Tag Archives: FTC

Apr 17 2015

Remember: Sic Semper Tyrannis


(Virginia State motto, a rallying cry to be always against tyranny)

By Tabitha Korol

Contrary to the Virginia state motto, The Virginia State Bar (VSB) has joined the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign of the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood (MB); its president, Kevin A. Martingayle, a Virginia Beach attorney, cancelled the Mid-Year Legal Seminar planned for Jerusalem in November.  The boycott is a non-violent war strategy, a means of denunciation and isolation consistently directed against Israel, the only democratic Jewish state in the Middle East.

Martingayle criticized Israel for its “unacceptable discriminatory policies and practices pertaining to border security,” with particular concerns that VSB’s Arab/Muslim/Palestinian members would be questioned more extensively.  Surely members of the Bar understand that security is fundamental to civilization, and that all travelers are subject to a measure of scrutiny upon entry to any country.  Martingayle cannot be unaware that Israel’s Declaration of Independence ensures “complete equality of social and political rights to all, irrespective of religion, race, or sex…”   The dissenters/petitioners would also benefit from Israel’s security arrangements unless, of course, they support the BDS movement or are found to be associated with Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation trial), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Student Association/Hamas (MSA), or any of a number of affiliated terrorist organizations that are dedicated to Israel’s destruction – the same groups that cry “Death to America.”

Jihad comes from the Arabic verb, jihada, meaning “exerted” (struggled), but it is defined as “holy war.”  Although jihad is usually associated with violence, as we learn of Islamic terrorists who carry out horrific acts against non-Muslims, Israel and the West, Islamists may battle nonbelievers clandestinely and peacefully – by means of boycott.

Interestingly, in 1945, an Arab boycott was formally declared by the newly created Arab League Council – years before Israel’s statehood.  “Jewish products and manufactured goods shall be considered undesirable to the Arab countries.”  All Arab institutions, businesses, and individuals were “to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume Zionist products or manufactured goods.” After 1948, the boycott prohibited direct and indirect trade between Israel and Arab nations.  The intent was to isolate Israel from the world, damage her economy, and render her incapable of defending herself. Worldwide Jewry was also targeted.

In 1977, Congress prohibited the American companies from cooperating with the Arab boycott.  When President Carter signed the law, he said “the issue goes to the very heart of free trade among nations,” and that it was designed to “end the divisive effects on American life of foreign boycotts aimed at Jewish members of our society.”

The next excuse given by Martingayle and President-elect Edward L. Wiener, a Fairfax attorney, was the thus-far low enrolment for the seminar (barely 30 of the expected 60), but they shrewdly canceled before the registration deadline, and there was still ample time to extend the sign-up date for the November event.

Once again, Israel has been singled out, the only nation among the more than thirty Muslim-majority countries where the travelers’ safety was guaranteed by the US concept of due process.  The Torah is the bedrock of Israel’s contemporary democratic constitution; Israel’s laws are the antithesis of Islamic evil, Sharia, yet Israel is targeted for a boycott that is calculated to destabilize, delegitimize and eventually destroy the Jewish State.

Disgracefully, the VSB was lured from its original objectives of pubic protection, justice, and morality by fewer than 40 out of a possible 40,000 signatures on a petition of boycott, and the decision was made in secrecy to elude attention.  Every year, Israel welcomes millions of tourists and visitors, of all religions, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, many from the United States.  And, as there have been no complaints of discrimination, we can only deduce that the cancellation was prompted by anti-Semitism.

When violent terrorist attacks are not always feasible, non-violent initiatives or stealth (soft) jihad is used to impose Islamic law, Sharia, over the host population.  Under the banners of “tolerance” and “civil rights,” stealth jihadists (moderates) gradually introduce elements of Sharia into Western societies by demanding that non-Muslims grant those essentials or be smeared with accusations of racist and “Islamophobe” for daring to decline or stop the erosion of the host’s own culture.

Some examples of how stealth jihad has made inroads into U.S. and Western culture are already evident:

  • Since 9/11, American and Canadian political leaders, educators, and media have buckled under the Council of American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) insistence that Islam is a “religion of peace” and tolerance, and “undesirable language” (truth of Islamic activities) is curbed.
  • The Muslim Student Association (MSA) holds anti-Israeli rallies, riots against Jewish students, insists on footbaths for Muslim students, and NY public schools will now be observing Muslim holidays.
  • Asserting that Muslims are victimized, CAIR conducts sensitivity-training programs for our nation’s police departments; and has purged the FBI’s counterterrorism manuals of all Islamic references.
  • Some American textbooks have gone from one page to several chapters on Islam, with nothing comparable for Christianity and Judaism; indoctrinal Islamic films are presented.    America’s heritage and exceptionalism are destroyed and replaced by Islam.
  • Britain’s leading Islamic group demanded complete changes in public school curricula, including swim schedules and clothing requirements, Islamic prayer times and rooms.  Muslim dietary prohibitions are imposed on the whole school population, and western sports events have been discontinued.
  • Some aspects of Sharia law have been adopted in Britain, and at least 85 Sharia courts have been operating in Britain as of June 2009.
  • Swiss courts ruled in favor of “democratic pluralism” and stoning as punishment for adultery.
  • Compliance with boycott campaigns against Israel and Jewish businesses.
  • Stealth jihadists are promoting Islamic banking consistent with the principles of Sharia, and prohibiting investments that are contrary to Islamic principles.  The Islamic finance industry is worth about $800bn globally, growing at an annual rate of 10 to 15 per cent.

By exploiting the West’s respect for minority rights and cultures, stealth jihadists seek to transform pluralistic societies into Islamic states and to gradually sweep away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and more. Giuseppe Bernardini, a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Turkey, notes that Saudi “petro-dollars” have been used “not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration.” He was told of this “program of expansion and re-conquest,” by a Muslim leader, who said, “Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.”

A top Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mohamed Akram, explained that the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”  In an MB memorandum, dated May 22 1991, titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” Akram laid out a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States, another step toward “the global Islamic state.”

In America, Akram explained, it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the priority would be to “settle” Islam and the Brotherhood movement in the United States — by way of Islamic organizations posing as civil-rights groups — so that the Muslim faith would be incrementally accepted and “enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.”

I urge the Virginia State Bar to review its motto and ethics, and reinstate the trip to Israel.  Perhaps they can encourage the Islamists/protestors to see that they would be far more graciously welcomed in Israel than any Jewish attorney in Palestinian Gaza.

Apr 15 2015

The Media And Hillary Become A Parody Unto Themselves…..


What an embarrassment!

Apr 15 2015

Louisiana Outlaws Cash Transactions for Used Goods


From Armstrong Economics

Louisiana has passed a bill that makes it ILLEGAL to pay for used goods with cash. You can no longer buy something at a yard-sale, flee market, or wherever paying cash. You must pay by check, money order, or electronic transfer. They claim this is targeted at criminals. Ya – good explanation, but totally unrealistic. The State is named after the King of France so it is not so unusual to see Louisiana adopt the same policies in France.

Most people are also unaware that the law in Louisiana is NOT the same as the rest of the nation. They did not follow English common law, but French. A jury trial does not require unanimous consent, instead, it is simply the majority.

Actually this is not legal for Federal Reserve notes state; “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.”

 

 

Apr 15 2015

Defiant To The End – Atlanta Educators Refuse To Accept Responsibility on Sentencing Day….


In my opinion they got off light what they did to those students is worse than robbing a store!

Apr 14 2015

Intellectual tyranny–Thomas Sowell discusses


Sowell is almost always right on but Milloy make a good point about the current situation and the funding. In a perfect world the Scientists would police themselves but the lure of money has destroyed science as it once was. The people living in the country now only what free things and the intellectuals are no better wanting grant money to enhance their status. The politicians wanting power give both groups what they desire and there is only one way this can end! Lets hope there is a rebirth of freedom sometime not to distant from now.

john1282's avatarJunkScience.com

Here at junkscience.com it’s a damn lucky thing we aren’t offerred a lot of money to change our opinions.

View original post 193 more words

Apr 13 2015

Scott Walker Doesn’t Mince Words When Responding to ‘Unbelievable’ Jab From Obama on Iran


 

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) responded Wednesday evening to criticism President Barack Obama levied against him for his position on the nuclear talks with Iran.

Previously, Walker said he would void any deal Obama makes with Iran if it allows the country to continue uranium enrichment. On Tuesday, Obama responded and said Walker was taking a “foolish approach” and that “perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.”

Walker, who is widely expected to make a run for the White House in 2016, did not mince words when responding during a Fox News appearance.

“It’s unbelievable,” Walker said. “This is a president who should spend more time trying to work with governors and Congress instead of attacking them. But it’s not the first time … he went after me not too long ago for signing right to work in Wisconsin as well.”

“This is a president who should spend more time trying to work with governors and Congress instead of attacking them.”

“The thing about that statement, this is a guy in the last year who called ISIS the JV squad, who called Yemen just last Fall … a success story, had a secretary of state under Hillary Clinton that gave Russia a reset button and then they ultimately went into the Ukraine, this is a guy who I think shouldn’t have the audacity to be schooling anyone on foreign policy,” Walker added.

Apr 12 2015

Lucifer, Salesman of the Year


We can end the day with some Humor — we need it since Hillary Howled out her Hobble for the white House today.

Austin's avatarThe Return of the Modern Philosopher

Porch writer“Isn’t this the most gorgeous day we’ve had all year?” I asked The Devil as I put my feet up on the front porch railing and sipped my Snapple.

It was a glorious Spring Sunday, and I didn’t need Lucifer to confirm that today was the best day 2015 had offered thus far.  The sun was shining, the temperature was in the mid sixties, and the snow was almost all gone.

“I’m going to miss the frigid weather, though,” Satan replied as he tentatively put his feet, in their expensive Italian loafers, up on the porch railing.

“Is this some sort of Hell is hot, and Maine in Winter is the exact opposite, so I love the juxtaposition kind of logic?” I asked incredulously as I passed my porch guest a Snapple from the cooler that sat between our chairs.

“Not at all.  This Winter turned out to be quite…

View original post 505 more words

Apr 12 2015

That Didn’t Take Long – NY Mayor De Blasio Doesn’t Endorse Hillary Clinton – Immediate Threats Toward Him From Team Hillary…


Hail to the Queen

Apr 12 2015

Jeanine Pirro discusses threats to the power grid with Tony Shaffer and Frank Gaffney


Apr 12 2015

Misreading Alinsky


Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On April 10, 2015 @ 5:27 pm

Since the year before his disciple, Barack Obama, was elected president, many of us have been raising alarms about how Saul Alinsky’s brass-knuckles tactics have been mainstreamed by Democrats. It was thus refreshing to find an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, by Pete Peterson of Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, expressly calling out a top House Democrat for resorting to the seminal community organizer’s extortion playbook.

But in the end, alas, Mr. Peterson gets Alinsky wrong.

He does a fine job of exposing the hardball played by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Grijalva attempted to intimidate scientists and professors who fail to toe the alarmist line on “climate change” by sending letters to presidents of their universities. He wrote the letters on congressional letterhead and purported to impose a March 16 due date for a response – creating the coercive misimpression that the letters were enforceable demands for information, made by a government official in a position to punish noncompliance. The missives sought information about the scientists and academics (among them, the excellent Steve Hayward of Pepperdine and Power Line), including whether they accepted funding from oil companies. Peterson adds that the letters were followed up by officious calls from Grijalva’s staff. The abuse of power is blatant and reprehensible.

Peterson is quite right that Grijalva’s “targeting [of] institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; and so are the scare tactics.” He goes astray, however, in contending that this leftist lawmaker’s adoption of Alinsky’s tactics “may not fit with Alinsky’s philosophy.”

In essence, Peterson contends that Alinsky’s systematizing of extortionate tactics can be divorced from any particular ideological agenda. He urges, as did Alinsky himself in Rules for Radicals, that the latter’s system was devised for the “Have-Nots,” advising them how to take power away from the “Haves.” Therefore, Peterson reasons, “an existential crisis for [Alinsky’s] vision” arises once the Have-Nots acquire power: i.e., the system is somehow undermined by its own success because the Have-Nots are not Have-Nots anymore.

This overlooks a crucial detail. There is a reason why Alinsky’s self-help manual is called Rules for Radicals, not Rules for Have-Nots.

Alinsky was a radical leftist. Of course, he struck the pose of one who eschewed faithful adherence to a particular doctrine; but that is a key part of the strategy. To be successful – meaning, to advance the radical agenda – a community organizer needs public support. Thus he must masquerade as a “pragmatist” rather than reveal himself as a socialist or a communist. The idea is for the organizer to portray himself as part of the bourgeois society he despises, to coopt its language and mores in order to bring about radical transformation from within.

But it is not as if Alinsky organizers are indifferent to the kind of change a society goes through as long as it is change of some kind. Alinsky was a man of the hard left, a social justice activist who sought massive redistribution of wealth and power. Peterson acknowledges this in a fleeting mention of Alinsky’s “professed hatred of capitalism.” Noteworthy, moreover, is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals critique of such seventies revolutionaries as the Weathermen: his contempt stemmed not from disagreement with their goals but from the fact that their terrorist methods enraged the public, making those goals harder to achieve. When a book begins, as Rules for Radicals does, by saluting Lucifer as “the very first radical,” it is fairly clear that the author has taken sides.

It is true, as Peterson observes, that some non-leftists have recommended that some Alinsky tactics could be used to advance some non-leftist causes. But that does mean this is how Alinsky himself would ever have used them. Furthermore, even if a conservative might opportunistically exploit an Alinsky tactic here or there, one who by nature seeks to conserve the American constitutional system would never wholly (or even very partially) adopt the Alinsky plan, which seeks to destroy that system.

Community organizing is not designed for any random Have Nots to use against any random Haves. It is for the Left’s Have Nots to use against proponents of individual liberty, economic liberty, private property, and the governmental system created to protect them. To be sure, the election of an Alinskyite to the presidency is, as Peterson describes it, a climactic event. But that does not mean Alinskyites perceive it as an “existential crisis.” To the contrary, they perceive it as an opportunity to achieve total victory over the former Haves. That is why Democrats have no compunction about using their awesome government power in the same way – except to greater effect – that a community organizer uses “direct action” (i.e., extortion).

Peterson confounds ends and means. Alinsky was not trying to improve the lot of the Have Nots. He was trying to rally the Have Nots to his side because doing so was necessary to achieve his goal of supplanting the American system. Alinsky was not planning to switch sides if his program succeeded in turning America’s Haves into Have Nots. Alinsky’s program is about acquiring power in order to use it for purposes of imposing a leftist vision.

Mr. Peterson is absolutely correct to see the political success of Alinskyites, and their accompanying grip on government, as a huge problem. But that hardly means the Alinskyites themselves see it as a problem, theoretical or otherwise. They see it as a coup. Rules for Radicals is not a strategy for giving Have Nots an even playing field; it is a strategy for giving the radical left the power needed to win.