteristic of all Texans) appeals to me. Sadly, the people shouting obscenities and encouraging the man to jump were Texans too. Watch yourselves, Texans! The fall from true virtue and civility into barbarism is an easy slide.

Monday, April 09, 2018

Facebook Punishes European News Site for Criticizing Mass Migration

(Last week I voluntarily took a 30-day hiatus from Facebook.  I decided to end it early because the growing scandal regarding the misuse of our data as well as censorship by social media companies is too great to remain silent.)

Facebook has repeatedly punished a fast-growing news website for its conservative views on immigration and other topics–-suspending its moderators, censoring content, and threatening to close the site down., which takes pride in its “uncensored news,” has been effectively bludgeoned into submission by Facebook and recently announced it will censor itself to avoid losing its page.

According to Facebook statistics, was growing at the rate of about 30,000 new followers every month, with some days registering as many as 5,000 new followers.

As examples of some of the “offensive” postings that incurred the wrath of Facebook, exhibited a photo of Poles protesting behind a banner that said “Mohammed not welcome.”  Despite the fact that the photo was undoctored and the news 100 percent accurate, Facebook forced the site to remove the content and suspended one of the site’s moderators for 24 hours. also posted a book review of former Czech President Václav Klaus, who compared the influx of migrants to “the barbarian invasions of Europe.”  The review was highly critical of uncontrolled immigration, and for this, Facebook punished by removing the article, suspending a moderator for 30 days, and threatening to shut the site down permanently.

Do we really want social media companies censoring us?  The reality is that social media companies now exercise a control over our lives, communication, and commerce that previously belonged only to government.  We need legislation extending the First Amendment freedom of speech as well as other Constitutional rights to Corporations as well as government.  We already do this with Equal Opportunity Employment.  We need to do it with the right to Free Speech!