December 25, 2015 Who doesn’t have Canada envy sometimes? Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Who doesn’t have Canada envy sometimes?

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

I know it constantly afflicts me, no matter how much I pray to HaShem.

I just think that these sponsoring rabbis and congregations should be forced to house these Muslims in their own homes for life. Let them experience the strength of Islam good and hard.

I’m shocked to find that there is nothing in the following article that mentions Israel. Apparently the Jewish state has no obligation to bring in people who are likely to hate it. Only gentile states must swallow such poison according to the rabbis. Nor do the rabbis trouble themselves to make an argument on how the importation of Syrian refugees will help their new countries. Such rabbis don’t give a damn about the well-being of the naive gentile countries that give them a home.

Chaim Amalek: “They should focus on welcoming Palestinians into Israel.”

The rabbis don’t try to make a moral case for Open Borders For Israel, only the goyim must be unable to defend themselves.

Times of Israel:

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz (second from left), his wife Shoshana and two children host a newly arrived Syrian refugee family to Phoenix for Thanksgiving, November 26, 2015.
US rabbis envy Canadian counterparts’ chance to welcome refugees
While Canadian clergy help sponsor newly arriving Syrians, frustrated American rabbis focus on advocacy and education
As the first planeloads of an expected 25,000 Syrian refugees landed in Montreal and Toronto earlier this month, Jewish Canadians were there to welcome them.
With roughly one-third of the country’s larger Jewish congregations sponsoring one or more Syrian refugee families, Jewish Canadians are clearly active in bringing Syrian refugees from camps in Jordan and Lebanon into Canada. Several additional Jewish community organizations — and even a Jewish school — have also submitted private sponsorship applications to the government.
While Canada’s rabbis busily work with congregants to prepare for the arrival of “their” Syrian families, counterparts south of the border in the US describe a mounting frustration as anti-Muslim rhetoric heats up and Congress and state governors move to block the entrance of Syrian refugees.
As it becomes increasingly unclear if a White House proposal to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the US in 2016 will come to fruition, US congregations wonder how they, like the Canadian Jews, may act on the Torah injunction to welcome and care for the stranger.
Only 2,234 refugees from among the more than four million people displaced by the Syrian civil war have been admitted to the US since 2011, according to figures published in late November by the State Department. Three-quarters of them were accepted in the past year.
More than 1,250 American rabbis signed a December 2 letter delivered by HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) to all members of Congress supporting refugee resettlement and opposing measures to halt resettlement or prohibit or restrict funding for any groups of refugees. The rabbis recalled the plight of European Jews fleeing the Nazis who were denied visas and turned away from US borders and reminded their elected officials that in a world plagued by terror, the Syrian refugees themselves are victims of terror.
“In 1939, our country could not tell the difference between an actual enemy and the victims of an enemy. In 2015, let us not make the same mistake,” the letter urged.
The Canadian government plans to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February 2016, with 10,000 arriving before the end of this year. The resettlement plan could double to 50,000 by the end of next year, according to Canada’s minister of immigration and citizenship John McCallum.
Forty percent of the new arrivals will arrive as privately sponsored refugees (PSRs), which means that a religious congregation, community organization or group of private citizens has committed and raised sufficient funds to provide them with care, lodging settlement assistance and support for at least one year.
The security fears and anti-Muslim sentiment that have dominated public discourse in the US have not generally come into play in Canada, including among Canadian Jews.
According to Toronto’s Jewish Immigrant Aid Services (JIAS) executive director Janis Roth, potential Jewish sponsors ask about security and health check protocols, but are for the most part satisfied when they learn that the checks are robust and carried out by Canadian authorities prior to the refugees’ arrival in Canada.
“None of the groups applying to be sponsors through us withdrew after Paris. In fact, more signed on,” said Roth, referring to the November 13 coordinated attacks on the French capital by Islamist terrorists that killed 130.
As a pre-approved Sponsorship Agreement Holder (SAH), JIAS acts on behalf of some 35 Jewish groups seeking to privately sponsor Syrian refugee families. JIAS is the only SAH affiliated with the Jewish community, and primarily works with Jewish groups in Toronto and Ottawa. Roth noted that it is mostly groups of synagogue members that are submitting sponsorship applications, rather than official congregations.
However, some Jewish groups and congregations opt to work with another SAH. For example, Temple Sholom, a large Reform congregation in Vancouver, has submitted its sponsorship application though the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia.
“We have raised almost $80,000 to sponsor two families. Our paperwork is in. We are just waiting impatiently. Winter is here and these families are in peril,” said Temple Sholom senior rabbi Dan Moskovitz.
While Canadian rabbis are taking practical steps to help refugee families, American rabbis, because of limitations imposed by American policy, are focusing their efforts on advocacy and education.
Orthodox activist rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz joined a coalition of faith leaders in Arizona calling for a change to US refugee policy. Not only has he spoken at rallies and lobbied lawmakers, but he also invited a newly arrived Syrian refugee family into his home for Thanksgiving.
“Jews can be part of the solution to this problem. The Jewish community should play a leadership role in this,” he asserted.
Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz (second from left), his wife Shoshana and two children host a newly arrived Syrian refugee family to Phoenix for Thanksgiving, November 26, 2015. (Courtesy)
Rabbi Sharon Brous, lead of the innovative IKAR Jewish community in Los Angeles, is outspoken in her support for Syrian refugees and fighting discrimination against Muslims. On December 17 she spoke at a large, public interfaith gathering in front of LA’s city hall.
“I stand here before you today as an American and as a Jew, because for us — for all of us — this is personal. In 1939, when my people were fleeing Europe and trying to come to the United States, 60% of the people in this country said they didn’t want even the Jewish children to come across our borders,” she said.
“When 36 times in our Torah, the Hebrew Bible, we are told to love the stranger, to treat the stranger with dignity, it’s because we ourselves were strangers… There are dark clouds that are rolling over the beginning of this 21st century. The collective human heart is aching today in grief, and in pain and in fear. But fear makes for very bad politics. Fear fans the flames of hatred, which leads to more violence, which leads to more fear,” she continued.
Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove has also used his prominent pulpit as senior rabbi at Park Avenue Synagogue in New York to push for letting in more Syrian refugees. His November 21 sermon can be understood as a call to action.
“What I don’t question, what I feel secure in saying and sharing with you today is what the stance of American Jewry must be regarding the Syrian refugees…The Jewish community must be on the side of the refugees because it is our moral, legal, and historical mitzvah to fulfill,” the Conservative rabbi said.
“Jews should be a forceful voice for the refugees because to do so is a sanctification of God’s name, to do so shames those enemies of Israel who sit idly by as their Arab brethren suffer, and because to do so might just prompt the world to work together to address the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. Perhaps most simply, we should do so because we should always strive to be on the right side of history,” Cosgrove said.
“Are there reasons not to accept refugees? Undoubtedly there are. But as Jews, as American Jews, there is nothing wrong, in fact there is everything right with taking a principled stand – popular or not – and then taking action together as a community,” he said.
Park Avenue Synagogue’s director of congregational education, Rabbi Charles Savenor, takes a hands-on approach with congregants of all ages. He is proud that a group of 80 of the Conservative congregation’s members and staff on a trip to Germany this fall were the first North American synagogue group to volunteer there at a shelter for Syrian refugees. Most of the congregants also brought clothes for the refugees from New York.
Rabbi Yoni Kaiser-Blueth, Hillel executive director at the George Washington University in Washington, DC, sees his role as creating space for the university’s politically aware students to discuss the refugee crisis. He looks forward to following the students’ lead on the issue when the campus fills up again after winter break.
Kaiser-Blueth believes it is not Hillel’s place to prescribe what students should do, but rather to facilitate discussions and help students keep their eyes on what is possible to do — despite whatever obstacles US refugee policy may present.
“Religious leaders have the opportunity to shape the conversation,” he said about what rabbis and others can do on the national level.
In his medium-size Conservative synagogue, Congregation Torat El in Oakhurst, New Jersey, Rabbi Aaron Schonbrun also puts a Jewish lens on contemporary issues for his congregants.
Most of his interactions with congregants on the refugee crisis take place in classes and conversations at the synagogue.
“Security checks don’t preclude welcoming people fleeing war and persecution. It’s a scary world, but we can’t capitulate to fear and throw our Jewish values to the wind,” Schonbrun said about his message to congregants.

A few thoughts:

* “US congregations wonder how they, like the Canadian Jews, may act on the Torah injunction to welcome and care for the stranger.”

There’s nothing in Torah about how Jews have to lobby gentile countries to take in strangers unlikely to fit in with the natives. If Jewish leaders feel this is such a strong moral obligation, why don’t they begin with the Jewish state? After that, why don’t they next focus their efforts on bringing Muslim refugees into their own homes so they can experience the vibrancy of Islam good and hard.

* According to Rabbi Sharon Brous: “When 36 times in our Torah, the Hebrew Bible, we are told to love the stranger, to treat the stranger with dignity, it’s because we ourselves were strangers… There are dark clouds that are rolling over the beginning of this 21st century. The collective human heart is aching today in grief, and in pain and in fear. But fear makes for very bad politics. Fear fans the flames of hatred, which leads to more violence, which leads to more fear.”

Let her welcome Muslims into her own home and let them live with her family and enhance her life.

* Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove says: “The Jewish community must be on the side of the refugees because it is our moral, legal, and historical mitzvah to fulfill.”

Let him fulfill this mitzva in his own home and report back to us in a few years about how it went.

* Stephen Steinlight comments: “What does one make of this contemptibly comical race between two groups of suicidal rabbis for vainglory when the real losers will be the Jewish people? The road to hell has ever been paved with the idiot exploits of self-righteous, hopeless naifs. It’s long past time for commonsensical Jews to wrest leadership from these fools.”

Posted in Canada, Immigration, Islam, Syria | Comments Off

Donald Trump Can Win New York State and All Working-Class America

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Wayne Root writes:

Outsiders don’t understand it. But Trump is the hero of working class New Yorkers. Always has been. We love his in-your-face moxie, chutzpah and raw, politically incorrect honesty. We love it when he destroys Jeb Bush or John Kasich with a word, or a glance. That’s our world. That’s how we grew up and survived on the mean streets of New York. Be tough, or be eaten alive.

Every time Trump opens his mouth; every shocking and controversial statement; every aggressive attack; every macho pronouncement … Trump is us. And that makes working class, blue-collar New Yorkers feel good; feel strong; feel proud. Trump feels like home…

Why is Trump their hero? Because he speaks for them. He says what they are thinking. The middle class is being murdered – and they see it, they feel it, they are living it. They are being driven out of existence by President Barack Obama’s socialist cabal combined with the establishment GOP’s favoritism towards big business. Both parties have destroyed the working class and middle class of America. The government is actively working against the people. The system isn’t fair. The deck is stacked against them. And they see one hero who speaks for them and wants to fight for them: Donald Trump.

These people need hope. They need a hero. Liberals, elitist intellectuals, mainstream media and the establishment leaders of both parties may not understand it, but Trump is that guy. Or perhaps they do understand it, and they are scared to death.

By the way, even if Trump loses New York, he’ll make it so competitive that Hillary and the Democrats will be forced to spend precious time and money defending New York. Which means they have less money to spend on razor-close battleground states like Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Virginia. Either way, Trump wins.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

Remembering Edwin Edwards

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Just Not Said: In 1992, Edwards ran against white power advocate and former KKK member David Duke. Edwards, referring to his own reputation as a ladies’ man, said of Duke that “the only thing we have in common is that we both have been wizards beneath the sheets.” He also feigned concern for Duke’s health due to smoke inhalation “because he’s around so many burning crosses” and when a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to win the election, Edwards replied “stay alive.”

When his brother Marion told the 86-year-old Edwards that having sex with his 36-year-old wife could be dangerous, Edwards reportedly replied, “Well, Marion, if she dies, she dies.”

During a 2012 press conference with his wife, a registered Republican, on his upcoming run for Congress, when asked about what use he’d found for Republicans: “You sleep with ’em.”

Posted in Politics | Comments Off

Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” is sociopathy in political form

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Just Not Said: Community organizer Saul Alinsky published Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971. We’ve all heard his name, and we’ve all heard that Barack Obama is an Alinsky-ite, so it’s instructive to take a look at exactly what tactics Alinsky recommended.

According to Wikipedia, the rules are as follows (my comments in italics) :

1.“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (This reinforces what Alinsky said — in 1971 — about how real radicals must cut their hair, wear suits and ties, and infiltrate from within. Pretending to be what you are not or have what you don’t is typical sociopathic behavior.)
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (Sociopaths are master manipulators, adept at ferreting out and preying on others’ insecurities.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (Sociopaths frequently insist that others play by the rules while they themselves flout them.)
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Sociopaths are by nature bullies, which is what this is essentially recommending; this was obviously what Obama was trying to do when he said recently that Republicans were “afraid of widows and orphans.”)
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (More manipulation, from the drug dealer playbook: get them addicted, so they want more.)
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Sociopaths themselves are easily bored, so they assume others are as well.)
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Sociopaths show no mercy.)
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Sociopaths love to threaten and scare.)
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. (This sounds like a repeat of #8: show no mercy.)
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Provoke a reaction on purpose, then play the victim — classic sociopathic behavior.)
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Sociopaths are glib, and always seem to have an answer to everything.)
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (Sociopaths love to create dissension between others.)
Sociopaths seem to come by these types of techniques naturally. It’s pretty much instinctive with them, which is why we see these patterns repeated over and over again in their behavior.
Believe it or not, Alinsky actually dedicated his book to the Devil: “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Little wonder Barack Obama would take to Alinskyism so readily.

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics | Comments Off

Pretty Girl Jobs

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

You can also add fundraisers and secretaries (formerly) for the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Just Not Said: A young man mentioned to me the other day that certain jobs are basically those that strippers would do if they had college degrees.

For instance, advertising account executive. They get hired in large part because of their looks, and also because they have pleasing personalities. They don’t get hired because they’re mistaken for marketing geniuses.

When was the last time you saw a plain woman who worked at Sotheby’s or Christie’s? An auction house hoping to present an elegant facade wants traditionally beautiful women to augment that impression. And management knows that if you’re going to throw away a bundle on art, you at least want that money collected by enticing women. Even if those women don’t know anything about art.

Pharmaceutical reps are supposed to have some understanding of chemistry, and biology. But if you’ve ever seen the women who traipse around to doctors’ offices hawking recently FDA-approved drugs, you realize that their number one qualification is pulchitrude. Doctors are only human, and more susceptible to the blandishments of someone they want sex with. Science be damned.

Ditto for photographers’ reps, though a college degree isn’t a requirement there.

Even Wall Street hires saleswomen for their looks. Look at the contrast between the traders, analysts, investment banks, and internal technology people on the one hand, and the female salespeople on the other. Or just ask yourself this simple-but-telling question: how many of the former have had plastic surgery, vs. how many of the latter?

How many female newscasters do you see who aren’t good-looking? Sure, a beauty might be disqualified by an overly strong regional or ethnic accent. But it’s not as if what separates the women who get the on air jobs from their fellow Communications majors is a keen grasp of realpolitik.

Posted in Beauty | Comments Off

If Fashion Writers Wrote History

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

From the blog Just Not Said:

Benito makes a bold statement in a cap with red braid and a beautiful gold-plated representation of an iron eagle. The bird matches his epaulets, gold buttons, and the eagle on his arm perfectly, adding just the right touch of color coordination. The black shirt beneath Benito’s immaculate green jacket reflects his point of view perfectly! And the hands of his German Leica sweep reliably around their axis, letting Il Duce know when it’s time to get rid of those pesky limits to his power. Whether you’re talking fascism or fashionism, Benito rules!

A true leader doesn’t have to wear loud clothes that scream, look at me! Adolf’s brown, double-pocket jacket exudes an understated, quiet authority which does far more for him than any loud zoot suit would. It’s just enough to keep him warm on those cool Alpine evenings! Adolf’s unique mustache shows that he is a fashion leader, not a follower. And while some fuehrers might be torn between wearing a swastika or iron cross, Adolf’s final solution was pure genius: he sported both!

The medals that Idi Amin wore, like the titles he bestowed upon himself, were all richly merited. One does not earn that kind of hardware by cannibalizing others’ heroism! Even more impressive is the way Idi wore them: with understated good taste and a finely tuned sense of proportion. Amin’s well cut uniform perfectly reflected his quiet refinement, proving yet again that high moral standards do go hand in hand with high sartorial standards.

Posted in Fashion | Comments Off

Bergdahl: Taliban asked me if Obama is gay

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

New York Post:

Although watching over Bergdahl was a high honor, the guards were often bored and would pass the time by making videos of him, interrogating him with ridiculous questions or shaving his beard into shapes they found amusing, he said.
“They ask you, is Obama gay and sleeps with men?” he recalled. His young guards were also curious about where US military bases got their prostitutes, alcohol and drugs, and were obsessed with American soft drinks, he added.

From the blog Just Not Said in 2012:

When I first heard a few days ago that Obama might be gay, my initial reaction was, that’s ridiculous. He’s married, has two kids, and he’s never set off my gaydar. I had read a couple years ago about Larry Sinclair’s claims of having given Obama oral sex in the back of a limousine when Obama was a state senator. But at the time I just figured that any famous person is bound to attract a few loonies who will say anything to get publicity.
But after I read the article linked two posts ago (and directly below), I started reading more about the rumors of Obama’s gay life, and after a while, it just made too much sense not to be true.
In his article in WND.com, Jerome Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. in political science, said that Obama (along with Rahm Emanuel) was a lifetime member of Man’s Country, a gay bathhouse in Chicago. Obama was evidently well known there and many of the older clientele remembered him:
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.
“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.
Obama’s reputation in gay circles, by the way, was that he liked to receive oral sex but not to give it, which squares with what Larry Sinclair had said about him. (It’s his “signature.” And receiving blow jobs but not giving them would be consistent with Obama’s narcissistic personality.)
As a member of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama was known to have a “close friendship” with Donald Young, the openly gay choir director of the church. Young was murdered execution-style on December 23, 2007, just as Obama began his climb toward the Presidency. Another gay member of the church, Larry Bland, had also been killed execution-style a month earlier. Neither man was robbed, and both cases remain unsolved. Donald Young’s mother believes to this day that her son was killed in order to silence him before he spoke out about Obama.
Jerome Corsi is dismissed by the Left as a “Tea Party activist and conspiracy theorist.” But even if you regard Corsi and Madsen and Dujan with suspicion, what they say fits the larger picture of Obama’s life far better than any heterosexual narrative would. The circumstantial evidence — away from his public image as a family man — fits the homosexual narrative perfectly.
There is virtually no record of Obama having had any girlfriends before he married Michelle at age 31. He referred to two in his autobiography, but these were later revealed to be “composites.” Are we to believe that a healthy, young, sports-oriented black man had no history of having chased after girls? You’d think that after he’d first been elected as President, back when he was seen in such a messianic light, all sorts of women would have come forward claiming that they had had flings with Obama, or at least been propositioned by him. But none did.
In his autobiography, Obama stated that during his years at Columbia he spent all his time in the library and “lived like a monk.” But if he spent all of his time in the library, shouldn’t he have gotten excellent grades, especially given how smart he is supposed to be? Then why spend a million dollars hiring 11 lawyers to make sure his academic records were permanently sealed? It’s also hard to believe that a young man who by his own admission freely imbibed drugs was otherwise inclined to live “like a monk.”
Another question: how many successful black men marry women far darker than themselves? If successful black men do marry black, it’s often a woman so light-skinned you have to look twice to ascertain her blackness. This tends to be true of successful blacks in business, in entertainment, and in sports. Obama wasn’t rich when he married Michelle, but he was a Harvard Law School graduate and did give the impression of an ambitious young man on his way up. And young gay men with political ambitions are more concerned about simply having a beard than her desirability. (Ironically, it was said during the ’08 election that black women voters had a particular fondness for Obama because he had married a “real” black woman, unlike so many other successful black men.)
Michelle, in turn, also married Barack out of ambition. She reportedly had divorce papers drawn up after he lost an election to Bobby Rush for a House seat in 2000.
When Barack was first elected President, Michelle wanted to stay in Chicago and raise their two girls there. She was quickly informed that this would not look good, so she moved to the White House.
Has a President’s “body man” ever been given such prominence? Part of Reggie Love’s job as Obama’s personal valet was to “wake the President up in the morning.” (How could he do this without waking Michelle up at the same time?) Love reportedly worked up to 18 hours a day, “often sleeping on the burgundy couch.”
The “body man” before Love was Nick Colvin, who left the White House after rumors surfaced that he had had sexual relations with Obama while Obama was a state senator. (Obama hasn’t had just one Clyde Tolson, he’s had two.)
And why all the snickering when Kal Penn (“Kumar” of Harold and Kumar fame, widely known to be gay in Hollywood) was working in the White House as the President’s Associate director in the White House Office of Public Engagement? Google “Kal Penn Obama affair” and you’ll get 165,000 results.
The ways in which Obama tries to compensate seem telling too. His jaunty stride up to the podium is meant to project masculine virility; and his vocal delivery, with that faux vaguely-black accent, is meant to show manliness as well. I’ve seen other gay guys who try too hard to appear manly, with overly emphatic movements, and it usually leaves the opposite impression.
You never, ever hear any whispers about Obama and women. Sure, there are stories about power struggles between Michelle and other women, like Oprah Winfrey and Desiree Rogers; but no stories about Barack straying with women. I had always just assumed that this was because he was a squeaky clean family man who was perhaps a little scared of Michelle. But for a healthy man who ascended to the Presidency at age 48, who had star power and unlimited access to women, to never, ever indulge? That would be practically unheard of. But no, there will be no Monicas for Barack.
Obama has essentially been hiding his sexuality in plain sight all this time. In retrospect, I’m astonished at my own blindness. (There has evidently been chatter about his sexuality on the internet for years.) But he just never set off my gaydar. And he is, after all, President of the United States, a position we associate with homosexuality about as much as, say, Brigadier General.
In a way, it’s almost racist not to see Obama’s gayness. Sometimes it’s hard to see past the blackness: we are conditioned to assume all black males are high testosterone potential rapists.
Obama has none of the sheepishness, or sense of furtiveness, that we sometimes associate with gays. But maybe he doesn’t give off that vibe because his narcissism overrides any possible sense of embarrassment.
Obviously, none of the “evidence” I’ve presented is hard; it’s merely circumstantial. The only people with firsthand evidence are those who’ve had sex with Obama. But the entire picture of Obama’s life makes much more sense when you see it through the prism related by Corsi and Madsen and Dujan.
There’s nothing intrinsically immoral about being gay; it’s something homosexuals generally have no choice about. But with Obama, his duplicity about his sexuality is reflective of his duplicity about virtually everything else. He has employed Alinsky-ite methods to hide his gayness the same way he has employed them to hide his far left political leanings. (Alinsky: cut your hair, wear a suit and tie, appear moderate, hide your radicalism, and if anybody disagrees with your political views, attack him on personal grounds.)
At this point, three and a half years into Obama’s Presidency, his sexuality has to be open secret in Washington. The White House press reportedly knew about JFK’s escapades with women at the time, but kept them quiet. They are undoubtedly performing a similar function with Obama.
(By the way, if you don’t believe that Obama is gay, go ahead and laugh at me. But the truth should become much more widely known after Obama has left the Presidency, when the press no longer has a reason to protect him.)
You have to wonder whose idea of a joke it was when Newsweek put out that famous cover of him with the rainbow halo over his head and titled it, “The first gay President.” (In fact, Obama is probably the second; James Buchanan was most likely gay as well.)

Posted in Barack Obama | Comments Off

Save Our Petrol (Australian ad) 1979

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Uploaded on Oct 17, 2011: Save Our Petrol commercial from 1979 made by National Conservation Programme transferred from Betamax videocassette. Features an animation of nudists dancing around and finding alternative transports to driving their cars and with the slogan “There’s at least a dozen ways to save our petrol”. The jingle was written and sung by Australia’s famous jingle writer/singer MOJO who were best known for the Meadow Lea and Tooheys ads and “C’mon Aussie C’mon” cricket theme.

Posted in Australia | Comments Off

Call it terrorism, says father of hero who helped stop stabber at Calif. college

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Fox News: The California college student who stabbed four people last month in a campus spree that ended when he was killed by campus police was described by his roommate as “an extreme Muslim” and carried a manifesto and a photocopy of an ISIS flag — more than enough to convince John Price he was a terrorist.

Yet, more than a month after the Nov. 4 attack at University of California Merced, local and federal authorities continue to insist that Faisal Mohammad, 18, carried out the vicious attack because he’d been banished from a study group. Price, whose son Byron Price, a 31-year-old construction manager for the family business who was working nearby and was stabbed when he heroically intervened, suspects the White House’s reluctance to identify acts of radical Islamic terror has trickled down to investigators who are still probing the Merced attack.

“Why don’t we just call it what it is — domestic terrorism?” said Price. “Everyone is afraid to be politically incorrect. I do believe in law enforcement and believe they will do their job, but it seems like to me we aren’t getting the whole story. I just wonder how much of this is driven from way higher up and is politically driven — I just don’t know.”

Mohammad, whose victims all survived, left behind a rambling, two-page manifesto in which he instructed himself to “praise Allah” as he worked his way through his hit list, a photocopied ISIS flag and at least one shaken roommate who remembers him as a menacing loner.

“He was a loner and an extreme Muslim,” Ali Tarek Elshekh, Mohammad’s roommate, told Merced Sheriff’s Department Detective Jose Silva in a statement, also noting Mohammad was “way out there.”

Elshekh, who is Muslim, told sheriffs that a friend of his had asked Mohammad what would happen if he touched the mat he used for praying, and got a chilling response.

“I will kill you,” Mohammad calmly vowed, in what Elshekh said was not a “normal” response for a Muslim.

Elshekh, whose statement was included in a warrant obtained by FoxNews.com through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Merced Superior Court, said he last saw Mohammad just minutes before the attack, sitting on his bed in their dorm room, dressed in a hooded sweater, hood over his face, with his backpack on his back, staring straight ahead in silence.

The warrant, which authorized detectives to search Mohammad’s dorm, car and other possessions, showed investigators found a second copy of the manifesto in Mohammad’s garbage can, along with several discarded petroleum jelly cans, duct tape wrappers, large zip ties, a package that had contained a knife and sharpener, a red prayer rug and a copy of the Koran.

Authorities believe Mohammad, who carried out his attack with an 8-inch hunting knife, planned to steal a gun by overpowering a campus cop and then take several more victims. Price was credited with slowing his attack, providing a chance for others to escape and helping to ensure that police ended the onslaught before anyone was killed. To his father, Price helped stop a terrorist.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Thinking About Immigration Insurance

Posted on December 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: A commenter replies to my latest Taki’s column proposing that all immigrants be required to have immigration insurance against any harms they may visit up Americans:

This is what I did for a living: design insurance and financial products. “Pittsburgh Thatcherite” has the kernel of brilliance but you have the wrong “bond”.
If you are talking about immigrant mass murders you have a low frequency high severity event.

One of my goals is to get the concept of liability for immigration on the table in the first place. Cigarette companies, for instance, always admitted they would be liable if, say, a cigarette exploded and burned your eyebrows off. But that got the lawyer’s nose in Camel’s tent: after lots and lots of arguing, it turned out the cigarette companies were also liable for increasing customers’ statistical risks of lung cancer. That process wouldn’t have been worth it if somebody with deep pockets wasn’t involved.

This makes an underwriter twitchy to begin with. You will never get meaningful limits in the context of such an event (yes, everyone buys car insurance and Mexicans get $15/30 limits) and insurers will be challenged to screen risks among the riskiest immigrants. The other obvious issue is that in a suretyship transaction there is an oligor (the immigrant) and oblige (his victims?) and a surety. The surety likes it when he is positioned to recover from the obligor after paying the obligee. Won’t happen here. This leaves out the question as to whether the surety/insurer is going to be penalized for underwriting by ethnicity.
This is a capital markets play. Some kind of immigrant CAT bond or quasi-CDS structure. This covers a generational cohort or some such number. The bond pays a premium if immigrants behave; maybe it pays a robust premium if immigrants reach certain socio-economic benchmarks. If Allah Akbar events spike, or socio-economic benchmarks crater, the bond pays no income and certain tranches risk their principal.
The reason this idea might work is that institutions could be shamed or pressured to issue the protection. Soros believes in immigration — hey, back it up. Maybe we could sell some of the bonds to Mexico. But any member of the pro-immigration elite could be made to pony up. Want HB-1 Visas? Buy the … bonds.
So if you want big limits — that are intrinsically diversified or pre-diversified — go to the capital markets not insurers. Another advantage: insurers deny claims. Swap counter-parties can’t. I believe AIG believed, in 2007, that it could weasel out of its CDS protection with Talmudic disputation (much like its D&O policies). AIG’s banks said: f you, we need another 10 billion in collateral for the market moving against you. The capital market clears.
Not immigrant insurance. Immigrant CAT bonds with different triggers and tranches, shoved down the throats of the elites cheerleading for more immigration.

Comments:

* That’s a great idea, but we also need to attach liability to judges, politicians and parole boards. These people can make policies or hand down rulings that will result in the deaths of citizens on a routine basis, but never face any consequences, except that politicians may not get elected again.

* The original insurance idea remains key for several reasons; this catastrophe (or “cat”) bond idea is really just footnote or ornamentation to it, but one with a certain amount of appeal I’ll grant.

To begin with, it is usually insurers, faced with risks on a mass of individual policies, who issue cat bonds for the purpose of laying off some of the correlated risks inherent in their portfolio of policies. If there is no insurer, which institution has an interest issuing the cat bonds to investors, and would bear the expense of paying back principal and interest if the immigrants behave, or retaining the principal if they don’t? The government? If there aren’t retail policies earning premiums, how does the bond issuer get income to support investment returns? If there aren’t claims against policies, to what use is the retained principal put if a trigger event occurs? Haven’t we already taken it as a given that the government just isn’t going to do a good job assessing immigration risk, which is why we need to bring in private institutions and litigants? Without underlying insurance policies, cat bonds don’t serve any particular purpose. When an underlying insurance market exists, cat bonds sometimes make sense as a way for an insurer to obtain reinsurance on the capital markets, as opposed to strictly through the institutional reinsurers and retrocessionaires, but cat bonds don’t really make sense in the absence of some kind of underlying exposure.

I admit, I do like the notion of publicly hoisting people by their own petards — forcing an amnesty advocate to put his money where his mouth is, requiring him invest his life savings in cat bonds issued by an insurer facing risks on a hundred thousand Syrian “refugees” — that would be a vintage Kodak moment.

The other subtle point is that cat bonds are most suitable for highly correlated, large, but infrequent risks — the kinds of concentrations that keep insurers (and their regulators) up at night. For example, car crashes are relatively small and fairly uncorrelated — plenty happen in a big city over the course of a year, but they all tend to happen in their own time for their own reasons. No one event brings about a devastating wave of car wrecks and losses (a good winter storm can bring about a brief spike, but relative to the number of wrecks in a year it won’t be significant), and year-to-year the numbers don’t change much. You don’t see cat bonds for car insurance risks. But windstorm losses can be very concentrated and correlated. Years can go by with few claims out of the East and Gulf Coasts. Then one day Hurricane Andrew or Katrina or Sandy rolls ashore and the industry is faced with tens of billions worth of insured losses in a day. Or years go by without major earthquake claims in California, but then one day Northridge happens. So you see cat bonds for earthquakes and windstorms.

All that being said, it would be interesting to see what types of cat bonds would or would not get issued in immigration insurance, and how they were priced on the capital markets. An insurer covering a large cohort of Syrian “refugees” — maybe that company issues a cat bond against terrorism risk and the next 9/11. Another carrier covering mainly Latin American agricultural workers — they don’t bother, because they’re mainly faced with small, uncorrelated traffic and petty-crime risks. Pricing information on individual policies is not always very transparent, but a cat bond quoted over the Bloomberg terminal would say a lot about human nature.

Finally, the tort litigation angle is brilliant and should not be underrated. Abstruse triggers on abstract financial instruments don’t make headlines. But had there been a million dollar liability policy on Francisco Sanchez, the illegal Mexican immigrant who shot Kathryn Steinle on a tourist pier in San Francisco, you’d get a whole extra layer of drama and headlines and attention. And I see your additional point — Steinle already made the papers. Having million dollar policies all over the place would encourage tort lawyers to dig up cases we’d never otherwise hear of, which has a huge value of its own.

* Another idea, staying with the original insurance scenario, would be to make the immigrant’s home country the obligor (or, in the cases of failed states, the UN). Then the insurer would have someone to recover from, and countries would have an incentive to police their emigrants.

* As I read that, I have a mental image in my head.

I see GOP as a big old dying tree. Most branches are barren of leaves. It’s been axed from all sides by Neocons, religious right dummies, globalist free traders, cuckservatives, crunchy cons, libertarian amoralists, and etc. There are huge chunks missing from the side. Few remaining fruits are picked just for the elites. It is about to fall over.

Then, Trump comes along and picks up an ax…

and everyone says HE is the one who destroyed the GOP.

Or imagine a dead man in a coffin nailed shut… but there’s one remaining nail. Trump picks it up and he is blamed for the death of the man.

Trump is no hero, and he may indeed bring about the implosion of the GOP, but the reason why so many have flocked to him is because GOP elites and politicians have been such wusses who never did anything to stop the globo agenda.

* One reason there are many Syrian emigrants right now is that they are fleeing massive American bombing. The Washington Post reported that the US has dropped more bombs (22,478) on Syria this year than the past five years in Afghanistan. This is all part of a failed four-year American attempt to overthrow the government of Syria.

Since the American people refuse to rein in such behavior by its leadership, and many of them condone or support such behavior, then obviously they’re liable for producing these emigrants, millions of whom are fleeing to neighboring countries and Europe.

* I’m afraid that if this idea ever gets off the ground, the gov and the media will work harder than ever to cover up perps’ identities and motivations.

Case in point, remember that incident at UC Merced a couple months ago? Every time I check back, it gets more interesting.

* Every citizen is given an annual immigration allotment, say 1,000th of one immigrant. Citizens can pool their allotments to bring in an immigrant and here’s the important part, they’re jointly and severally responsible for the good conduct and any damages caused by the immigrants and the next generation.

Having 1,000 people jointly and severally on the hook gives lawyers many targets to pillage.

* Admitting an immigrant is having someone join the American family. Immigrants should only be admitted in small numbers and after very careful vetting. The criteria should be based on how they benefit US society. That way we don’t have to worry about immigrants’ behavior once they are admitted.

As Derbyshire says, “maximum security at the borders and maximum liberty within the borders.”

* I think the focus should be on cutting off immigration completely or dramatically cutting back on the numbers we admit each year. The problem I have with the insurance proposal or any similar proposal is the propensity of the Democrats in Congress to seize on good sound Republican ideas and turn them into gold plated entitlements. That’s what happened to the sound, modest Republican plan back in the late 80′s to provide “catastrophic coverage” to Medicare recipients. By the time the Democrats finished adding their extensive little options, the plan’s cost had been dramatically increased, and the old folks rebelled. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowski of Chicago, was trapped in his limo by a mob of enraged octogenarians protesting the outrage. The old folks didn’t mind the added coverage. They just didn’t like the idea they were going to pay for it. Somebody else should pay for it. Obamacare was based on an idea originated by Republicans, and look what it turned into. What I fear happening is that the Democrats in Congress (they are eventually going to come back) will seize on the insurance proposal and twist it into an entitlement that gives each immigrant an extra thousand dollars a year to ease their transition into American life. So that, instead of saving American taxpayers money, the plan will cost them more and do noting to stem the flood of immigrants.

* How about the Swiss system: leave naturalization up to the municipal parliament, or in some cases, a local popular vote. Devolve decision making over immigration, as much as possible, to the local citizens affected by it.

Much of the extraordinary political friction over immigration comes from stakeholder disenfranchisement – the inability of citizens to influence decision making that directly impacts their neighborhoods. Immigration outcomes are felt, correctly, to reflect a democratic deficit. The effects of immigration take place in neighborhoods and municipalities, but the Feds/central government gets to regulate it. Maybe they shouldn’t.

* Here’s a chart from the OECD – “reading performance by immigrant status” and Canada’s 1st and 2nd generation school kids read at about the same level as native born Canadians. In Australia, the 1st and 2nd generation immigrant kids out-perform native Australian kids. In the US though there is a big gap between native kids and 1st and 2nd generation immigrant kids.

The real story in that data is what is happening in the Nordic countries and Europe, but it does provide answers for your US-Canada-Australia focus – screening immigrants results in higher human capital levels as expressed in the performance of children in school.

The fact that this immigration screening doesn’t result in Canada and Australia economically out-performing the US doesn’t invalidate the results of improved human capital levels.

The question that falls out from this is what dead-weight is the US carrying as a result of the low human capital levels of most of its immigrants? How much higher would US per capital income be if not for the deadweight of its immigrants?

Your response focuses on all of the gap that the US has accumulated and posits that this is due to immigrants, rather than addressing how much of that gap has narrowed because of the immigrants.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off