Then again, the liberal left's horrifying insanity is nothing new. . .
Happy Halloween
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Obama Halloween - In America It Has Been A Frightfest For A Year and a Half
Then again, the liberal left's horrifying insanity is nothing new. . .
Happy Halloween
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Political Pistachio Radio Takes A Break
For those of you who are regular listeners of my radio program, I must apologize for this weekend. All episodes have been cancelled this weekend due to a nasty cold I fighting. Rather than force you to listen to my nasally-stuffed voice as I fight a headache and a horrid cough, I felt it would be better to cancel all episodes this weekend. Don't worry, we will return next weekend. Have a pleasant Halloween, and upcoming Election Day.
Of course my writing will continue on this website. I write no matter what. I am funny that way.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Of course my writing will continue on this website. I write no matter what. I am funny that way.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Election Day in Murrieta
By Douglas V. GibbsAs election day approaches the battle in Murrieta for three city council seats remains up in the air. Yours truly, and Alan Long, are the two front-runners of the five challengers, but the question is whether or not we will be able to crack the power of incumbency being enjoyed by the three candidates up for re-election.
I have stood out because of my support for three initiatives (C,D, and E) that are on the ballot that are unpopular with the incumbents and the other candidates. However, the voters, or at least those I have spoken to at events and during my neighborhood door-knocking sessions, are in favor of those initiatives. The people, like myself, believe that though those serving through government office should be compensated, the compensation should not be so high that it is the primary motivation for candidacy.
My campaign has also challenged the incumbents because of my stance on protecting property rights against land seizures by conservancy groups, with the help of the City Council. The Los Alamos Hills area, as well as the Murrieta Calvary Chapel lawsuit against the city, has become a hot issue because of the demand for environmental purposes that these property owners "donate" land for conservation. If they refuse, the property owners are then strong-armed by the Murrieta city government by way of the city refusing to allow the property owners to develop their land. I believe that private property should remain exactly that, private property. Government should never strong-arm property away from citizens.
I have challenged the other candidates at five forums, and an informal mixer at the Senior Center. I have been talking to members of the VFW, Vet Center, and other veteran groups. With the other candidates I have a number of signs around town, in addition to a billboard (above) and an ad by LGPAC for "Yes on C,D, and E" on AM 590 KTIE that mentions me as one of the supporters of the initiatives. My volunteers and I have knocked on doors, handed out flyers, and have attended various rallies and events to get out my name.
Tuesday will be the final moment when we find out if I am a new City Councilman, or not.
Worse case is that I am not elected and I learned a lot. Best case is I will be elected, and will be able to work to turn this city around, and place it back on a fiscally responsible track.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tea Party Express IV in Ohio and West Virginia
TEA PARTY EXPRESS IV — “OHIO — WEST VIRGINIA” EDITION
DAY 12 of TPX IV was all Michigan — Jackson, Waterford and Monroe. Pictured below is one of the Michigan rally scenes. The patriots in Michigan mean business and if you don’t believe me, ask Bart Stupak from the TPX III days! Andrea Shea King has more from yesterday’s rallies at The Radio Patriot.
DAY 13 has the crew on a two-state swing, with rallies in Columbus, OH — 10 AM; andWheeling, WV — 3:30 PM. Tea Party HD and Liberty.com are just one click away from bringing you to the rally via your computer. Give it a try — no sign-up — just click!
Separation of Church and State: Christine O'Donnell was right, and the Law Students were Wrong
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Christine O'Donnell is running for the U.S. Senate in Delaware as a Republican candidate. From the moment she surprised liberal Republican Mike Castle by upsetting him in the Republican Primary, O'Donnell has been the recipient of attack after attack by the Left. The attacks have been echoed by establishment Republicans, in an attempt to label O'Donnell as unelectable. Fact is, she is not only electable, but she has the political establishment in both parties nervous. In fact, as Election Tuesday approaches, O'Donnell is experiencing a surge in the polls. The Leftist attacks are not only failing to hurt O'Donnell, they may even be helping her out.
Chris Coons has backed out of the final two debates, Obama and Biden felt the need to help Coons and appeared in Delaware to stump for him, and in that Monmouth University poll that now has O'Donnell within 10 points of Coon, Christine O'Donnell is actually winning independents 47% to 42%. As with the rest of the country, the citizens of Delaware recognize the wrong direction the Democrats are taking us, and the danger of the existing political establishment of professional elitists. In fact, many of those fed up people are Democrats who are not getting from the Obama administration what they expected. As a result, many of these Democrats will be voting Republican, or they just aren't going to vote at all. This means that it is very feasible that Christine O'Donnell may pull the big upset. And remember, those polls tend to have a leftward lean, so it is very possible that Christine O'Donnell is within four or five points, or better, with Coons. And it is the fault of the Democrats, because they have turned off the voters with their unrelenting attacks. The people are asking themselves, "If O'Donnell is everything they say she is, then why spend so much time trying to discredit her? If she is so unelectable, why do they act as if she is a great danger to them?"
One of the latest attacks, however, is the one that I believe may put O'Donnell over the top. The episode occurred at the Widener University Law School debate where O'Donnell questioned the presence of "separation between church and state" in the U.S. Constitution. She asked where the term is located in the Constitution, and the liberal student body and moderator laughed because they erroneously believe that the First Amendment imposes a separation between church and state. This episode arose when Chris Coons, loyal to his Democrat liberal teachings, argued that the Constitution does not allow public schools to teach religious doctrine.
O'Donnell, despite the laughter of the audience, continued by saying, "Let me just clarify, you are telling me that the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment?"
The liberal left believes the establishment clause is the foundation of the separation between church and state, and that the courts have supported that belief with their rulings. In their circle the consideration is that the First Amendment restricts government promotion of religion, and protects a secular government from any religious influence. This belief arises from a misunderstanding of a letter from Thomas Jefferson, who was not even a participant in the Constitutional Convention, to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut.
The audience, of course, went a step further with their laughter not because of their argument against the conservative notion that liberals have the establishment clause wrong, but because they genuinely believed Ms. O’Donnnell did not know the "complex principles of constitutional law which teaches separation of church and state is derived from the First Amendment."
The First Amendment was created to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion. And in the case of Coon's example of religious doctrine in schools (to the point of disallowing prayer, or clothing that promotes the Christian faith) one must ask, how is the presence of God in the school system a case of Congress making law to establish a state religion?
In the bygone era of America's past God played an important part in our culture, schools, and political structure. Somehow, along the way, Christian children became pawns in a war against God. In this war our children have become forbidden to use the word God in the public schools, public school students are forbidden to say prayers at football games or on the steps of the Supreme Court, and it has gotten to the point that religious speech has become banned from the public square? There is even a case where a military chaplain got in trouble for ending a prayer in Jesus' name. . . but isn't a chaplain a pastor?
What is worse, this slow deterioration of our moral structure is being primarily spearheaded by the courts. But, the judicial branch does not have that authority. Judicial Review of the Constitution is not a Constitutionally granted power. The courts seized that power in the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, and it has gotten worse with each passing generation.
One must ask themselves, if the Constitution is designed to limit the powers of the federal government, why would it be consistent with the Constitution to allow the courts the ability to determine what laws are constitutional, and what laws are not? Such power gives the federal government the ability to decide for itself what its own authorities are, opening up the potential for an out of control tyrannical system that does whatever it pleases regardless of the will of the people, and more importantly, regardless of the rule of law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial Review also grants the courts legislative powers in a manner that allows the courts to modify law. However, Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution forbids this. That clause grants all legislative powers to the Congress of the United States, and to no other branch in the U.S. Government. The Judicial Branch through Article III have only the enumerated powers delegated to them in the Constitution, and none of those powers include legislative powers.
In addition, the legislative powers given to Congress are enumerated, meaning that Congress may make laws only on those specific subjects listed in the Constitution as proper objects of legislation. Religion and speech are not among the listed powers, therefore Congress may not make any laws about religion or speech, especially including laws that "prohibit the free exercise of religion thereof" as indicated in the First Amendment.
Remember, the Founding Fathers found it necessary to indicate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because of the prevailing situation in Europe where the centralized governments had used State Religions as a mechanism to control the people. In England, at the time the colonists fled to America, established religion was used to coerce the people into obeying the civil government, forcing people to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment, and fines. This also allowed the government to force the citizens to financially support the established church.
Though the States (except for Rhode Island and Pennsylvania) were theocracies at the time of the writing of the Constitution, religious freedom spread through the states during the early years of the nation. However, the federal government was specifically forbidden from doing the same. It was up to the States to clean up their own houses individually, without influence from the federal government.
As the nation moved into the new century "established religion" (an "established" denomination supported by mandatory taxes or tithes) was a thing of the past. The churches now maintained their establishments through the voluntary offerings of their adherents.
Nowhere in any of that is the liberal definition of the separation of church and state. O'Donnell had it right, and the American People know it.
But what is even more interesting is that as the left tries to paint O'Donnell as a kook, we must realize that Chris Coons believes in a Chinese/Australian Conspiracy Theory, saying that, "The Australian navy engaged in joint exercises with the Chinese and specifically excluded us recently. A dramatic shift in the Australian policy."
Wow, now that is seriously nuts.
And the media is trying to tell us that O'Donnell is the crazy one.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Poll shows surge for O'Donnell in Delaware - CNN
O'Donnell Questions Church-State Separation - New York Times
The Lie of Separation of Church and State - Canada Free Press
Christine O'Donnell's misconceptions of the Constitution - Washington Post
Chris Coons Lied, Granny Died - World Net Daily
Greedy Leftists Decry American Dream
By J.J. Jackson
AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) is flooding the airwaves here in Pennsylvania because their power is being threatened. Days away from elections where liberal Democrats from Dan “Drink Tax” Onorato (candidate for Governor) to Joe “I served in the military” Sestak (candidate for U.S. Senate) are down in the polls, those in charge of AFSCME are obsessing about what a potential turning out of their buddies in Harrisburg and Washington would mean for their future. They do not like what they see.
One of their tantrums has apparently resulted in a campaign ad against former Congressman Pat Toomey turned candidate for U.S. Senate. The ad uses the fictional character of Gordon Gekko and his words about how greed is good echoed ominously throughout to paint Toomey as some sort of monster who is in favor of screwing all of us in the pursuit of his own greed. The ad is designed to portray Toomey as being in the pocket of big business and foreign interests. But, as I have pointed out repeatedly, AFSCME cannot give one reason to vote for Joe Sestak, the candidate they support for U.S. Senate. What they also do not want to tell you is that it was Joe Sestak who during his tenure in the United States House of Representatives voted for every bail out of Wall Street, Big Banks, automobile companies, etc that come down the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In psychology they call this sort of thing projection.
I want to thank AFSCME for the ad however because it allows us to have an adult conversation about greed. Of course AFSCME will not be included in the conversation because they have not proven themselves adult enough to participate. They are being banished to the kiddies table where they can pull hair, cry and eat with plastic utensils lest they hurt themselves.
The definition of greed is: “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.” (source: Websters.com)
Now ask yourself this. Are you greedy? Well, you probably are. I know I am. And I am quite proud of that.
I do not need 1,800 square feet of home for my family of four not including our two dogs. My wife and I could live, albeit in a more cramped fashion, in a smaller home. We did not need to buy two new cars several years ago. Although I am sure that Hyundai and Chevrolet and all those who work for them were thrilled that we chose new cars, I admit we could have bought used cars instead. I do not need an iPhone with data plan which allows me to have rebuttals to liberal lies at my finger tips either. But I have one none the less. I do not need, I guess, to save for my own retirement either because government promises, cross their heart and swear to uh ... something which may or may not be God to avoid angry looks from the ACLU, to send me a check every month at a designated point in time. But since I do not believe the promises based on the track record of our elected officials, my wife and I have squirreled away the beginnings of a nest egg to help us live more comfortably in retirement.
Yep, by definition I am one greedy son of a gun. I have a lot of things that I do not need. And if you also do these or other similar things, then you too are greedy and a target of scorn apparently for AFSCME. In fact the American Dream itself is under direct assault here by AFSCME and their attack against greed in such a carte blanche fashion.
The American Dream is, at its core, that someone can be all that they can be if they work hard enough, get a little lucky and ultimately have a better life than their parents had. But you cannot get to this destination without greed. Because being all you can be is by default greedy. The American Dream is not about being all you need to be to just get by which is what you would be settling for if you were not greedy and desirous of more than you needed.
But here is the kicker. While AFSCME is out there decrying greed as being bad and smacking us around for being greedy it is they and government are being greedy as well. They are supporting candidates for office like Joe Sestak who are greedy for power over our liberties. And it is their greed that is indeed bad. Their greed is a greed that that seeks to use government force to accrue to them things they are not entitled to.
If you ask AFSCME though, I guarantee you that they will never claim that big government run by liberals is greedy however. Government gobbling up more powers than are needed to maintain law and order, handle those few and enumerated services that we the people are unable to supply ourselves and have agreed, tentatively, to allow them to provide, make available protection of our inalienable rights through courts of law and provide a means of redress when those rights are violated is not greed to organizations like AFSCME. Even though, of course, it is greed by definition it slips by without their condemnation. When government wants to take control of our health care, our retirements, how and when we are “charitable” and so on even though there is not a single constitutional basis for these actions, AFSCME falls right in line and attacks anyone who dares to speak up.
This is the problem with the liberal elite and their foot soldiers. And it will always be the problem with them. You and I are always greedy because we have more than we need and we are ungrateful little piglets for not falling in line to suckle at the teat they have presented to us. But they, oh they are never greedy when they seek more than they need.
Yes, as Gordon Gekko said, “... greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” But what is often overlooked is how well he explained why this is. He said, “Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.”
The only thing I take exception to is him saying that all forms of greed are good. Like I said, government and their underlings being greedy for what is not theirs to have is not good. When greed works against these goals, as is often the case when it is practiced by those within government who want power, I will admit freely that greed is bad. Greed that leads to one person infringing on the inalienable right, those rights endowed to us by God, is also bad. AFSCME and the left however see it all in the reverse. Government greed which tramples our inalienable rights to them is good and you and I trying to make a better life for our families than we need is bad greed.
Remember this when you vote on November 2nd. Remember that slapping back the hand of greedy government is the first step we must take to preserve the American Dream which is us, as Americans, having a right to be greedy and put in our pockets more than we simply need to survive.
I’m J.J. Jackson and you damn well better believe that as an American I approve this message.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) is flooding the airwaves here in Pennsylvania because their power is being threatened. Days away from elections where liberal Democrats from Dan “Drink Tax” Onorato (candidate for Governor) to Joe “I served in the military” Sestak (candidate for U.S. Senate) are down in the polls, those in charge of AFSCME are obsessing about what a potential turning out of their buddies in Harrisburg and Washington would mean for their future. They do not like what they see.
One of their tantrums has apparently resulted in a campaign ad against former Congressman Pat Toomey turned candidate for U.S. Senate. The ad uses the fictional character of Gordon Gekko and his words about how greed is good echoed ominously throughout to paint Toomey as some sort of monster who is in favor of screwing all of us in the pursuit of his own greed. The ad is designed to portray Toomey as being in the pocket of big business and foreign interests. But, as I have pointed out repeatedly, AFSCME cannot give one reason to vote for Joe Sestak, the candidate they support for U.S. Senate. What they also do not want to tell you is that it was Joe Sestak who during his tenure in the United States House of Representatives voted for every bail out of Wall Street, Big Banks, automobile companies, etc that come down the Pennsylvania Turnpike. In psychology they call this sort of thing projection.
I want to thank AFSCME for the ad however because it allows us to have an adult conversation about greed. Of course AFSCME will not be included in the conversation because they have not proven themselves adult enough to participate. They are being banished to the kiddies table where they can pull hair, cry and eat with plastic utensils lest they hurt themselves.
The definition of greed is: “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.” (source: Websters.com)
Now ask yourself this. Are you greedy? Well, you probably are. I know I am. And I am quite proud of that.
I do not need 1,800 square feet of home for my family of four not including our two dogs. My wife and I could live, albeit in a more cramped fashion, in a smaller home. We did not need to buy two new cars several years ago. Although I am sure that Hyundai and Chevrolet and all those who work for them were thrilled that we chose new cars, I admit we could have bought used cars instead. I do not need an iPhone with data plan which allows me to have rebuttals to liberal lies at my finger tips either. But I have one none the less. I do not need, I guess, to save for my own retirement either because government promises, cross their heart and swear to uh ... something which may or may not be God to avoid angry looks from the ACLU, to send me a check every month at a designated point in time. But since I do not believe the promises based on the track record of our elected officials, my wife and I have squirreled away the beginnings of a nest egg to help us live more comfortably in retirement.
Yep, by definition I am one greedy son of a gun. I have a lot of things that I do not need. And if you also do these or other similar things, then you too are greedy and a target of scorn apparently for AFSCME. In fact the American Dream itself is under direct assault here by AFSCME and their attack against greed in such a carte blanche fashion.
The American Dream is, at its core, that someone can be all that they can be if they work hard enough, get a little lucky and ultimately have a better life than their parents had. But you cannot get to this destination without greed. Because being all you can be is by default greedy. The American Dream is not about being all you need to be to just get by which is what you would be settling for if you were not greedy and desirous of more than you needed.
But here is the kicker. While AFSCME is out there decrying greed as being bad and smacking us around for being greedy it is they and government are being greedy as well. They are supporting candidates for office like Joe Sestak who are greedy for power over our liberties. And it is their greed that is indeed bad. Their greed is a greed that that seeks to use government force to accrue to them things they are not entitled to.
If you ask AFSCME though, I guarantee you that they will never claim that big government run by liberals is greedy however. Government gobbling up more powers than are needed to maintain law and order, handle those few and enumerated services that we the people are unable to supply ourselves and have agreed, tentatively, to allow them to provide, make available protection of our inalienable rights through courts of law and provide a means of redress when those rights are violated is not greed to organizations like AFSCME. Even though, of course, it is greed by definition it slips by without their condemnation. When government wants to take control of our health care, our retirements, how and when we are “charitable” and so on even though there is not a single constitutional basis for these actions, AFSCME falls right in line and attacks anyone who dares to speak up.
This is the problem with the liberal elite and their foot soldiers. And it will always be the problem with them. You and I are always greedy because we have more than we need and we are ungrateful little piglets for not falling in line to suckle at the teat they have presented to us. But they, oh they are never greedy when they seek more than they need.
Yes, as Gordon Gekko said, “... greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” But what is often overlooked is how well he explained why this is. He said, “Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.”
The only thing I take exception to is him saying that all forms of greed are good. Like I said, government and their underlings being greedy for what is not theirs to have is not good. When greed works against these goals, as is often the case when it is practiced by those within government who want power, I will admit freely that greed is bad. Greed that leads to one person infringing on the inalienable right, those rights endowed to us by God, is also bad. AFSCME and the left however see it all in the reverse. Government greed which tramples our inalienable rights to them is good and you and I trying to make a better life for our families than we need is bad greed.
Remember this when you vote on November 2nd. Remember that slapping back the hand of greedy government is the first step we must take to preserve the American Dream which is us, as Americans, having a right to be greedy and put in our pockets more than we simply need to survive.
I’m J.J. Jackson and you damn well better believe that as an American I approve this message.
=====================================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts http://www.cafepress.com/rightthings. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com
Starving Democrats
"How do you starve a Democrat to death?"
You hide his food stamps under his work boots.
-------------
Considering food stamps, one must ask, "Have you ever seen a thin poor person in America?" Only in America can poverty lead to obesity.
-------------
When announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.
Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.
--------------
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.
The republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, He decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave him fifty dollars.
---------------
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
You hide his food stamps under his work boots.
-------------
Considering food stamps, one must ask, "Have you ever seen a thin poor person in America?" Only in America can poverty lead to obesity.
-------------
When announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.
Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.
--------------
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.
The republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, He decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave him fifty dollars.
---------------
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Conservative Election Guide For Voting In California
State Propositions
Proposition 19 - NO: Marijuana. Aside from the moral implications, legalizing Marijuana would have an incredible negative impact on our economy, and hurt businesses to the point that the mass exodus of businesses from California would increase. Because we do not have the technology to determine through a test if a person smoked or ingested Marijuana the same day, should this proposition pass, employers would not be able to do anything about workers using Marijuana unless a workplace accident occurs because technically they cannot prove Marijuana use inside of a 30 day time period. The effect this will have on the cost of Worker's Compensation will be devastating. One must also consider a hypothetical example: Two businesses, one is strict on Marijuana usage, and the other is lax on employee use of the drug. Which business is likely to be more successful? You guessed it: The one that does not allow Marijuana usage. States are not a whole lot different. Legalization of Marijuana would place an already failing State in jeopardy. We have a big enough problem with rampant idiocy through Sacramento's liberal progressive agenda. We don't need the number of stoners in this State to increase too.
Proposition 20 - YES: Election District Lines. Simple question helps one consider the answer here. Would you rather have the politicians and their allies be the ones drawing the district lines so that they can maintain their circle of political power? Or should committees by citizens be the ones drawing the lines? A "yes" vote takes the power of drawing the lines of the districts out of the hands of the political structure.
Proposition 21 - NO: Tax Increase. California already has one of the highest gamut of vehicle licensing fees in the nation. Now, Sacramento wants more money, so they are pushing for an $18 a year licensing fee increase. They claim the money is for funding state parks, but the problem in Sacramento is not that they don't have enough revenue. The problem is that spending is too high. If they need money for parks, then they need to eliminate or alter the funding for programs that are either not necessary, obsolete, a duplicate, or over-funded.
Proposition 22 - NO: State Spending. I originally was going to vote "yes" on Proposition 22. I understand that our State spends too much, and mishandles our tax dollars. Sacramento treats local funds as a back-up slush fund. The State politicians do this through a series of loopholes in the law that basically enables them to steal billions in taxpayer funds dedicated by the voters to local government and transportation services. Proponents of Proposition 22 says that a "yes" vote on Proposition 22 will stop State raids of local government funds once and for all. However, what it actually does if places more power and control into the hands of redevelopment agencies, enabling the States to extort cities monetarily, while ensuring land use occurs as the State sees fit, rather than the local government. The intention of Proposition 22 is right, but the method is wrong, and the unintended consequences could be devastating.
Proposition 23 - YES: Environment, Save Jobs. Cap and Trade in California reared its ugly head through AB 32, or the "Global Warming Solutions Act." Proposition suspends AB 32 until unemployment falls below 5.5%, basically saying to the environmentalists that they may be able to "save the planet," but not while we are in an economic downturn. If Proposition 23 loses, energy taxes will increase, and millions of jobs will be lost. If there is to be a recovery from the recession, passing Proposition 23 is a key component in making that recovery possible.
Proposition 24 - NO: Business Taxes. Proposition 24 if it passes would eliminate three business tax breaks. Business is already fleeing from California, and our economy is tanking as a result. If the business atmosphere worsens, the exodus of businesses from California will increase. A strong economy is a growing economy, and a growing economy results from a growing private sector. Eliminating three tax breaks for businesses will place businesses in California in a pickle, forcing many out of business, and many others out of the State. We can't afford to be punishing businesses by eliminating three of their tax breaks.
Proposition 25 - NO: State Spending. Proposition 25 would allow the State Legislature to pass their budget by a simple majority vote, rather than the current 2/3rds requirement. A simple majority gives more power to a single party. A 2/3rds requirement ensures that members of both parties are good with the budget. Proposition 25 would also allow tax increases with a simple majority vote. Dangerous, unethical, and a power grab.
Proposition 26 - YES: Taxes. With the passage of Proposition 26, voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed, including hidden taxes such as the ones labeled as "fee increases."
Proposition 27 - NO: Elections. A "yes" vote on Proposition 27 would repeal Proposition 11, and return redistricting to the California State Legislature. To do this would be allowing the fox to guard the hen house. Therefore, we need to vote "no" on Proposition 27.
Riverside County Initiatives
Proposition K - NO: Prop. K's passage would increase bonding capacity for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. However, Riverside County's problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Why would we give a spend-a-holic an increase in their credit limit?
Proposition L - NO: This is a union sponsored proposition that would seek to restrict the county's ability to adjust retirement benefits for public safety employees. The perks are unsustainable, and the county must be able to adjust these programs as their budgets see fit.
Proposition M - YES: Passage of Proposition M locks in benefits for existing safety employees while preserving the county's authority to adjust retirement plans for new employees.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Proposition 19 - NO: Marijuana. Aside from the moral implications, legalizing Marijuana would have an incredible negative impact on our economy, and hurt businesses to the point that the mass exodus of businesses from California would increase. Because we do not have the technology to determine through a test if a person smoked or ingested Marijuana the same day, should this proposition pass, employers would not be able to do anything about workers using Marijuana unless a workplace accident occurs because technically they cannot prove Marijuana use inside of a 30 day time period. The effect this will have on the cost of Worker's Compensation will be devastating. One must also consider a hypothetical example: Two businesses, one is strict on Marijuana usage, and the other is lax on employee use of the drug. Which business is likely to be more successful? You guessed it: The one that does not allow Marijuana usage. States are not a whole lot different. Legalization of Marijuana would place an already failing State in jeopardy. We have a big enough problem with rampant idiocy through Sacramento's liberal progressive agenda. We don't need the number of stoners in this State to increase too.
Proposition 20 - YES: Election District Lines. Simple question helps one consider the answer here. Would you rather have the politicians and their allies be the ones drawing the district lines so that they can maintain their circle of political power? Or should committees by citizens be the ones drawing the lines? A "yes" vote takes the power of drawing the lines of the districts out of the hands of the political structure.
Proposition 21 - NO: Tax Increase. California already has one of the highest gamut of vehicle licensing fees in the nation. Now, Sacramento wants more money, so they are pushing for an $18 a year licensing fee increase. They claim the money is for funding state parks, but the problem in Sacramento is not that they don't have enough revenue. The problem is that spending is too high. If they need money for parks, then they need to eliminate or alter the funding for programs that are either not necessary, obsolete, a duplicate, or over-funded.
Proposition 22 - NO: State Spending. I originally was going to vote "yes" on Proposition 22. I understand that our State spends too much, and mishandles our tax dollars. Sacramento treats local funds as a back-up slush fund. The State politicians do this through a series of loopholes in the law that basically enables them to steal billions in taxpayer funds dedicated by the voters to local government and transportation services. Proponents of Proposition 22 says that a "yes" vote on Proposition 22 will stop State raids of local government funds once and for all. However, what it actually does if places more power and control into the hands of redevelopment agencies, enabling the States to extort cities monetarily, while ensuring land use occurs as the State sees fit, rather than the local government. The intention of Proposition 22 is right, but the method is wrong, and the unintended consequences could be devastating.
Proposition 23 - YES: Environment, Save Jobs. Cap and Trade in California reared its ugly head through AB 32, or the "Global Warming Solutions Act." Proposition suspends AB 32 until unemployment falls below 5.5%, basically saying to the environmentalists that they may be able to "save the planet," but not while we are in an economic downturn. If Proposition 23 loses, energy taxes will increase, and millions of jobs will be lost. If there is to be a recovery from the recession, passing Proposition 23 is a key component in making that recovery possible.
Proposition 24 - NO: Business Taxes. Proposition 24 if it passes would eliminate three business tax breaks. Business is already fleeing from California, and our economy is tanking as a result. If the business atmosphere worsens, the exodus of businesses from California will increase. A strong economy is a growing economy, and a growing economy results from a growing private sector. Eliminating three tax breaks for businesses will place businesses in California in a pickle, forcing many out of business, and many others out of the State. We can't afford to be punishing businesses by eliminating three of their tax breaks.
Proposition 25 - NO: State Spending. Proposition 25 would allow the State Legislature to pass their budget by a simple majority vote, rather than the current 2/3rds requirement. A simple majority gives more power to a single party. A 2/3rds requirement ensures that members of both parties are good with the budget. Proposition 25 would also allow tax increases with a simple majority vote. Dangerous, unethical, and a power grab.
Proposition 26 - YES: Taxes. With the passage of Proposition 26, voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed, including hidden taxes such as the ones labeled as "fee increases."
Proposition 27 - NO: Elections. A "yes" vote on Proposition 27 would repeal Proposition 11, and return redistricting to the California State Legislature. To do this would be allowing the fox to guard the hen house. Therefore, we need to vote "no" on Proposition 27.
Riverside County Initiatives
Proposition K - NO: Prop. K's passage would increase bonding capacity for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. However, Riverside County's problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Why would we give a spend-a-holic an increase in their credit limit?
Proposition L - NO: This is a union sponsored proposition that would seek to restrict the county's ability to adjust retirement benefits for public safety employees. The perks are unsustainable, and the county must be able to adjust these programs as their budgets see fit.
Proposition M - YES: Passage of Proposition M locks in benefits for existing safety employees while preserving the county's authority to adjust retirement plans for new employees.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cargo Terrorism No Dry Run
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Explosives were discovered on two cargo planes heading for the United States, yesterday. Both shipments were traveling to the U.S. from Yemen, a hot bed for Jihadist recruitment and training, as well as a known seat of operations for al-Qaeda. The cargo was intercepted in Dubai and Britain. The packages were addressed to two Jewish Synagogues in Chicago.
When the story first broke the conventional wisdom of the media was that the items in the packages, toner cartridges with wires sticking out of them, were evidence of a dry run to see if such shipments would make it past security. In fact, the press was even hesitant to say that the packages were of Muslim origin, much less the real deal when it came to explosive capabilities. Either the government wasn't giving them the full story and they were coming up with ridiculous speculation, or they had the details but were holding back for fear of sounding "islamophobic."
How idiotic was the "dry run" theory? If Islamists sent packages to synagogues as a dry run, wouldn't it tip off like locations that such an attempt would come soon? Wouldn't such dry runs heighten security and make it more difficult for the jihadists to later commit their terror?
The view that the cargo terrorism was a dry run is evidence to how naive the press, government officials, and the average American truly is when it comes to the war techniques of the enemy.
Such thinking is also evidence of the ill effects political correctness has had on our ability to recognize the unpleasant truth.
Thankfully, the U.S. Government decided to take this threat very seriously, escorting one of the flights to JFK with F-15 fighters. I can only imagine the thoughts running through the minds of the passengers when they looked out the window and just beyond the wingtip of their United Arab Emirates wingspan flew an American fighter jet.
Some have speculated that such an attempt seemed unwise by radical Islamists just before the election because it would give the Republicans a better chance to win since it is the GOP that tends to have a stronger resolve against the Islamic terrorist threat. Such thinking would have to consider the possibility that the Islamic jihadists think in a manner consistent with our own thinking. Fact is, Islam could care less who the president is, or which party dominates the Congress. They hate us regardless of the make up of our leadership, and they hate us regardless of the concessions we offer or the appeasement we give them. And they will continue to hate us unless we all convert to Islam and allow Sharia to replace our Constitution, or if we are all destroyed.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
U.S. Hunts for More Suspicious Packages - New York Times
Explosives were discovered on two cargo planes heading for the United States, yesterday. Both shipments were traveling to the U.S. from Yemen, a hot bed for Jihadist recruitment and training, as well as a known seat of operations for al-Qaeda. The cargo was intercepted in Dubai and Britain. The packages were addressed to two Jewish Synagogues in Chicago.
When the story first broke the conventional wisdom of the media was that the items in the packages, toner cartridges with wires sticking out of them, were evidence of a dry run to see if such shipments would make it past security. In fact, the press was even hesitant to say that the packages were of Muslim origin, much less the real deal when it came to explosive capabilities. Either the government wasn't giving them the full story and they were coming up with ridiculous speculation, or they had the details but were holding back for fear of sounding "islamophobic."
How idiotic was the "dry run" theory? If Islamists sent packages to synagogues as a dry run, wouldn't it tip off like locations that such an attempt would come soon? Wouldn't such dry runs heighten security and make it more difficult for the jihadists to later commit their terror?
The view that the cargo terrorism was a dry run is evidence to how naive the press, government officials, and the average American truly is when it comes to the war techniques of the enemy.
Such thinking is also evidence of the ill effects political correctness has had on our ability to recognize the unpleasant truth.
Thankfully, the U.S. Government decided to take this threat very seriously, escorting one of the flights to JFK with F-15 fighters. I can only imagine the thoughts running through the minds of the passengers when they looked out the window and just beyond the wingtip of their United Arab Emirates wingspan flew an American fighter jet.
Some have speculated that such an attempt seemed unwise by radical Islamists just before the election because it would give the Republicans a better chance to win since it is the GOP that tends to have a stronger resolve against the Islamic terrorist threat. Such thinking would have to consider the possibility that the Islamic jihadists think in a manner consistent with our own thinking. Fact is, Islam could care less who the president is, or which party dominates the Congress. They hate us regardless of the make up of our leadership, and they hate us regardless of the concessions we offer or the appeasement we give them. And they will continue to hate us unless we all convert to Islam and allow Sharia to replace our Constitution, or if we are all destroyed.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
U.S. Hunts for More Suspicious Packages - New York Times
Horse Meat Ban Has Unintended Consequences
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In 1998 California passed a law banning the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be humanely slaughtered (processed) for human consumption, and for other purposes. Supporters of the law were successful in their campaign to create an atmosphere of disgust among the voters when one considered that there are actually people out there that enjoy consuming horse meat. The image of a slaughterhouse full of able-bodied horses that just want to be cared for by some loving and caring human was used with great success. After speaking with a couple people, despite arguments of the unintended inhumane consequences of the law, people who know little about horses argued with me in support of the horse meat ban.
The Lone Ranger's horse, Silver, was portrayed as an intelligent animal that responded to a mere whistle. Zorro's horse was no different. We were even entertained on television decades ago by a fictional talking horse, Mister Ed, who came across as more intelligent than his bumbling owner, Wilbur. The relationships that people have with their horses, including daily interaction many owners enjoy, have made horses an important part of our lives, enabling us to humanize them, and wrongly view them as very intelligent animals.
Not a horse owner, nor a person that has spent much time around horses, like most of the public, a certain part of me was appalled by the fact that there are people out there that eat horse meat. Without being properly educated, I assumed the meat was probably an acquired taste of an otherwise not very tasty meat, and I imagined the poor animals shaking in fear as the owner decided old Sea Bisquit needed to become Friday Night's Blue Plate Special. Well, either that, or I imagined a van showing up to take sweet Boxer to the glue factory, as in Orwell's dystopian allegory, Animal Farm.
After dumping a load of sand at a horse boarder in Southern California, the owner of the facility, and I, had a short conversation about how some horses eat sand. Normally, sand is used to mix with the dirt in an arena to soften the ground for the horses. Some arenas also use a mix of dee gee and dirt. In other cases, straight sand is used.
About 10% of horses, according to the owner of the facility, sometimes simply because of boredom, eats sand. Once in the horse's system the sand acts like sand paper to the animal's innards, often killing the poor animal in a very painful manner. The gentleman I was speaking to pointed out one of his horses that they were keeping a close eye on because the horse had decided to eat fifteen pounds of sand.
"Contrary to popular opinion," he told me, "horses are dumb animals. They rank right up there with sheep."
"If the horse dies," I said, "the disposal must be a pain."
"You have no idea," he replied. "Between the red tape, and laws on the books, it is very difficult to dispose of the poor animals. Whenever a horse is injured, or suffering from other sources, it used to be much easier, quicker, and humane, to put the animals down."
Not understanding what he meant, I inquired further. The gentleman proceeded to explain that when horses were allowed to be used for meat consumption, the process of the animal being picked up and put out of its misery was quick. Now, as a result of the horse meat ban, the animals suffer longer before they are put down. The law, intended by animal rights groups like PETA, to be humane, are actually very inhumane to the poor animals. Horses have no concept of death, but they do understand pain, and to string out the time they must suffer because some people have a problem with horses being used for meat consumption is actually much more inhumane to the animals.
"Horses are good eating," he went on to explain. "The meat is real red, like venison, and is very tasty. Think about it, these animals are fed the best food. They aren't sent out to graze on weeds. They are given alfalfa and grains their whole lives, ensuring their bodies are healthy."
"Are their other consequences from the meat ban, other than the longer period of suffering many horses experience?" I asked.
"Absolutely," he said. "The reality is that there are a lot of horses that are abandoned. These unwanted horses now are worth nothing because their meat can't be sold, and the increasing number of unwanted horses is saturating public animal rescue facilities. No funding has been allocated by California's law to manage the large increase in horses at these facilities that ultimately suffer even greater due to the over-population of the poor miserable animals at these understaffed facilities. Also, the cost of maintaining unwanted horses is incredible. Upkeep of a horse is high as it is. Caring for an unwanted horse is even higher. One can buy a horse for relatively cheap, but when vet bills start accumulating, and the other maintenance costs go up because of the additional needs of a suffering animal, it can get pretty expensive. Government regulations, however, make it difficult to put down and dispose of the animal, and the quicker method of selling the horse for meat, and having all of the duties of putting the animal down being transferred to the horse meat industry, is gone.
"Also, by eliminating the allowance of horse meat for human consumption, it has hurt the economy. The overall national export value for horse meat was in the tens of millions of dollars, and since California has the second largest number of horses, the law largely impacted that number. This also affects governmental revenues, which vanished in this State once the law went into effect. Since the horses are not being consumed, it also raises the question, 'What to do with the body?' Burying the body, or disposing of them in landfills, gets the environmentalists upset because of the negative impact on the environment. Adoption has gone down as well, increasing the number of unwanted animals that literally live lives of suffering because they aren't put down, and they aren't adopted. The law has also hugely impacted the cost of buying horses, as well. You can buy a horse for $25 dollars if you really want to. But the people that are now beginning to buy horses are those that have no understanding of what goes into horse ownership, and who have no ability to properly care for the animals. This also adds to the number of horses that live miserable lives."
"Did anything good come out of the horse meat ban?"
"I suppose," he said, "it made a bunch of compassionate animal rights radicals feel better about themselves. Problem is, these people refuse to recognize the unintended consequence of misery among the horse population they have caused."
On the surface, the law seems well-intended, but the reality is that the ban on horse meat has caused more problems than solutions. The animal rights activists may believe they have won with their horse meat ban, but in the long run, horses have lost.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
"Did anything good come out of the horse meat ban?"
"I suppose," he said, "it made a bunch of compassionate animal rights radicals feel better about themselves. Problem is, these people refuse to recognize the unintended consequence of misery among the horse population they have caused."
On the surface, the law seems well-intended, but the reality is that the ban on horse meat has caused more problems than solutions. The animal rights activists may believe they have won with their horse meat ban, but in the long run, horses have lost.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tea Party Express IV Near Its End
TEA PARTY EXPRESS IV--"REMEMBERING BART STUPAK" EDITION--Updated
DAY 11 took the TPX crew through the once great state of Illinois, with rallies in Springfield and Frankfort. With only a few days remaining until election day, TPX IV will be busy to the end. Tour embed Andrea Shea King has coverage from Springfield.
DAY 12 takes the caravan into Michigan for three rallies: Jackson--10 AM; Waterford--4 PM; Monroe--8 PM. For this crew, the weather is turning cold and the schedule growing longer, but this is nothing new to them. Once, on TPX III, they held 6 stops in one day... and I think it was in Michigan too!
Read the rest at Third Wave Dave's
Voter Fraud in Houston
Soros and Fraud Connection?
These people are unreal. They lie, cheat, steal, distort the facts. . . and yet they get angry when I proclaim the leftists to be unpatriotic, anti-American . . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
These people are unreal. They lie, cheat, steal, distort the facts. . . and yet they get angry when I proclaim the leftists to be unpatriotic, anti-American . . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, October 28, 2010
James Madison: Defects in the Government and the Appeal to the People
"It may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would in great measure deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability." --James Madison, Federalist No. 49, 1788
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Americans For Limited Government: The SEIU and Crooked Elections
As expected, the Leftist Democrats are cheating. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In Tonight's Temecula Constitution Study: The Constitution is a Contract, Protecting us from "The General Will," Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction
FREE CONSTITUTION CLASSES
We the People have the duty to restrain a government operating outside Constitutional boundaries. Douglas V. Gibbs invites you discover your American heritage and birthright. Join us on Thursdays from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm for basic Constitution studies held in the classroom next to Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West, #2 in Temecula, California.
Free Pocket Constitutions will be handed out to all attendees.
Join in the cause of preserving our God-given Liberty and
restoring our Constitutional Republic. After all, if you
don’t defend Liberty, who will?
17th Amendment Issue Matters
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A number of Tea Party Candidates, and some Republican Candidates that are not necessarily "Tea Party" affiliated, have expressed that they would be in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment was ratified April 8, 1913, and changed the election of U.S. Senators from being appointed by the State legislatures to being directly elected by The People. Opponents of the suggestion that the 17th Amendment ought to be repealed, a group that is primarily populated by Democrats, call such a political position a strategy of extremists who would like to "repeal the 20th Century".
The idea of repealing the 17th Amendment is not new. In 2004 Conservative Democrat Zell Miller (the last of the dying breed of non-hard-left-radical Democrats) introduced legislation to repeal the amendment. Also in 2004, during his campaign against state Senator Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate, Alan Keyes stated that repealing the 17th Amendment was a critical issue. In 2006 Utah Republican Senator Howard Stephenson proposed a "soft repeal," which would have given the state legislators the task of selecting the Senate candidates (something they are due since Utah never ratified the 17th Amendment, and according to Article V. they are not required to "be deprived of [their] equal suffrage" without their consent).
Proposing the repeal of the 17th Amendment has been a difficult row to hoe, it turns out, because the power structure in Washington is always quick to demonize such a suggestion as being extreme, dangerous, and an attempt to take the vote away from the people. However, these are no ordinary times, and this election coming up is no ordinary election. They fight it because repealing the 17th Amendment would take some power away from Washington. They need pure democracy to stay in power, and repealing the 17th Amendment would move us back towards being a republic.
To understand the arguments surrounding the 17th Amendment issue, one must understand the makeup of our form of government before 1913, the reasons the Founding Fathers set the system up in such a manner, and the reasons the proponents for the 17th Amendment felt the vote for U.S. Senators should belong to the people, rather than the States.
The Founding Fathers understood that too much power concentrated at any one source is a dangerous thing. This is why there is a separation of powers in our system of government. The separation of powers, however, even extends to voting powers - or at least it did at one time.
Too much power in the hands of a single group is a dangerous thing. . . including the people. Therefore, the Founding Fathers set up our government to have three voices. The House of Representatives was the voice of the people, having the members voted in directly by a vote of the people. The U.S. Senate was the voice of the States, having the members appointed by the State Legislatures. The President, or executive branch, was the primary emanation of the Federal Government, but the electors for president were also appointed by the State Legislatures. Of course the people were not completely out of the mix on the Senate and Presidency, for the members of those State Legislatures were voted into office by a direct vote by the people. This set-up gave all three parts of the government the opportunity to approve proposed bills.
When a bill was proposed, The People through the House would approve it (or disapprove it), then if approved the States would approve it (or disapprove it), and then if both The People and The States voted the bill through, the Federal Government would have an opportunity to approve it as well. However, The People and The States maintained a little more power than the Federal Government in this process, for if the President vetoed the bill, with a 2/3 majority, The People and The States could overturn the Federal Government's decision. This system allowed The People to Constrain the States by direct election at the State Level, and through their Representatives at the Congressional level. This system also gave The States the opportunity to constrain the people, by ensuring that they appointed Senators that understood how to ensure they acted in a manner best for The States (and often in a manner best for protecting State Sovereignty and rural interests). Together, the two Houses of Congress worked together to constrain the Federal Government. Without the government being set up in such a manner, it would ultimately give too much power to a power hungry federal government.
One of the reasons out of many for this kind of system was because the Founding Fathers believed that deceptive political movements that desire more power to be given to the federal government are capable of fooling the people, and if the people voted for the members of both houses of Congress, and for the electors for President (and especially if the Presidential vote was determined by a popular vote), a tyrannical political system could fool the people, and gain control of all three of those parts of government, which would then also work to change the Judicial Branch, and manipulate society through judicial activism by a branch of government whose sole purpose was supposed to be to only apply the law (regardless of what their opinion was of that law) to the cases it ruled on. Remember, it is the Senate that holds the hearings for the nominees for new Supreme Court Justices. The 17th Amendment has even changed the workings of that process.
The 17th Amendment took away the State's voice, changing the face of our governmental system, and removing the State's ability to constrain a fooled populace, a potentially tyrannical Federal Government, and a court system dominated by judges determined to legislate from the bench in an attempt to subvert the Constitution, and alter society toward the will of a federal government that is not interested in the will of the people, or the voice of the states.
Though repealing the 17th Amendment would not reap immediate results, eventually the effects would begin marching our system of government away from the democracy the leftists are trying to make it, and back to a Republic that folks on the Right know it is supposed to be.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is not an immediate cure-all, but it would be a step in the right direction. Removing the concept of judicial review, implied law and implied powers, reversing Reynolds v. Sims, and opening up the opportunities for States to nullify unconstitutional law enacted by the Federal Government must also follow. All of these things, and more, are important factors in returning our country to its Constitutional origins. This is why we must remain vigilant, persistent, and consistent.
Taking our country back will be a tough row to hoe, but one of the key parts of getting things turned around would be repealing the 17th Amendment. So kudos to those candidates brave enough to stand up and voice their support for repealing the 17th Amendment. It reveals that not all of the candidates out there are establishment politicians who believe they are somehow above everyone else, looking down their noses at the voters, and at The States.
Federal tyranny is on the run. November is a key part of the process of ending the liberal idiocy that is currently in control of the government in this country, and ensuring that we return to the type of system of governance prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. . . a limited government that functions within the limitations of the authorities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, and with mechanisms that allow the States to provide oversight over federal proceedings and activities.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The 17th Amendment Resurfaces as a Campaign Issue - Washington Post
TEA PARTY EXPRESS IV--"HONEST ABE" EDITION--Updated
DAY TEN for TPX began in Paducah, KY, where Rand Paul stopped by to talk with the gathered crowd. Paul is one of the most popular candidates out there today--the media mobbed him. Later, TPX slid into the St. Louis area near the Gateway Arch. Speaking of the arch, Andrea Shea King was able to meet Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. Pics too. Over at The Radio Patriot, Andrea has coverage here and here.
DAY 11 takes TPX IV into the belly of corruption--the state of Illinois. First stop,Springfield at 9 AM; then upstate to Frankfort for a 4 PM rally. Check the tour schedulefor upcoming rallies in Michigan. (For TPX V, I'm suggesting we have a Hyde Park Rally on the schedule.)
Read More at ThirdWaveDave's
ISLAM AND THE RISE OF VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITISM
By John J. O’Neill
In my newly-published book, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I argue at length that a great majority of the things commonly regarded as “Medieval” were in fact introduced to Europe from Islam, and that it was Islam, and not the Huns, Vandals and Goths, which terminated Classical Civilization, the rational and humane civilization of Greece and Rome. This civilization survived in Europe and in North Africa and the Near East until the seventh century, at which point it was terminated by the Muslim conquests.
By the late seventh century, and certainly by the eighth, Islamic ideas began to penetrate Europe, where they had a profound influence. European Christians, for example, began to think, for the first time, in terms of “Holy War,” an idea that would have been unthinkable in earlier centuries. There is strong circumstantial evidence that they began also to influence European thinking about the Jews.
Anti-Semitism of course preceded the rise of both Christianity and Islam; and Christianity itself had a long history of antagonism towards Jews well before the appearance of Islam. The antagonism was mutual, and Jewish leaders were in the early centuries as vociferous in their condemnation of Christianity as Christian leaders were of Judaism. Serious violence between the two groups was however uncommon; and the first real pogrom launched by Christians against the Jews in Europe did not happen until the beginning of the First Crusade, in 1096. But this was not the first pogrom against Jews in Europe; an event which occurred in Cordoba in Spain in 1011. This was followed by another outbreak of mass-murder in Granada in 1066. Neither massacre was carried out by Christians, however, but by Muslims.
If we look for the origin of violent anti-Semitism in Europe, we must look to Spain.
Europe’s largest Jewish community was located in Spain. Following the Islamic conquest of that land in 711, the Jews came under the domination of a faith that was from its inception virulently and violently anti-Jewish. For Muslims the lead was given by none other than their founder, the Prophet Muhammad. It would be superfluous to enumerate the anti-Jewish pronouncements in the Koran and the Haditha, where the Hebrews are portrayed as the craftiest, most persistent and most implacable enemies of Allah. In the Koran (2: 63-66) Allah transforms some Jews who profaned the Sabbath into apes: “Be as apes despicable!” In Koran 5: 59-60, He directs Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” Again, in 7: 166, we hear of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that “when in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
From the same sources we know that Muhammad’s first violent action against the Jews involved the Qaynuqa tribe, who dwelt at Medina, under the protection of the city. Muhammad “seized the occasion of an accidental tumult,” and ordered the Qaynuqa (or Kainoka) to embrace his religion or fight. In the words of Gibbon, “The unequal conflict was terminated in fifteen days; and it was with extreme reluctance that Mahomet yielded to the importunity of his allies and consented to spare the lives of the captives.” (Decline and Fall, Chapter 50) In later attacks on the Jews, the Hebrew captives were not so fortunate.
The most notorious of all Muhammad’s attacks against the Jews was directed at the Banu Quraiza tribe. This community, which dwelt near Medina, was attacked without warning by the Prophet and his men, and, after its defeat, all the males over the age of puberty were beheaded. Some Islamic authorities claim that Muhammad personally participated in the executions. The doomed men and boys, whose numbers are estimated at anything between 500 and 900, were ordered to dig the trench which was to be their communal grave. All of the women and children were enslaved, with Muhammad personally taking for himself one of the most beautiful of the prisoners. He also confiscated the property of the murdered Jews. These deeds are mentioned in the Koran as acts carried out by Allah himself and fully sanctioned by divine approval. Thus in Koran 33:26-27, we read:
And he brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive). And he made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
The killing of the Jewish prisoners is sanctioned in Koran 8:67:
It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land…
The Massacre of Banu Quraiza was followed soon after by the attack on the Khaybar tribe. On this occasion, the Prophet ordered the torture of a Jewish chieftain to extract information about where he had hidden his treasures. When the treasure was uncovered, the chieftain was beheaded. This chieftain was the husband of the most beautiful Jewish woman of Khaybar, the 17-year-old Safiyah. Safiyah’s family members had been annihilated by Muhammad at the Banu Qurayza massacre. Now having beheaded her husband, the Prophet took Safiyah as his slave. The story is told thus by Sahih al-Bukhari, whose compilation of the acts and deeds attributed to Muhammad was written in the ninth century, and forms one of the two pillars of Islamic jurisprudence. (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512):
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’. Muhammad was sixty (60) when he married Safiyyahh, a young girl of seventeen. She became his eighth wife.
The distribution of the booty is described thus in al-Bukhari Hadiths No.143, page-700:
Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, “in the war of Khayber after the inhabitants of Banu Nadir were surrendered, Allah’s apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives (Ghani mateer maal).. Among the captives Safiyya Bint Huyy Akhtab was taken by Allah’s Apostle as booty whom He married after freeing her and her freedom was her Mahr.”
It is said that at first Dihyah al-Kalbi, one of Muhammad’s followers, asked for Safiyah. But when Muhammad saw her exquisite beauty, he chose her for himself and gave her two cousins to Dihyah.
In the massacre of the Jewish Settlement of Bani Mustaliq, Muhammad captured their women and took twenty-year-old Jewish girl, Juwairiya as his personal slave. [Al-Bukhari 3.46.13.717, p431-432]. Sahih Muslim (2.2349, p.520) says that Mohammed attacked the Banu Mustaliq tribe without any warning while they were heedlessly grazing their cattle. Juwairiya was a daughter of the chief. Sahih Muslim 3.4292, p.942 and Abu Dawud 2.227, p728 and al-Tabari 39, p.182-183 also say Juwairiya was captured in a raid on the Banu Mustaliq tribe. She had been married to Musafi’ bin Safwan, who was killed in battle.
We need go no further into the horrific details of these events, as they have already been examined by numerous writers and their veracity denied by no one. What we need to emphasize is the attitude these atrocities betray, as well as the fact that they became the model for the behavior of all future followers of the Prophet.
What caused Muhammad’s seemingly implacable hatred of the Jews? According to Gibbon, it was their refusal to recognize him as their long-awaited Messiah that “converted his friendship into an implacable hatred, with which he pursued that unfortunate people to the last moment of his life; and, in the double character of apostle and conqueror, his persecution was extended into both worlds.” (Decline and Fall, Ch. 50)
It is a widely-held fiction that, aside from the Prophet’s persecution of the Jews of Arabia, Muslims in general and Islam as a rule was historically tolerant to this People of the Book, who were generally granted dhimmi (“protected”) status in the Islamic Umma, or community. But dhimmi status, also accorded to Christians, did not, as Bat Ye’or has demonstrated at great length, imply equal rights with Muslims. On the contrary, dhimmis were subject, even at the best of times, to a whole series of discriminatory and humiliating laws and to relentless exploitation. At the worst of times, they could be slaughtered in the streets without any hope of legal redress. One of the most noxious measures directed against them was the requirement to wear an item or color of clothing by which they could be easily identified: identified for easy exploitation and abuse. The latter law was copied, significantly enough, by the Nazis. Bat Ye’or has shown that this law was enforced in Islam right from the beginning. The violence was not continuous, but the exploitation was, and the pattern of abuse initiated by Muhammad in Arabia in the seventh century was to be repeated throughout history. The first massacres of Jews in Europe, carried out by Muslim mobs in Spain, were preceded by other massacres carried out in North Africa, and clearly formed a continuum with Muhammad’s massacres of that people in Arabia.
Nonetheless, there was, at times, a semblance of tolerance for both Jews and Christians. It could not have been otherwise. When the Arabs conquered the vast territories of Mesopotamia, Syria, and North Africa during the seventh century, they found themselves a small minority ruling over enormous populations comprising mainly Christians and, to a lesser degree, Jews. As such, they needed to proceed with caution. Like all conquerors, the Arabs were quick to exploit any internal conflicts; and it was in their interests, above all, to divide the Christians from the Jews. This was particularly the case in Spain, where the Jewish population was very large. A united Jewish and Christian front could have proved extremely dangerous, and it was entirely in the interest of the conquerors to sow mistrust and suspicion between these communities. In the words of Bat Ye’or, “The [Arab] invaders knew how to take advantage of the dissensions between local groups in order to impose their own authority, favoring first one and then another, with the intention of weakening and ruining them all through a policy of ‘divide and rule.’” (The Dhimmi, p. 87)
Now, Jewish communities, both in Spain and elsewhere, tended to be both educated and prosperous. Jewish doctors, scientists and merchants could be usefully employed by any ruling group. And employed they were by the Arabs. Some, such as Ibn Naghrela, rose to positions of great prominence. The international connections of the Jews and their mastery of languages proved invaluable to the new rulers. The Jews frequently found themselves in the role of intermediaries between Muslims and Christians. And we cannot pass over the role of Jewish merchants in supplying Muslim Spain with all its essentials – including slaves from northern and north-eastern Europe. (See eg. Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe, p. 143)
Yet such favors as the Jews enjoyed was transitory and uncertain. There was never any real security, as the massacres of 1011 and 1066 illustrate only too well. On the other hand, it was entirely in the interests of the Muslims that the Christians believed the Jews were favored. And part of that myth was the notion that “the Jews” had actually assisted the Muslims in their conquest of the country.
The likelihood that this story was true is vanishingly small, especially when we consider the massacres of Jews carried out in Arabia by Muhammad himself just a few decades earlier. No people had better international links than the Jews, a nation of merchants par excellence, and those of Spain would have been very much aware of Muhammad’s behavior long before the first Muslim armies landed on Spanish soil. Nonetheless, the story got out that the Jews had helped the Muslims. There can be little doubt that this story was fostered by the Muslims themselves, as part of the policy of divide and conquer; of sowing mistrust between the two vanquished communities.
All during the tenth and eleventh centuries, the war for possession of the Iberian Peninsula raged between Christians and Muslims. This conflict was to grow into a real clash of civilizations, as Christians and Muslims called in the assistance of co-religionists from far and wide. The Shrine of Santiago de Compostela became a rallying symbol for the Christians of the north and for those of France and Germany, who crossed the Pyrenees to join the struggle against Islam. Their Christian allies in Spain already had the conviction that the Jews were secret allies of the Muslims – a belief, as we said, encouraged by the Muslims. They were convinced that the Jews had assisted the Muslims in their conquest of the country; and they came into contact with Muslim anti-Semitic attitudes – attitudes which the Christians began to imbibe. This latter point needs to be emphasized, because it has never I feel been given the weight it deserves. As the dominant power of the time, Islam was hugely influential. Christian kings, both in Spain and southern Italy, began to adopt Islamic ideas and norms on a whole range of things. Some began to keep harems, attended by eunuchs; others became enthusiastic slave-traders. In view of the widely-accepted influence of Islam, it seems unlikely that that faith’s view of the Jews would not have found resonance among Christians.
Now, it is an acknowledged fact that it was in Spain that the warriors who later joined the First Crusade learnt to persecute the Jews. In Runciman’s words, “Already in the Spanish wars there had been some inclination on the part of Christian armies to maltreat the Jews.” (The History of the Crusades, p. 135) Runciman notes that at the time of the expedition to Barbastro, in the mid-eleventh century, Pope Alexander II had written to the bishops of Spain to remind them that there was all the difference in the world between Muslims and Jews. The former were irreconcilable enemies of the Christians, but the latter were ready to work for them. However, in Spain “the Jews had enjoyed such favour from the hands of the Moslems that the Christian conquerors could not bring themselves to trust them.” (The History of the Crusades, p. 135) This lack of trust is confirmed by more than one document of the period, several of which are listed by Runciman.
Just over a decade after the Christian knights of France and Germany had helped their co-religionists in Spain to retake the city of Toledo from the Muslims, some of them prepared to set out on the First (official) Crusade. Before they did so, a few of them took part in the mass murder of several thousand Jews in Germany and Bohemia – an atrocity unprecedented in European history.
In view of the fact that these pogroms were committed by warriors some of whom had learned their trade in Spain, and in view of the fact that such atrocities were hitherto unknown in Europe, we may state that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Christians had been influenced by the Muslims. This is all the more probable in view of Islam’s history of virulent and violent anti-Semitism.
To conclude, I am not trying to argue that anti-Semitism did not exist among Christians before the rise of Islam. Obviously it did. Yet the influence of Islam, and the terrible struggle between the two intolerant ideologies of Christianity and Islam which began in the seventh century, had a profoundly detrimental effect upon the Jews; and it was then, and only then, that the virulent and murderous anti-Semitism so characteristic of the Middle Ages entered European life.
Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, is published by Felibri Publications. For information
In my newly-published book, Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, I argue at length that a great majority of the things commonly regarded as “Medieval” were in fact introduced to Europe from Islam, and that it was Islam, and not the Huns, Vandals and Goths, which terminated Classical Civilization, the rational and humane civilization of Greece and Rome. This civilization survived in Europe and in North Africa and the Near East until the seventh century, at which point it was terminated by the Muslim conquests.
By the late seventh century, and certainly by the eighth, Islamic ideas began to penetrate Europe, where they had a profound influence. European Christians, for example, began to think, for the first time, in terms of “Holy War,” an idea that would have been unthinkable in earlier centuries. There is strong circumstantial evidence that they began also to influence European thinking about the Jews.
Anti-Semitism of course preceded the rise of both Christianity and Islam; and Christianity itself had a long history of antagonism towards Jews well before the appearance of Islam. The antagonism was mutual, and Jewish leaders were in the early centuries as vociferous in their condemnation of Christianity as Christian leaders were of Judaism. Serious violence between the two groups was however uncommon; and the first real pogrom launched by Christians against the Jews in Europe did not happen until the beginning of the First Crusade, in 1096. But this was not the first pogrom against Jews in Europe; an event which occurred in Cordoba in Spain in 1011. This was followed by another outbreak of mass-murder in Granada in 1066. Neither massacre was carried out by Christians, however, but by Muslims.
If we look for the origin of violent anti-Semitism in Europe, we must look to Spain.
Europe’s largest Jewish community was located in Spain. Following the Islamic conquest of that land in 711, the Jews came under the domination of a faith that was from its inception virulently and violently anti-Jewish. For Muslims the lead was given by none other than their founder, the Prophet Muhammad. It would be superfluous to enumerate the anti-Jewish pronouncements in the Koran and the Haditha, where the Hebrews are portrayed as the craftiest, most persistent and most implacable enemies of Allah. In the Koran (2: 63-66) Allah transforms some Jews who profaned the Sabbath into apes: “Be as apes despicable!” In Koran 5: 59-60, He directs Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” Again, in 7: 166, we hear of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that “when in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”
From the same sources we know that Muhammad’s first violent action against the Jews involved the Qaynuqa tribe, who dwelt at Medina, under the protection of the city. Muhammad “seized the occasion of an accidental tumult,” and ordered the Qaynuqa (or Kainoka) to embrace his religion or fight. In the words of Gibbon, “The unequal conflict was terminated in fifteen days; and it was with extreme reluctance that Mahomet yielded to the importunity of his allies and consented to spare the lives of the captives.” (Decline and Fall, Chapter 50) In later attacks on the Jews, the Hebrew captives were not so fortunate.
The most notorious of all Muhammad’s attacks against the Jews was directed at the Banu Quraiza tribe. This community, which dwelt near Medina, was attacked without warning by the Prophet and his men, and, after its defeat, all the males over the age of puberty were beheaded. Some Islamic authorities claim that Muhammad personally participated in the executions. The doomed men and boys, whose numbers are estimated at anything between 500 and 900, were ordered to dig the trench which was to be their communal grave. All of the women and children were enslaved, with Muhammad personally taking for himself one of the most beautiful of the prisoners. He also confiscated the property of the murdered Jews. These deeds are mentioned in the Koran as acts carried out by Allah himself and fully sanctioned by divine approval. Thus in Koran 33:26-27, we read:
And he brought those of the People of the Book [Jewish people of Banu Qurayza] who supported them from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you slew (beheaded) and some you took prisoners (captive). And he made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.
The killing of the Jewish prisoners is sanctioned in Koran 8:67:
It is not fitting for an Apostle that he should have prisoners of war until He thoroughly subdued the land…
The Massacre of Banu Quraiza was followed soon after by the attack on the Khaybar tribe. On this occasion, the Prophet ordered the torture of a Jewish chieftain to extract information about where he had hidden his treasures. When the treasure was uncovered, the chieftain was beheaded. This chieftain was the husband of the most beautiful Jewish woman of Khaybar, the 17-year-old Safiyah. Safiyah’s family members had been annihilated by Muhammad at the Banu Qurayza massacre. Now having beheaded her husband, the Prophet took Safiyah as his slave. The story is told thus by Sahih al-Bukhari, whose compilation of the acts and deeds attributed to Muhammad was written in the ninth century, and forms one of the two pillars of Islamic jurisprudence. (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512):
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’. Muhammad was sixty (60) when he married Safiyyahh, a young girl of seventeen. She became his eighth wife.
The distribution of the booty is described thus in al-Bukhari Hadiths No.143, page-700:
Sulaiman Ibne Harb…Aannas Ibne Malek (ra) narrated, “in the war of Khayber after the inhabitants of Banu Nadir were surrendered, Allah’s apostle killed all the able/adult men, and he (prophet) took all women and children as captives (Ghani mateer maal).. Among the captives Safiyya Bint Huyy Akhtab was taken by Allah’s Apostle as booty whom He married after freeing her and her freedom was her Mahr.”
It is said that at first Dihyah al-Kalbi, one of Muhammad’s followers, asked for Safiyah. But when Muhammad saw her exquisite beauty, he chose her for himself and gave her two cousins to Dihyah.
In the massacre of the Jewish Settlement of Bani Mustaliq, Muhammad captured their women and took twenty-year-old Jewish girl, Juwairiya as his personal slave. [Al-Bukhari 3.46.13.717, p431-432]. Sahih Muslim (2.2349, p.520) says that Mohammed attacked the Banu Mustaliq tribe without any warning while they were heedlessly grazing their cattle. Juwairiya was a daughter of the chief. Sahih Muslim 3.4292, p.942 and Abu Dawud 2.227, p728 and al-Tabari 39, p.182-183 also say Juwairiya was captured in a raid on the Banu Mustaliq tribe. She had been married to Musafi’ bin Safwan, who was killed in battle.
We need go no further into the horrific details of these events, as they have already been examined by numerous writers and their veracity denied by no one. What we need to emphasize is the attitude these atrocities betray, as well as the fact that they became the model for the behavior of all future followers of the Prophet.
What caused Muhammad’s seemingly implacable hatred of the Jews? According to Gibbon, it was their refusal to recognize him as their long-awaited Messiah that “converted his friendship into an implacable hatred, with which he pursued that unfortunate people to the last moment of his life; and, in the double character of apostle and conqueror, his persecution was extended into both worlds.” (Decline and Fall, Ch. 50)
It is a widely-held fiction that, aside from the Prophet’s persecution of the Jews of Arabia, Muslims in general and Islam as a rule was historically tolerant to this People of the Book, who were generally granted dhimmi (“protected”) status in the Islamic Umma, or community. But dhimmi status, also accorded to Christians, did not, as Bat Ye’or has demonstrated at great length, imply equal rights with Muslims. On the contrary, dhimmis were subject, even at the best of times, to a whole series of discriminatory and humiliating laws and to relentless exploitation. At the worst of times, they could be slaughtered in the streets without any hope of legal redress. One of the most noxious measures directed against them was the requirement to wear an item or color of clothing by which they could be easily identified: identified for easy exploitation and abuse. The latter law was copied, significantly enough, by the Nazis. Bat Ye’or has shown that this law was enforced in Islam right from the beginning. The violence was not continuous, but the exploitation was, and the pattern of abuse initiated by Muhammad in Arabia in the seventh century was to be repeated throughout history. The first massacres of Jews in Europe, carried out by Muslim mobs in Spain, were preceded by other massacres carried out in North Africa, and clearly formed a continuum with Muhammad’s massacres of that people in Arabia.
Nonetheless, there was, at times, a semblance of tolerance for both Jews and Christians. It could not have been otherwise. When the Arabs conquered the vast territories of Mesopotamia, Syria, and North Africa during the seventh century, they found themselves a small minority ruling over enormous populations comprising mainly Christians and, to a lesser degree, Jews. As such, they needed to proceed with caution. Like all conquerors, the Arabs were quick to exploit any internal conflicts; and it was in their interests, above all, to divide the Christians from the Jews. This was particularly the case in Spain, where the Jewish population was very large. A united Jewish and Christian front could have proved extremely dangerous, and it was entirely in the interest of the conquerors to sow mistrust and suspicion between these communities. In the words of Bat Ye’or, “The [Arab] invaders knew how to take advantage of the dissensions between local groups in order to impose their own authority, favoring first one and then another, with the intention of weakening and ruining them all through a policy of ‘divide and rule.’” (The Dhimmi, p. 87)
Now, Jewish communities, both in Spain and elsewhere, tended to be both educated and prosperous. Jewish doctors, scientists and merchants could be usefully employed by any ruling group. And employed they were by the Arabs. Some, such as Ibn Naghrela, rose to positions of great prominence. The international connections of the Jews and their mastery of languages proved invaluable to the new rulers. The Jews frequently found themselves in the role of intermediaries between Muslims and Christians. And we cannot pass over the role of Jewish merchants in supplying Muslim Spain with all its essentials – including slaves from northern and north-eastern Europe. (See eg. Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe, p. 143)
Yet such favors as the Jews enjoyed was transitory and uncertain. There was never any real security, as the massacres of 1011 and 1066 illustrate only too well. On the other hand, it was entirely in the interests of the Muslims that the Christians believed the Jews were favored. And part of that myth was the notion that “the Jews” had actually assisted the Muslims in their conquest of the country.
The likelihood that this story was true is vanishingly small, especially when we consider the massacres of Jews carried out in Arabia by Muhammad himself just a few decades earlier. No people had better international links than the Jews, a nation of merchants par excellence, and those of Spain would have been very much aware of Muhammad’s behavior long before the first Muslim armies landed on Spanish soil. Nonetheless, the story got out that the Jews had helped the Muslims. There can be little doubt that this story was fostered by the Muslims themselves, as part of the policy of divide and conquer; of sowing mistrust between the two vanquished communities.
All during the tenth and eleventh centuries, the war for possession of the Iberian Peninsula raged between Christians and Muslims. This conflict was to grow into a real clash of civilizations, as Christians and Muslims called in the assistance of co-religionists from far and wide. The Shrine of Santiago de Compostela became a rallying symbol for the Christians of the north and for those of France and Germany, who crossed the Pyrenees to join the struggle against Islam. Their Christian allies in Spain already had the conviction that the Jews were secret allies of the Muslims – a belief, as we said, encouraged by the Muslims. They were convinced that the Jews had assisted the Muslims in their conquest of the country; and they came into contact with Muslim anti-Semitic attitudes – attitudes which the Christians began to imbibe. This latter point needs to be emphasized, because it has never I feel been given the weight it deserves. As the dominant power of the time, Islam was hugely influential. Christian kings, both in Spain and southern Italy, began to adopt Islamic ideas and norms on a whole range of things. Some began to keep harems, attended by eunuchs; others became enthusiastic slave-traders. In view of the widely-accepted influence of Islam, it seems unlikely that that faith’s view of the Jews would not have found resonance among Christians.
Now, it is an acknowledged fact that it was in Spain that the warriors who later joined the First Crusade learnt to persecute the Jews. In Runciman’s words, “Already in the Spanish wars there had been some inclination on the part of Christian armies to maltreat the Jews.” (The History of the Crusades, p. 135) Runciman notes that at the time of the expedition to Barbastro, in the mid-eleventh century, Pope Alexander II had written to the bishops of Spain to remind them that there was all the difference in the world between Muslims and Jews. The former were irreconcilable enemies of the Christians, but the latter were ready to work for them. However, in Spain “the Jews had enjoyed such favour from the hands of the Moslems that the Christian conquerors could not bring themselves to trust them.” (The History of the Crusades, p. 135) This lack of trust is confirmed by more than one document of the period, several of which are listed by Runciman.
Just over a decade after the Christian knights of France and Germany had helped their co-religionists in Spain to retake the city of Toledo from the Muslims, some of them prepared to set out on the First (official) Crusade. Before they did so, a few of them took part in the mass murder of several thousand Jews in Germany and Bohemia – an atrocity unprecedented in European history.
In view of the fact that these pogroms were committed by warriors some of whom had learned their trade in Spain, and in view of the fact that such atrocities were hitherto unknown in Europe, we may state that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Christians had been influenced by the Muslims. This is all the more probable in view of Islam’s history of virulent and violent anti-Semitism.
To conclude, I am not trying to argue that anti-Semitism did not exist among Christians before the rise of Islam. Obviously it did. Yet the influence of Islam, and the terrible struggle between the two intolerant ideologies of Christianity and Islam which began in the seventh century, had a profoundly detrimental effect upon the Jews; and it was then, and only then, that the virulent and murderous anti-Semitism so characteristic of the Middle Ages entered European life.
Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, is published by Felibri Publications. For information
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
.jpg)
ALG Statement on SEIU-controlled Voter Machines in Clark County, NV
October 26th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson today issued the following statement in response to news reports that voters in Boulder City, NV found that Harry Reid's name was automatically checked off on the ballot:
"It is positively outrageous that in Clark County, Nevada, the SEIU Local 1107, which supports Harry Reid, controls the ballot boxes by contract through their representation of the voting machine technicians. It is not surprising that Senator Harry Reid's name was automatically checked off on the ballot when individuals went to vote.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office, the Nevada State Attorney General, and the U.S Marshalls need to act now to ensure that the SEIU does not continue to compromise the integrity of ballots in Nevada, and anywhere else in the country. The democratic process is too precious to be tampered with and abused."
Attachments:
The SEIU, Harry Reid, And Voting Problems, by Adam Bitely, NetRightDaily.com Editor-in-Chief, October 26th, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)