The Power in Shame

Ms. Sandra Zummo is a “columnist” for the Staten Island Advance newspaper. In a piece titled: “Shame on mom who shamed her daughter on Facebook,” she wrote the following.

“So, this is what passes for parenting in the 21st century:
Ohio mother Denise Abbott, sick of her 13-year-old mouthing off, gets back at the kid by going on Facebook and replacing the teen’s profile picture with one showing her with a red “X” over her mouth. The text below it indicates the girl doesn’t know how to keep her mouth shut, so she’s not allowed to go on Facebook or use her phone. In closing, it reads: “Please ask why, my mom says I have to answer everyone that asks.”
I’m really glad I grew up at a time when parents used discipline rather than humiliation to keep their kids in line. A time when a stern look, uncharacteristically raised voice and threat of “Wait ‘til your father gets home” from your mother was enough to set you back on the straight and narrow.
Now waiting ’til your father gets home might result in something along the lines of the widely-viewed tirade earlier this year by pistol-packing Papa Tommy Jordan, who in response to disrespectful comments his daughter posted on Facebook about having to do chores, went her one better, shooting up her laptop and posting a video of the execution on YouTube.”

And this is how I reply.

Ms. Zummo. I don’t know what planet you are living on; but it certainly isn’t this one!

Yes there was a time when a mere look or comment or threat would bring a wayward kid back to reality. But NOT now.
We have given them the upper hand. We have surrendered our authority to the mewling nanny state that now tells us how to raise our children.
If I’ve heard it once I heard it at least 100 times; a kid tells the parent that they don’t have to obey rules and there’s nothing the parent can do to make them!
Yes, I’ve heard kids threaten to call protective services if they are disciplined at all.
Physical punishment (spanking NOT beating) is against the law. It is considered to be “child abuse.” Threats, groundings, confinement to a room can, in todays climate of liberal thinking, can bring down the wrath of the nanny state on a well intentioned parent.
Our children are being told that their parents are superfluous, an unnecessary hold over from a far less “enlightened” time.
Today’s modern parent can apparently raise a child from birth to adulthood without EVER using the word “no.” Today’s children are so advanced that they can virtually raise themselves, with no adult guidance needed. Today’s kids DEMAND respect but don’t come close to understanding what it is or how it HAS to be earned.
Yes, I applaud Denise Abbott and Mr. Jordan and all the other parents you saw fit to criticize.
I applaud them for caring enough about their children to take a stand and act on the authority that comes to them as being a prudent parent.
I may think the methods are a bit out there; but they know their kids and what will work.
As far as shaming them is concerned, they should feel ashamed of their behavior. If it requires the parents to point that out strenuously then MORE POWER TO MOM AND DAD!!!

Days of Rage: Hours of Opportunism

(Amateur radicals with nothing to do are in NYC for a radical camp out. Not many people really take much notice here; so they will keep escalating until they get a reaction the the media will cover.

This is a great piece that about says it all.)

The last time I passed the Days of Rage protesters in downtown Manhattan, amid their litter of expensive camping equipment, iPhone chargers, mobile hotspots and handwritten cardboard signs, they reminded me of people who walk up to you in bars pretending that they just discovered a new brand of beer they want to share with you. Those people are plants, so are the people with torn cardboard signs surrounded by a few thousand dollars of equipment.

There are people who have reason to be enraged at Wall Street, but they rarely show up at rallies. They are too busy working a second job in their seventies or sitting outside a factory that was shipped off to China. And the people who do show up at rallies invariably have nothing to do with Wall Street and are financed by billionaires who made their money, directly or indirectly, in the stock market.

The paradox of Wall Street financed radicals protesting against the Street makes as much sense as a dose of class warfare from Warren Buffett. But the Street is a devious place, which makes money by betting against itself, and whose favorite politicians denounce it around election time. The cynical game of broken expectations is played here like nowhere else and the entire economy is on the table.

Obama poured money into Wall Street before denouncing it, and like Kerry, he was against Wall Street, before he was for it, before he was against it. At luncheons in exclusive restaurants, his allies are still explaining to hedge fund managers that Barry doesn’t really mean it. He’s just trying to get elected.

Democrats sometimes like to take off their Harvard jackets, loosen their club ties and try on a little populism, but it never sticks. They’re always against NAFTA, before they’re elected, and for it once they do. At towns with the rusted steel of lost manufacturing, they pledge to stand up for American industry, and then fly off to a fundraiser thrown by the outsourcing firms who have the actual money.

The belated crusade against Wall Street is even more pathetic as it is coordinated by groups who wouldn’t exist without men like Soros, who made their money from deals that make the Street look sparkling clean. It’s class warfare as a cynical jab at the populist center, the people who mutter to themselves that the Street is full of crooks and so is Congress.

They’re right and the Days of Rage protesters, who usually have a trust fund at their back and a degree in creative arts on their shelf, would never admit it. They’re not here to protest against power, but for those in power. Or else why target Wall Street now, long after the bailouts and the fizzing outrage over Corporate Personhood.

The Days of Rage are an Obama election rally, coordinated ahead of time to coincide with Obama’s own descent into class warfare
The Days of Rage are an Obama election rally, coordinated ahead of time to coincide with Obama’s own descent into class warfare. Which makes them a pro-government rally.

The yuppie ragers may try for comparisons to Tahrir Square, but they’re more like if Mubarak had thrown a rally blaming the whole thing on international bankers. It’s equally pathetic and desperate. And if the media had any credibility or ethics left, they would be doing something other than covering a disguised election rally as if it were the new Battle of Seattle.

Desperation is the only tactic here. Obama has lost on every issue and so the same fake “grass roots” plants who dialed up the social media during his last campaign, are sending the zombies into the streets to pretend to be leading a revolution. But if these are popular protests, then why do they look so much like an Abercrombie and Fitch take on the Battle of Algiers?

Where are the unemployed cannery workers, the bilked Madoff investors, the homeowners used as fronts for the massive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac swindle by progressive billionaires like the Sandlers? Where are the victims of Buffett’s insurance companies and the ordinary taxpayers who show up to Tea Party rallies, who are paying for all the crony capitalism?

Days of Rage are more like a temper tantrum meant to manufacture the perception of public outrage
They’re absent because the Days of Rage are more like a temper tantrum meant to manufacture the perception of public outrage, while lying about the things that the public should be outraged about.

The sheer cost of HUD’s scams, the money diverted to friends of politicians, and the entire edifice of a corrupted capitalism where money is made by failing and then getting bailed out by the government deserves a real day of rage—but it’s not one that people from organizations funded by all that stolen money are going to express. You might as well ask members of the Communist Youth Movement to denounce the Politburo.

As Social Security swirls down the drain and millions of Americans eat paste out of a can, there’s lots of money available to pay photogentic young people to hand-letter cardboard signs, put on their costumes and pretend to be angry about something other than a Defense of Marriage amendment or a supermarket that still uses plastic shopping bags.

People who are as detached from the economic turmoils of a sinking economy as possible are the worst possible representatives of populist outrage
People who are as detached from the economic turmoils of a sinking economy as possible are the worst possible representatives of populist outrage. And why should they worry, as long as rogue billionaires like George Soros or Warren Buffett keep trying to run the country to suit their own interests and agendas—then they can expect a steady paycheck.

The exploitation of outrage is always an exercise in hypocrisy. But it’s a particularly pungent odor when the upper class mimes revolution, when they really mean status quo. This isn’t 2008, it’s 2011. These aren’t rallies meant to bring down a government they oppose, but to keep a government they support, with some bottom line differences, in power. To divert attention from its failures by resorting to a wholly phony populism that’s little more than a subway stop game of three-card monte.

It wasn’t the Street that squandered the Social Security Trust Fund or decided that the economy would look better with a 15 trillion dollar deficit
Hate the Street or not, the problems we face didn’t begin there. They began in Washington D.C. It wasn’t the Street that squandered the Social Security Trust Fund or decided that the economy would look better with a 15 trillion dollar deficit. The Street certainly played its role in suggesting to the politicians which side of the river to throw the money in, but it was at best a bagman. And the robbers are still off the Potomac, smirking their way through Senate sessions, and trading email notes with the organizations behind the populist protests.

Wall Street isn’t the cause of our economic problems, it’s the patsy for them. Bankers are always there to invest the loot when a government robs its own people blind. But unlike the leaders of so many Banana Republics, ours aren’t piling money in suitcases and flying on the next four engine prop plane out of a dusty tarmac surrounded by palms. They’re staying behind and running for reelection.

The Obama Administration is not the first government to pile up a huge deficit and treat the treasury like its own cash machine. It is not the first government to try and tough it out, by finding a villain to throw to the wolves and pledging to make them pay. These are all antics so outdated that you can read about them in the original Latin. Greek if you’re willing to dig deeper. Phoenician and Hebrew if you’ve got an excellent dictionary.

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” Casablanca’s Captain Renault says. We have no shortage of Captain Renaults who show up at Wall Street to display their shock that the national economy is little more than a bunch of roulette tables, a few thousand pinball machines and a game that only exists so long as people have enough faith to keep throwing money into the pot.

But the Renaults know all about it, because they not only get their weekly cut, but because the entire system works only because the Renaults funnel money to the tables and then take their cut. And when the bubbles die, the jobs go down the chute and voters look for a scapegoat—the Renaults put on their best self-righteous faces and burst into the establishments to knock the cards out of the players’ hands. Shocked, shocked. This time they’re really going to regulate those naughty brokers.

We’ve played this game long enough that the Renaults and the players have gotten cynical, but the public still hasn’t quite caught on. When people mutter that Social Security is in trouble because there are thieves on Wall Street, they tragically miss the point.

Social Security is in trouble, because like everything else from D.C. to Wall Street, it was built for the interests of those in power, not for its supposed beneficiaries. Which was all-right when the men in the big chairs knew what they were doing, could count to ten, and understood that the system worked so long as you kept on top of it. When those men were replaced by overgrown boys and girls with Harvard degrees and blackberries and all the sense of responsibility of a crackhead with a bladder problem on the Number 2 train, then what we have is universal bankruptcy while the people responsible stuff bonds into their pants and try to distract us with a Day of Rage by the employees of their paid political movements.

This game can only go on for so long, as the numbers rise into the trillions. And where then? Debt is fine as a commodity until it comes time to cash the checks. It’s fine to point the fingers at Wall Street before hitting them up for a donation, but that won’t solve the problem either. Nor will rearranging the tax code to benefit Warren Buffett’s financial interests. You can raise taxes on some of the rich some of the time, while the others will be buying stocks in solar companies and bailed out banks right before a government bailout.

For Halloween, the people behind the mess have decided to send their kids to Wall Street dressed as grass roots protesters. As Elizabeth Warren says, no one got rich on their own. The solar panel factory had government grants. The Harvard lawyers had consultancy fees. The unions had their own politicians. The politicians had book deals. The billionaires have trust fund zombies with cardboard signs. The question is what do we have?

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. “Daniel comments on political affairs with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. He maintains a blog at

Daniel can be reached at:

This is nothing new …

Stock market crash of 1929

Markets in most of US and Europe were gaining constantly since 1920. Year after year share markets recorded huge gains. More gains in the market attracted more money into the market. Many stocks doubled and tripled in the valuation between 1927 and 1929. Rising wealth attracted more investors into the market. Greed took over the rationale of people. People started borrowing money and investing in the share market with a hope of becoming rich overnight. There was exuberance and optimism everywhere. Every one liked to believe that the market could go no-where but up.

By the end of 1928 the economy started slowing down. The demand growth was flattening out. Profits were not doubling anymore. Demand for loans exceeded the availability of deposit. Fresh cash flow from mutual funds and banks starting drying down. Warning signals were there for everyone to see. Big investors were the first one to smell the rat. They reasoned that the stocks were overpriced. So they started selling the stock. The market turned bearish. But the small time investor who was trading on borrowed margin was not willing to give up. They clung to their overpriced stocks with undying optimism. Slowly realization of huge losses set in. Small investors reckoned that their net worth was coming down day after day. As more and more investors decided to cut losses and exit the market the bearish trend turned more pronounced. Now the broke and bankrupt replaced the run-by-night millionaires in news headlines. People found that their entire wealth, which they had painstakingly amassed over years, disappeared overnight.

Then came the unbelievable. It happened on Thursday, 24th Oct 1929, often referred to as Black Thursday in stock market circles. Huge sell orders by investors in the morning brought the market tumbling down. As the news spread, more and more investors wanted to exit at whatever price they could get. There was a mad rush to sell the stocks even without looking at the price. Chicago and Buffalo stock exchange closed down. Mob outside the stock exchange turned furious. Police was bought in to control the fury of the mob. So began the stock market crash of 1929.

Desperate attempts to shore up spirits were on. A meeting of bankers at J.P.Morgan and Chase issued a statement that the market crash was only due to distress selling. Fundamentals of economy were said to be intact. So the share prices would witness a reversal shortly. To add credence to their opinion, Richard Whitney of J.P. Morgan and Chase walked into the bin of New York Stock Exchange and placed a huge order for U.S Steel. This helped to shore up the confidences. Selling mania was halted for the day. Stock prices began to recover. A relief rally was in offing. Everyone thought the stock market crash of 1929 was a thing of past.

As the relief rally abated, more and more investors began to press sell button. The market crashed once again. On Monday the 28th of October, market began to crash once again. This time there was no dramatic declaration that the stock market crash of 1929 was over. Richard Whitney of J.P. Morgan, who was the white angel of black Thursday would only clarify that bankers are not selling. No buy orders were placed unlike on black Thursday. This reinforced pessimism. People started to sell in panic. By evening, the stock market recorded the second greatest loss in the century. There was a rude realization that the stock market crash of 1929 was there to say.

Marginal investors began to run for cover. Market headed downwards. There were no buyers in any scripts. On Tuesday the 29th of Oct.1929 the marked headed for even lower levels. Speculators realized that no one could save the market. Many suicide cases of high profile speculators hit the headlines. Every one realized that the party was over and Stock market crash of 1929 was a reality. Exuberance gave way to an all-enveloping gloom. Small investors disappeared from the market.

The stock market crash of 1929 went down into history as one of the greatest crashes of all times. Stock exchanges around the world had to wait 12 years to witness another bull run.

<a href=";

I’m Tired Too! It’s not only me…

Robert A. Hall is the actor who plays the coroner on CSI if you watch that show. He also is a Marine Vietnam War veteran.

This should be required reading for every man, woman and child in the United States of America .

“I’m 63 and I’m Tired”
by Robert A. Hall

I’m 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help.. But if they bought Mc Mansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor”; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers”; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery”; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, and if you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military…. Those are the citizens we need.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the ” Illinois Combine” of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m tired. But I’m also glad to be 63 +. Because, mostly, I’m not going to have to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a MarineVietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

This is your chance to make a difference.

Ode to the “Arab Spring”


The Shawarma Republics are Burning

Syria is burning, not because of the Arab Spring or Tyranny or Twitter, or any of the other popular explanations. The fire in Syria is the same firestorm burning in Iraq, in Turkey, in Lebanon and throughout much of the Muslim world. It has nothing to do with human rights or democracy. There is no revolution here. Only the eternal civil war.

Most people accept countries with ancient names like Egypt, Jordan and Syria as a given. If they think about it at all they assume that they were always around, or were restored after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But actually the countries of the Middle East are mostly artificial creations borrowing a history that is not their own.

When Mohammed unleashed a fanatical round of conquests and crusades, he began by wrecking the cultures and religions of his native region. And his followers went on to do the same throughout the region and across the world.

Entire peoples lost their history, their past, their religion and their way of life. This cultural genocide was worst in Africa, Asia and parts of Europe. But the Middle Eastern peoples lost much of their heritage as well.

The Muslim conquerors made a special point of persecuting and exterminating the native beliefs and indigenous inhabitants they dominated. Israeli Jews, Assyrian Christians and Persian Zoroastrians faced special persecution.

Conquered peoples were expected to become Muslims. Those who resisted were repressed as Dhimmis. But those who submitted and became Muslims suffered a much worse fate, losing major portions of their traditions and history. They were expected to define themselves as Muslims first and look back to the great day when their conquerors subjugated them as the beginning of their history. Their pre-Islamic history faded into the mists of the ignorant past.

But Islam did not lead to a unified region, only to a prison of nations. The Caliphates, like the USSR, held sway over a divided empire through repression and force. Many of those peoples had lost a clear sense of themselves, but they still maintained differences that they expressed by modifying Islam to accommodate their existing beliefs and customs.

Islamic authorities viewed this as nothing short of heresy. It was against some such heresies that the Wahhabi movement was born. But these attempts to force the peoples of the region into one mold were doomed to fail.

Islam came about to stamp out all differences, to reduce all men to one, to blend state and mosque into one monstrous law for all. And it did succeed to some extent. Many cultures and beliefs were driven nearly to extinction. Jews, Christians and others struggled to survive in the walls of a hostile civilization. But Islam could not remain united and the divisions resurfaced in other ways.

Muslim armies did succeed in conquering much of the world in a frenzy of plunder and death. But they quickly turned on each other. Rather than conquering the world, they went on to fight over the plunder and the power. Nothing has really changed since then.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire brought in the Europeans to reconstruct the Middle East. The modern states are the work of their hands. A clumsy mismatch of borders and warring peoples. The USSR came after with its own line of coups and Arab Socialist dictatorships. Now the third wave of Islamist tyrannies is on the march. But none of them can solve the basic problems of the region.

Syria is burning not because of human rights, but because it’s a collection of different peoples with different variants of Islam who don’t get along. A handful are descended from the original natives. The rest are foreign Arab invaders, some more recent than others. The story repeats itself across the region. And across the world.

Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon are just some examples of countries permanently divided by such a mismatch of peoples. Agreements and elections come to nothing because no group believes that they will be treated as equals if they aren’t in power. And they’re right. Equality doesn’t just come from open elections, but from a cultural acceptance of differences. This simply does not exist in the Muslim world where gender differences mean you’re a force of corruption or a slave, ethnic differences mean you are the son of a dog, and religious differences mean you’re an enemy.

Had the forces of Islam not turned the Middle East upside down, the nation state might have evolved out of individual cultures, rather than as a strange hybrid of feudalism and Great Powers colonialism. For all their bluster and viciousness, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon are abandoned colonies. The Gulf states are even worse, backward clans of cutthroat merchants who are parasitically feeding off the West, even as they try to destroy it.

The rulers invariably marry Western women or women with a large dose of Western blood. Both Sadat married the daughter of an English woman. Mubarak married the daughter of a Welsh woman. For all that the Hashemites tout their descent from Mohammed, Queen Noor is more Anglo-Saxon than Arab. And the current Jordanian King’s mother was originally known as Toni Gardner. Even when they do marry Arab women, they are usually Christian Arabs and British educated.

There’s something pathetic about the sight of the post-colonial Arab leadership trying to gain some psychological legitimacy by intermarrying with their former rulers. As if pumping enough English blood into the veins of their offspring will somehow make them as capable as the Empire that ruled them and then left to attend to its own affairs.

But not nearly as pathetic as half of them claiming descent from Mohammed. Both reveal the underlying historical instability of their rule. These aren’t nation states, they’re hopelessly dysfunctional geographical divisions bristling with Western weapons and money, with interpretations of the Koran and texts on Arab Socialism, where everyone is a philosopher and a scholar– but no government lasts longer than it takes to overthrow it.

Every colonel and general dreams of empire, and every cleric in his flea ridden robes theorizes on the Islamic state, but none of them can do anything but act out the same murderous dramas. Building their house of cards and then watching it tumble down.

Had Western shenanigans not raised the price of bread, while providing support to local leftists from wealthy families, the Arab Spring would not exist. Now that it has, it’s only another excuse for locals to fight their civil wars and then erect another ramshackle regime on the ruins of the old.

This isn’t 1848 as some have theorized. It’s 848, over and over again. Worse still, it’s 748.

When you don’t have a nation, but you do have an army, then what you have is not a state, but a Shawarma Republic. To keep the army from overthrowing the leader, he must find internal or external enemies. When a downturn occurs, and the mobs gather, either the army massacres the mob or overthrows the ruler. Or the rebels cut a deal with some internal elements and wipe out the loyalists.

This is an old regional narrative that has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, Twitter or any of the other nonsense flowing through New York Times columns faster than the sewers of Cairo.

The modern Shawarma Republic has some royal or military ruler at the top who receives money from the West or from its enemies to hold up his end of the bargain. Which to him means stowing the money into foreign bank accounts, sending his trophy wife on shopping trips to Paris and striking a fine balancing between wiping out his enemies and buying them off.

Naturally he carries on the ritualistic chant of “Death to Israel”, and if Israel ever looks weak enough, or his new Chinese or Iranian allies kick in the money for a full fledged invasion, he may even take a whack at it. But mostly the chants of “Death to Israel” are a convenient way of executing his enemies for collaborating with Israel.

In Syria, Assad’s Shawarma Republic (officially the Syrian Arab Republic, formerly the United Arab Republic, after a bunch of coups and one kingdom, the privately owned fiefdom of the dumbest scion of the clan) is on fire. Because the enemies of the regime, and some of its former allies, got around to exploiting Bashar Assad’s weakness.

For now Assad’s armies backed by his Iranian allies are in control of the Shawarma Republic of Syria but that might change. Especially now that Turkey and much of the Arab world have stepped into the anti-Assad camp. And when the fireworks die down, and the corpses are cleaned up off the streets, there will be another Shawarma Republic. This one may not be run by the Alawites. But it will be run by someone, and it won’t be the people.

The irony is that after turning Lebanon into its puppet, Syria got the same treatment from Iran. And if a revolt succeeds, then it might get the same treatment from Turkey. The big dog bites the little dog, and the bigger dog bites it.

The process can’t be stopped, because the Islamic conquests that wrecked the region, the Caliphates that tried to make it static, and the colonial mapmakers who turned it into a ridiculous puzzle of fake countries filled with people who hate each other– make it impossible.

There was a brief window after the war when the exit of empires and the presence of a large Western educated class seemed as if they might lead to working societies. Instead they led to the pathetic imitations of the worst of the West, dress up generals and scholars cranking out monograms explaining how everything could be made right with their theory. Now it’s leading back to Islamism and the bloody clashes in the desert that led to this permanent state of dysfunction.

The Islamic Caliphate as a panacea for the problems caused by Islamic caliphates is about as good an idea as pouring gasoline on a fire. Which is exactly what the Islamists financed by Gulf royals, who can’t help cutting throats even when it’s their own, are doing.

You can’t build a country out of sand and a book. Nor out of armies and billions of dollars. The last 70 years testify to that. The reason that Israel works and the Arab world doesn’t is very simple. The Jews retained their identity and their humanity. The perpetrators and victims of Islam who surround them have no roots. Only the sword in their hand and the shifting sand underneath their feet.

SOURCE: Sultan Knish

From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News

Shores of Tripoli (redux)

Tony Attanasio

‎”From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our
country’s battles, in the air, on land, and sea.”- Official Hymn of the
U.S. Marine Corps. Have you ever wondered what is Tripoli doing in our Marines’ official hymn? On this day, let us remember those who gave their lives that we might be
free from muslim terror!

Ambassador Thomas Jefferson had a wake up call the day he met with
muslim leaders. Thomas Jefferson asked why are muslims attacking American
ships when we are doing nothing to incite any form of violence. To his
shock, he recorded the following words spoken by the muslim ambassador Abd
Al-Rahman: “it was written in the Qur’an, that all Nations who should not
have acknowledged the authority of mohammad were sinners, that it was the
right and duty of every muslim to make war upon nonmuslims they could find
and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every
Muslim who should be slain in battle was believed to go to Paradise.”

Remember there was no Israel nation at this point and there was no American
military bases in Saudi Arabia to blame these muslim terrorist attacks. All
America wanted to do was to pass by the open seas and engage in fair trade.
Even liberal PBS McNeil/Lehrer reported one day on America’s first war by
President Thomas Jefferson against the muslim terrorists.

To the surprise of many in our modern liberal and libertarian false worlds,
our nation formed its first national Navy and united beyond individual
States to a national force, due to muslim terrorist attacks at the
foundational years of our nation. The founders of our nation believed that
we needed to be united against the threat of islamic terrorism or we would
fall as divided States. Muslims were terrorizing Americans by forcefully
boarding American ships and beheading our men and enslaving our women and
children. Americans were being sold in the open muslim market.

When they offered America an option to pay a nonmuslim tax of up to 1
million dollars per year so they would “allow” us to sail without their
attacks on our ships, sadly, John Adams agreed to pay the bribe according to
the European model of that day. At one point, up to 20% of our national
budget was dedicated to paying off muslim terrorists. Thomas Jefferson
argued that the more you pay a terrorist, the more he’ll demand. When he
became President, he called on our brave Marines and Navy to go overseas and
kick the butt of those muslim terrorists who were ruthlessly attacking our
American citizens. {Jefferson used the common colloquialism of his day for

Muslims made the grave mistake of believing that a small nation just formed
would not have the power to fight the muslim powers overseas. By the Grace
of God, The LORD granted our Marines and Navy great victories and the muslim
powers were forced to return several hundred American women children and
men. Unfortunately, our first treaty sadly stipulated that America would
agree to pay $60,000.00 for these “slaves”. President Jefferson tried to
call it “tribute” instead of “ransom”, but rightly, William Eaton remained
strongly opposed to the State Department diplomat Tobias Lear on this
important matter. By 1807, Muslims began to attack American ships once again
and terrorize our citizens abroad. In 1815, Commodores William Bainbridge
and Stephen Decatur led our military victories to force muslims to sign
ending all “nonmuslim” tax payments by the United States to faithful muslims
and that finally put a stop to the muslim attacks on our citizens for a long

However, Thomas Jefferson knew the danger of islam was not over. He secured
the great Naval Hero rear Admiral John Paul Jones to try to fight off the
muslims in Constantinople and return Constantinople to the Christians who
had been attacked by muslim ottoman forces and overtaken after several
hundred years of failed attempts by previous muslim rulers to attack the
peaceful Christians.

In an article on this important Naval officer, we read:

John Paul Jones, Father of The American Navy: he engaged in his most famous
battle: the Battle of Flamborough Head. The battle took place against the
British warship called the HMS Serapis. It was a long battle that Jones
nearly lost, but he continued to fight until the very end. His ship on fire
and sinking, he refused to give up. When the commander of the Serapis asked
him about surrendering, instead of giving the idea any thought, he quickly
replied with his famous line “I have not yet begun to fight!”

You can imagine the surprise of the British commander, seeing as the
American ship was already in a bad state. But Jones was true to his word,
he had not begun to fight. After uttering that reply, he was able to
overcome the enemy and actually captured the Serapis.

To illustrate the extent of the damage to the Bonhomme Richard, Jones’ crew
tried for almost two days to salvage their vessel, but it was in vain. it
was determined that the damage suffered during battle was too great and the
ship was left to sink. Jones took command of the Serapis and then made the
journey back to France. He was a hero in France and America, receiving
awards and titles for his valor.

BHO and Congressman Ellison ,Minn, claim T Jefferason was enlightened by Islam (always re writing history) and studied the Koran. Yes, he had a Koran, but read and learned from its Surahs that Muslims are told to attack when their enemy shows signs of weakness ( you know like in the sandox -let’s make nice and win their hearts and minds) and to retreat when the enemy shows strenght (you know like when the Israelis kick their asses). We need to follow T Jefferson’s mandates. He sent Marines into Tripoli and kicked the living crap out of the so called pirates. The US actually did not have a major problems with Muslims till 1979…Time for history to repeat itself. Probably will after 11/2012 when the clown prince and his court jesters are gone!

Newsweek’s Next Cover Girl

Oh, Oh Michelle!

Is this how she defines submissive?

For someone who apparently can take offense over the choices made by media displaying her photos; she sure doesn’t have a clue about photo-ops.

But then Michelle Bachmann doesn’t have a clue about a lot of things.

Beware! This woman is totally unelectable!

The Tea Party extremists (yes there are EXTREMIST in the Tea Party) love her. But if you review her voting record and her actual experience she is a lot like Barack Obama.

Besides the words TAX and LAWYER in the same sentence should be enough to disqualify anybody from running.

Catholics + Freemasons

After reading a post of what was supposed to be on the facts about Catholic Masons; I did my own research.

The post was from one of those “tabloid” type sites that professes to have facts ( It claims to be a compendium of all things Catholic. Even as a LAPSED Catholic, (simply relying on memory of many years of Catholic school) I could tell with a cursory glance that most of the stuff on the site is WRONG.

This is a very typical “we’ll give you the low down”, “we’ll tell you the secrets” type of site that would do the National Enquirer proud. Most of these sites wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them.

The site, quoted as follows, relies on outdated information, erroneous conclusions, innuendo and just plain bullshit.

The quote:

“The Church, through its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has formally declared that Catholics who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. This declaration, which is the most recent teaching of the Church, has affirmed nearly 300 years of papal pronouncements against Freemasonry on the grounds that the teachings of the Lodge are contrary to Catholic faith and morals.

The Church’s declaration on Freemasonry exposes Catholic Masons to a number of penalties under canon law. For example, a Catholic who is aware that the Church authoritatively judges membership in Freemasonry to be gravely sinful must not approach Holy Communion (c. 916). The Church imposes the duty upon all grave sinners not to make a sacrilegious communion. Such a Catholic Mason who is aware of the grave sin must receive absolution in a sacramental confession before being able to receive communion again, unless there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess (c. 916). This confession, in order to be valid, also requires the Catholic Mason to renounce his Masonic membership.

Further, because membership in Freemasonry is an external or public condition, the Catholic Mason can be refused Holy Communion by the pastors of the Church for obstinately persevering in his Masonic membership (c. 915). Such a Catholic Mason would also be forbidden from receiving the Anointing of the Sick (c. 1007) as well as ecclesiastical funeral rites if public scandal were to result (c. 1184, §1, °3).

Canon 1364 also imposes an automatic excommunication upon apostates, heretics, or schismatics. This canon could also apply to Catholic Masons. If, for example, a Catholic Mason embraced the theological teachings of Freemasonry that the Church has condemned (indifferentism, syncretism), he would be in heresy by virtue of his belief in these teachings. Further, if a Catholic Mason knew the Church opposes membership in Freemasonry, and yet adamantly and persistently refused to submit to the pope’s authority in precluding his membership in the Lodge, he may also find himself in schism. Catholic Masons could also be subject to canon 1374 which imposes an interdict or just penalty upon those who join associations that plot against the Church.

For the canonical penalties to apply, the Catholic Mason would have to act in a gravely imputable way (that is, the Catholic would have to be aware of the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry and, after being warned about it, choose to disregard it). In my personal experience, a fair number of Catholic Masons do act in a gravely imputable way in regard to their Masonic membership. In these cases, the canonical penalties, including excommunication, apply. The Church’s penalties are not meant to alienate the person on whom the penalty is levied. Instead, the penalties are meant to communicate to the person the gravity of his conduct, encourage his repentance and reconciliation with the Church, and bring him back into the one fold of Christ. After all, the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls.”

Nice of them to speak for the Catholic Church (as if the Church could not speak for itself).

This is hyperbole. This is antiquated and the website sets it forth as fact. IT IS NOT.

As is usually the case; if you do the research and go to the ultimate source (in this case the Roman Catholic Church itself) you will find that the correct information is quite different.

Dated in 2000: Below is the text of a letter from the Office of the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, dated September 15, 2000, to the Masonic Service Bureau of North America:

“Thank you for your inquiry of September 11, 2000 directed to Cardinal Mahoney, on whose behalf I am replying. The question is “whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge.”
Unfortunately, the matter is too complex for a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer. But at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes. Permit me to explain this qualified response.
Your letter states that a member’s “allegiance to one God is all we require.” To the extent that this is an accurate statement of the organization’s beliefs and teachings, and that its activities are humanitarian and charitable in nature, there is no reason to prevent a practicing Catholic from joining.
Past history, of course, has muddied the waters because earlier church law (prior to November 27, 1983) specifically named Masonic groups as a forbidden society (canon 2335, 1917 Code). The dialogues between Catholic and Masonic representatives in the years since the Second Vatican Council were generally very positive and yet did not resolve questions or concerns raised in certain parts of the world. As a result, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a statement one day before the new Code of Canon Law took effect (November 26, 1983), in which it held that since Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church, Catholics would commit a grave sin in belonging to Masonic associations and so could not receive Holy Communion.
Because this declaration has not been superseded by any further official statements, the question keeps recurring about its interpretation and application. There is no agreement among the experts in church law who have considered the matter. Consequently one can only judge the individual circumstances in light of the principles that clearly do apply. These principles are set forth in canons 1374 and 1364 of the 1983 Code, which forbid a Catholic from joining “an association which plots against the Church” and impose penalties for heresy under certain conditions. If “a particular Masonic lodge truly promoted heretical teaching or conspired against the interests of the Church” (Ronny E. Jenkins, “The Evolution of the Church’s Prohibition Against Catholic Membership in Freemasonry,” The Jurist, 56 (1996), pg 735,) then a Catholic would be bound to avoid membership.
The reason, then, I answer ‘probably yes’ is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. In the previous paragraph, I have cited the article which best presents the current state of the question. The 1974 newspaper clipping that you enclosed with your letter probably refers to a letter written by Cardinal Seper, then in charge of the same doctrinal congregation mentioned above, which was addressed to certain bishops. In this letter one can see the movement at that time from a blanket prohibition to the application of a case-by-case judgment whether a group did in fact conspire against the Church. The history of the development of the Church’s current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends.
Please forgive this lengthy reply, but a shorter one would not do justice to those inquirers who are aware that the matter is still controversial. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn more about it myself, and I close by asking God’s blessing on your well-known endeavors to relieve human suffering and assist the needy.
Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar
Posted by Gene Goldman into alt.freemasonry on September 15, 2001..

on Rome 1991 Bearing in mind …the absence of mention of Freemasonry in the 1983 codification of canon law it would appear that…a Catholic may join regular freemasonry but ought to consult his bishop, through his parish priest, not for permission to join but to ascertain the nature of the jurisdiction concerned.6 .
Although the Code of Canon Law does not specifically prohibit a Catholic from joining a masonic association, Cardinal Ratzinger continues in his opposition. This has lead to such situations as Archbishop Legaspi of Cacares, the conservative President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, echoing Cardinal Ratzinger in his March 1990 draft of “Guidelines on Membership in Free Masonic Association” while in the same period Archbishop Talamayan of Tuguegarao is noted as giving the address at a lodge installation meeting and inviting freemasons to visit him. Note that some eighty percent of the freemasons in the Philippines are Roman Catholic. There are many examples of prominent Catholics associated with the Craft, too many to mention here.

1. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the title of the Vatican department which in 1965, under Pope Paul VI, took the place of the Holy Office which had itself been established in 1908 in succession to the Inquisition. The severe tribunal is said to have claimed its last victim in 1813 and it had been suppressed as such in Spain in 1834. Thereafter its functions were restricted to such matters as the detection of heresy in published works.^
2. References to Catholics and the Church are to Roman Catholics and the Church of Rome. While the Orthodox Catholic Churches, in the main, also condemn Freemasonry, several of the smaller Catholic Churches such as the Old Catholic Church have no official opinion on Freemasonry^
3. Latin text appended at . ^
4. Declaration on Masonic Associations Quaesitum est^
5. Cf.: AAS 73 (1981) pp240-241. ^
6. “The Church of Rome and Freemasonry”, a paper presented in Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 by Bro. Will Read on May 9, 1991. The Quatuor Coronati Lodge was founded in 1884 with the objective of developing “for brethren everywhere an interest in research; to encourage study of the many facets of Freemasonry… (and)… to attract the attention and to enlist the cooperation of masonic scholars in all parts of the world.” (Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076; Volume 104 for the year 1991: ISBN 0 907655 21 1.) ^”

There is no excommunication, no state of grave sin, no denial of any sacrament. There is only a caution to pay attention to what is going on and to always error on the side of being Catholic.

What is truly disturbing here has has nothing to do with Catholics or Masons; it has to do with websites that profess to “expose the facts”. They preach a gospel of misinformation. They set themselves up as experts yet have no real or current knowledge of their subject. The web is full of them. If you do a Google search on any random subject; I have found that about 50% of the results returned are sites of this type. It’s scary to me because people will seemingly believe almost anything.

Social networks serve to multiply the misinformation on an exponential basis.

The man behind the curtain …

In 2006 a young man I was working with started telling everyone within earshot about the guy Obama. He praised him as one would the messiah. Within a month he started wearing teeshirts with “Obama 08” in a variety of colors and designs. Remember this was 2006, not even close to the election year!

Since this seemed to be a growing cause; I started to do some research on this man, Obama. What I found was that there was very little to find about the man, who her was, where he came from, what he thought. There was nothing about our boy Barry that, to a rational mind, would make him “presidential” material. In fact most of the little I found showed him to be self serving, inexperienced, egotistical and very arrogant. The fact that there was not any mention of his actual life experience seemed very, very strange considering the amount of press he was starting to receive.