Category Archives: commentary

Humanitarian Hypocrisy

by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT News
October 26, 2012

The world’s double standards concerning which peoples qualify as oppressed and deserving of help are staggering. Two recent stories illustrate this point:

First, a report exposed, in the words of the Turkish Coalition of America, “Turkey’s continued interest in expanding business and cultural ties with the American Indian community” and “Turkey’s interest in building bridges to Native American communities across the U.S.” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., even introduced a bill that would give Turks special rights and privileges in Native American tribal areas, arguing that “[t]his bill is about helping American Indians,” and about “helping the original inhabitants of the new world, which is exactly what this legislation would do.”

The very idea that Turkey’s Islamist government is interested in “helping American Indians” is preposterous, both from a historical and contemporary point of view. In the 15th century, when Christian Europeans were discovering the Americas, Muslim Turks were conquering and killing Christians in Europe (which, of course, is why Europeans starting sailing west in the first place). If early European settlers fought and killed natives, only recently, Turkey committed a mass genocide against Armenian Christians. And while the U.S. has made many reparations to its indigenous natives, Turkey not only denies the Armenian holocaust, but still abuses and persecutes its indigenous Christians.

In short, if Turkey is looking to help the marginalized and oppressed, it should start at home.

But of course, Turkey is only looking to help itself; the American Indians are mere tools of infiltration. One need not elaborate on the dangers involved in thousands of Muslim Turks settling in semi-autonomous areas in America and working closely with a minority group that holds a grudge against the United States.

Yet if one can understand Turkey’s machinations, what does one make of another recent report? Fifteen leaders from U.S. Christian denominations—mostly Protestant, including the Lutheran, Methodist, and UCC Churches—are asking Congress to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel, since “military aid will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories.”

These are the same church leaders who utter nary a word concerning the rampant persecution of millions of Christians from one end of the Muslim world to the other—a persecution that makes the Palestinians’ situation insignificant in comparison.

If Muslims are subjugated on Israeli land, at least one can argue that, historically, the Jews were there first—millennia before Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the 7th century. On the other hand, millions of Christians—at least 10 million in Egypt alone, the indigenous Copts—have been suffering in their own homelands for 14 centuries, since Islam burst in with the sword.

Nor is this limited to history: from Nigeria in the west, to Pakistan in the east, Christians at this very moment are being imprisoned for apostasy and blasphemy; their churches are being bombed and burned down; their women and children are being kidnapped, enslaved, and raped. For an idea, see my monthly Muslim Persecution of Christians series, where I collate dozens of anecdotes of persecution every month—any of which, if Palestinians experienced, would make headlines around the world; but as it is only “unfashionable” Christians who are experiencing these atrocities, they are regularly overlooked.

Nor are Palestinian Christians immune from this phenomenon: a pastor recently noted that “animosity towards the Christian minority in areas controlled by the PA continues to get increasingly worse. People are always telling [Christians], Convert to Islam. Convert to Islam.”

Indeed, the American Jewish Committee, which was “outraged by the Christian leaders’ call,” got it right by saying: “When religious liberty and safety of Christians across the Middle East are threatened by the repercussions of the Arab Spring, these Christian leaders have chosen to initiate a polemic against Israel, a country that protects religious freedom and expression for Christians, Muslims and others.”

By any objective measure, the atrocities currently being committed against Christians around the Muslim world are far more outrageous and deserving of attention and remedy than the so-called “Palestinian Question.” Incidentally, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians—some of whom, like Hamas, openly declare their intent to eradicate the Jewish state—is largely predicated on the aforementioned: Israel knows Islam’s innate animus for non-Muslims and does not wish to be on its receiving end, hence the measures it takes to exist.

There is a final important point of irony concerning the differences between Turkey’s Muslims and America’s liberal Christians: the former engage in hypocrisy to empower Islam; the latter engage in hypocrisy to disempower Christianity, even if unwittingly. Just like secular/liberal Americans who strive to disassociate themselves from their European heritage—seeing it as the root of all evil and championing the rights of non-whites like American Indians—liberal American Christians strive to disassociate themselves from their Christian heritage and champion the rights of non-Christians, hence their keen interest for Muslim Palestinians.

And all the while, the one religious group truly persecuted from one end of the Islamic world to the other—Christians—are devoutly ignored by the humanitarian hypocrites.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Mandel’s Debt Management Office Director: An Answer to Cronyism Allegations

by Daniel Downs

U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel is being accused of cronyism by incumbent Sherrod Brown. Mandel is guilty but with some qualification. Obviously, before becoming Ohio’s Treasurer, Mandel had his sights on Congress. When he became Treasurer he hired his friend and campaign manager Joe Aquilino. Keeping Joe’s valuable services for his present and future work was important for Mandel’s future success.

Yes, Mandel deserves criticism for hiring an inexperienced investment bonds manager. If you read how Aquilino’s job is described you will glimpse Mandel’s reasonable strategy. First, he is referred to as the Director of the Debt Management Office and not of the Office of Debt Management. Second, the following is an excerpt from an April 4, 2012 Huffington Post article in which is disclosed Mandel’s view of Aquilino’s position:

“Joe is a licensed attorney. He managed staff in the Debt Management Department, and worked under Seth Metcalf’s direction on debt issuances,” Unger said. “Mr. Metcalf has extensive experience with debt issues, and continues to be the key person overseeing debt issuances in the treasurer’s office.”

In other words, Mandel hired experienced bonds manager Seth Metcalf to handle debt management. He kept attorney Joe Aquilino employed because he is an excellent manager of people and organizations. That is also why Aquilino is now employed as Mandel campaign manager.

Mandel was not rewarding his buddies with big jobs as campaign booty. Rather, it was a wise business decision: keeping a valuable employee.

The Biden and Ryan Debate: Energy and Taxes

by Raymond J. Keating

The vice presidential debate between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden was a lively affair. Though it often was difficult getting by the many interruptions served up by Biden, and Martha Raddatz’s bias as a moderator, in order to get at the substance.

But some clear themes did emerge that warrant the attention of entrepreneurs and small businesses.

First, this was a debate overwhelmingly about foreign policy, in particular about the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and the rest of the general region rank as the immediate hotspots in terms of U.S. national security. And given the role played in oil markets, it’s a huge economic factor.

In the end, given the Obama administration’s mixed messages and general pulling back from the region, Congressman Ryan was justified in hitting the White House hard on their strategy, or lack thereof. There is no doubt that tumult and uncertainty in the region, including the role of the U.S., has been one of the key reasons for oil prices remaining high.

It also should be pointed out that Ryan mentioned greater North American energy independence. To the degree that is achieved will depend on U.S. policymaking, such as the extent of U.S. domestic exploration and production, as well as moving ahead with projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been hostile to carbon-based energy in general, raised barriers to domestic production, and blocked the Keystone XL pipeline.

Second, a big difference emerged on the tax front.

Vice President Biden was unrelenting in pushing a class warfare agenda. He spoke of a fictional tax cut for the “middle class.” In fact, the Obama agenda offers no tax relief for middle-income earners. Rather, it proposes leaving today’s tax policies in effect for middle and low-income earners, while jacking up taxes on everyone else.

Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan pointed out that the Obama tax plan rests on a major tax hike on “successful small businesses.” He contrasted the Obama plan with the Romney plan by noting that the top income tax rate on small businesses would be nearly 45 percent under Obama, while it would be 28 percent under Romney. That’s a profound and economically substantive difference on tax rates.

Ryan also pointed out that 53 percent of small business income would be hit by the Obama tax increases.

For good measure, Ryan noted that this top Obama tax rate would make U.S. businesses far less competitive internationally. That’s very important. While President Obama, to his credit, has called for reducing the corporate income tax rate, he has pushed and pushed to increase the personal income tax rate, without mentioning that some 93 percent of businesses pay personal, rather than corporate, income taxes.

In the end, it needs to be understood that any kind of tax increase, especially in a tough economy, makes no sense whatsoever. No economists – no matter what school of economic thought they belong to – would advocate tax increases in this environment. Their reasoning surely would differ, but not their bottom line conclusion. And any economist pushing for a tax increase right now is playing politics, and not thinking as an economist.

And make no mistake, economics makes clear that tax increases on upper incomes – as included in ObamaCare and in terms of the additional hikes advocated by Obama – will hurt everyone, not just higher income earners. Biden asserted that the, as he put it, “super wealthy” can afford to pay more in taxes. What Biden misses in his class warfare hysteria is that the Obama-Biden tax increases mean reduced incentives and resources for entrepreneurship and investment. That means bad news throughout the economy – for everyone.

If we want to get economic growth back on track, experience rising incomes, and create more jobs, then taxes cannot be increased on the entrepreneurs and investors that are critical to making this happen.

Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. His article was first published by the SBE Council, 12 October, 2012,

A Voter’s Guide to Republicans


Romney’s Ten Commandments on National Security

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”

Governor Romney’s Ten Commandments on national security are based on his recent pronouncements, including his October 8, 2012 speech at the Virginia Military Institute.

1. American exceptionalism. Thou shall adhere to the classic US worldview, highlighting American moral and strategic exceptionalism – US global competitive edge. American moral exceptionalism is a derivative of America’s Judeo-Christian values, formulated by the early Pilgrims and the US founding fathers. Romney believes in America’s moral, economic, scientific, technological, educational, medical and military exceptionalism. He is aware that America’s best interests and the minimization of global disorder – militarily and economically – require US pro-active leadership.

2. US global leadership. Thou shall embrace US global leadership, underscoring US freedom of unilateral action, rather than subordinating US policy to multilateral considerations. The US – not the UN or any international order – is the dominant quarterback of international relations. US global leadership is critical for its economic, homeland security and military concerns. It bolsters posture of deterrence, providing a tailwind for allies, thus constraining clear and present threats posed by rogue/terrorist Islamic regimes. On the other hand, US withdrawal is interpreted as weakness, emboldening adversaries, weakening allies, fueling clear and present dangers and facilitating the recurrence of 9/11.

3. Realism. Thou shall abide by realism and experience and not by wishful-thinking and delusion. Thus, the Arab Street intensifies anti-US terrorism and not democracy. Confronting – rather than engaging – rogue regimes upgrades deterrence and reduces the threat of war. Preempting – rather than retaliating against – undeterred rogue regimes spares humanity calamitous wars. Moreover, Putin’s Russia is a rival – not an ally – of the USA. Steadfastness, not flexibility, would restrain Moscow’s imperialistic ambition, reassuring US’ East European allies. Realism requires confidence, marathon-like resolve, and clarity and not apology, hasty-wavering and ambiguity.

4. Moral Clarity. Thou shall follow moral clarity – a prerequisite for operational clarity. Do not subordinate moral clarity to political convenience. For example, Islamic terrorism is the most distinct threat to Western democracies. It must be clearly identified and not be blurred by linguistic acrobatics, such as “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters,” or “isolated extremism.” The threat of Islamic terrorism must be lucidly presented and not be deleted from the training literature of the defense and counter-terrorism establishment. Islamic terrorism has afflicted the USA –systematically and not randomly – since the 18th century. Core American values of liberty and justice are a lethal threat to rogue and tyrannical Islamic regimes. The US is the chief strategic obstacle to megalomaniac transnational aspirations.

5. Peace through strength. Thou shall advance strength – and not pliability – in order to promote peace. Strength deters, and perceived weakness fuels, terrorism. Enhancing military capabilities – of the US and its European allies – is compulsory in order to face rising threats and deter aggression.

6. Strategic cooperation. Thou shall enhance strategic cooperation with capable, reliable, stable, predictable, democratic and unconditional allies – such as Israel – which contribute to the US in the areas of defense and commercial high-tech, intelligence, battle tactics, training and operations. Israel is the only ally resembling a US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board, cannot be sunk, already deployed in an area critical to primary US interests, snatching hot US chestnuts out of the fire, saving the US taxpayer some $20BN annually.

7. Moral equivalence. Thou shall not indulge in the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed moral equivalence between the role model of counter-terrorism (e.g., Israel) and the role model of terrorism (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO); between the role model of unconditional alliance with the US (e.g., Israel) and the role model of systematic alliance with America’s enemies, such as Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden (e.g., the Palestinian leadership).

8. Iran. Thou shall prevent Iran’s nuclearization for the sake of the US – and not Israeli – interests. A nuclear Iran would traumatize the supply and price of oil; would devastate pro-US Gulf regimes; would coalesce Iran’s takeover of Iraq; would accelerate nuclear proliferation; would upgrade the military capabilities of anti-US Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador; would embolden anti-US Islamic terrorism, including sleeper cells in the US; and would devastate the US posture of deterrence.

9. Palestinian issue. Thou shall be cognizant of the secondary role played by the Palestinian issue in the Middle East. It is not the root cause of regional turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, not the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As stated by Romney, the Palestinians are concerned about the existence – not the size – of Israel. He is aware of the indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria for Israel’s existence. He is also aware of the adverse impact by the proposed Palestinian state upon cardinal US interests. Hence, the unacceptability of the “two state delusion.”

10. Political correctness. Thou shall not subordinate the Ten Commandments to political correctness, expediency and global/domestic pressure.

Will Governor Romney be faithful to the Ten Commandments on national security if elected on November 6, 2012?

Ambassor Yoram Ettinger’s article reflects an Israeli-American perspective. His artlice was first published in “Israel Hayom”, October 12, 2012,

Obama and the Benghazi Debacle

by Daniel Downs

The Obama administration’s poor judgment concerning both the nature of the Benghazi attack and security of our Consulates in Liyba is old news. From President Obama to Susan Rice, Americans were misled into believing the Benghazi attack was a mob action. It was determined earlier in the investigations that security personnel wanted more security personnel to address the increasing threat of Al-Qaida’s presence.

In his second debate, President Obama said he did call the attack on the Benghazi embassy an act of terror. Some commmentators claim he did say it was a terrorist attack, while others claim he did not. Those who deny the Obama’s claim do so because they did read the transcript of his Rose Garden speech on September 12, 2012. The President mentioned terrorist in the context of the attack of September 11, 2001, the sacrifice of American soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that proceeded in response to 9/11, and finally those who died in Benghazi.

In other words, his statement was vague concerning the nature of the Benghazi attack.

If President Obama actually knew or wanted Americans to know the attack was another act of terrorism against America, he would have continued to state that fact while being interviewed by David Letterman on September 18, 2012. However, he blamed the attack on extremists angered by anti-Mohammad video made by an American of questionable character. Obama did use the term terrorist but only in the context of all other attacks against American Consulates around the world that were a result of the film.

In an Foreign Policy article published on October 16, 2012, Christopher Stephen raise questions about the veracity of both a military style terroristattack and spontaneous mob violence. Locals consistenly claim seeing a group of 12 armed men. The gates to the embasssy were not breached, but there were 2 bullet holes in the front gate and 22 in the back gate. There were only two bullet holes anywhere in the compound. The only mortar penetrated the main building above the door. According to Stephens, the 3 embassy personnel who died were shot while escaping the compound and Ambassor Steven’s appears to have died of smoke inhilation as a result of the mortar.

As also noted during the Congressional Committee for Government Oversight and Reform hearings, Stephen’s article confirms the lack of any adequate security that could have prevented an attack.

It must be concluded that the Commander-in-Chief didn’t know the real nature of the attack, he prefers to view Muslim jihadic violence as merely extremism, or he was merely covering up a very embarrasing failure to provide even modest security.

Reflections on Political Science and Political Journalism

by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

There are two basic types of political science, normative or prescriptive, and normless or descriptive. Aristotle’s political science is both normative and descriptive. His paramount concern, what is the best regime, is inseparable from his Nicomachean Ethics, an in-depth analysis of the moral virtues or of how should man live.

Aristotle studied about 150 regimes and classified them according to whether they were ruled by the one, the few, or the many. He divided them into two groups: kingship, aristocracy, and republic on the one hand, and their opposites, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy on the other. The good regimes were those whose rulers ruled in the interest of the ruled. The bad were those in which the rulers ruled in their own interests.

Aristotle regarded kingship the best regime in theory—not a utopia, but what reasonable men would reasonably wish for. Since the citizens of such a regime would have to be of fairly good moral and intellectual character, it’s very rare, but it provides a standard by which to reform and improve an existing regime. But as sober political scientist, Aristotle devotes much space his Politics to the best regime in practice, a more attainable which he called a “polity,” for which term I have substituted “republic.”

A polity or republic is middle class regime. It combines democracy and oligarchy. This it does in many different ways, for example, (1) by prescribing diverse modes of electing the members of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; (2) by varying the size or membership of these branches; and (3) by assigning to their members different terms of office. No political scientist equals Aristotle in comprehensiveness. What Machiavelli knows of political science can be put on a postage stamp compared to Aristotelian political science, if only because of its comprehensive ethics, to which one should add Aristotle’s Rhetoric—the first treatise of its kind.

Although Machiavelli, contrary to what has been said of him, is not a moral relativist, he prepared the ground for a morally neutral or “value-free” political science; indeed, he turned political science on its head. As Leo Strauss saw, the great Florentine was the first political scientist to regard democracy—more precisely, a commercial democracy—as the best regime. To avoid his bad reputation, most contemporary political scientists prefer to be known as “political realists.” They are the milk-and-toast Machiavellians who become the advisers of democracy’s foreign policy elites—the Brzezinskis in America, the Harkabis in Israel—yes, moral relativists. The former “cozied” up with the USSR, the latter with the PLO. They pursued a “morally free” or “ideologically neutral” foreign policy

For Aristotle and for classical political science in general, there is no such thing as a morally neutral political science. The reason is this. Politics involves the controversial; it’s concerned with preservation and change: how to make things better, and how to prevent things from becoming worse. This can’t be morally neutral. A morally neutral political science would be trivial; and if purveyed as “descriptive,” it would be misleading, because what the political scientist chooses to describe or talk about is based on (unstated) “criteria of importance.” Criteria of importance can’t be morally neutral without being utterly trivial: like correlating how a politician votes and whether his left or right foot is the first to enter the assembly.

The basic considerations set forth above enable us to judge the character of political journalism. Political journalism can’t be morally neutral without being trivial or irrelevant to the question of what is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. This kind of journalism is often displayed by the BBC and the Guardian, which propagate the adage “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”—a vulgar display of moral relativism or moral equivalence. This is the prevailing doctrine of the American State Department and the long-standing U.S. policy of “even-handed diplomacy” vis-à-vis Israel and the PLO. It is sanctified by The New York Times, frequently by The Washington Post, and other so-called liberal newspapers that side with illiberal terrorist organizations committed to Israel’s destruction. “Moral reversal” may better describe the mentality of the mandarins of these sheltered media.

Their value-free journalists remind us of the cop Joe Friday: “just the facts ma’am.” This value-free or worth-less political journalism avoids the most interesting and profound questions of classical political science, which we associated with Aristotle. No wonder. Such questions are beyond the scope or intellectual competence of most political journalists. Besides, and with all due respect, political journalism must be superficial if the journalist is not to go too far above the intellect of most readers of the daily newspaper. Nor is this all.

Just as the typical reader may not be equal to the intellectual level of political science, so the political scientist may not be equal to the intellectual level of those who fashioned the basic principles of his discipline. Few political scientists have really plumbed the depths of Machiavelli, or would even designate him, as did the renowned Leo Strauss, “the philosopher of evil.” And even here Strauss preferred reticence; for Machiavelli, the godfather of countless semi-educated politicians in the West, prepared the ground, as mentioned, for the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism which is rendering the West incapable of confronting the moral absolutism of Islam.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is President of The Israel-America Renaissance Institute and retired professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University.

The obamanation about the jobs

by Daniel Downs

Last week, the media prophets of the left attempted to make the Obamanable economy look better than it actually is. They used the opening paragraph of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s monthly jobs situation report out of context. Like all proof-texting, they lifted the “good news” out-of-context in order to proclaim Obama’s stimulating policies were at last working.

Here is the opening statement of the BLS jobs report:

“The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 114,000.”

The unemployment rate in August was 8.1 percent resulting in a 0.3% decrease, and number of unemployed persons decreased 456,000 to 12.1 million. The number job losers and persons unemployed more than 5 months also decreased.

All good news for the economy, right?

Well, let’s look at the above total nonfarm employment increase figure of 114,000. The BLS jobs report showed job creation declined 41% from July to August. New jobs were added at a modest rated of 7% between August and September. The opposite was the case for government jobs. From July to August, the growth of government jobs increased 250 percent, but the rated decreased to 78% from August to September.

The Obamaites might have reason to celebrate the growth jobs, especially government jobs.

However, their rejoicing will not last long.

The problem is with part-time jobs. Part-time employment increased by 7 percent, the same rate as new private sector jobs.

Although employment is growing some, job growth under the Obamaite administration is still not all that great.

Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws to Silence Dissenters

By John W. Whitehead

What happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—has happened many times throughout history in totalitarian regimes.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum observes in Gulag: A History: “The exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself.”

The advent of psychiatry eliminated the need to exile political prisoners, allowing governments instead to declare such dissidents mentally ill and unfit for society. For example, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union often used psychiatric hospitals as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally through the use of electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures.

In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, Russian officials also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years. Administrative exile–which required no trial and no sentencing procedure–was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.

Sound familiar? This age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by declaring them mentally ill and locking them up in psychiatric wards for extended periods of time is a common practice in present-day China. What is particularly unnerving, however, is that this practice of making individuals disappear is happening with increasing frequency in America. Indeed, Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

It’s no coincidence that within days of Raub being seized at his Virginia home on August 16, 2012, and forcibly held in a VA psych ward, news reports started surfacing of other veterans having similar experiences. These incidents are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear. For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors. In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct.

Most recently, of course, Virginia’s civil commitment law was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub in a psychiatric ward. On Thursday, August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a virtual card game. In a hearing on August 20, government officials pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the sole reason for their concern and for his continued incarceration. Ignoring Raub’s explanations about the fact that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, Raub was sentenced to up to 30 days’ further confinement in a psychiatric ward.

On August 23, Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett declared the government’s case to be lacking in factual allegations and ordered Raub immediately released. However, for the tens of thousands of individuals detained—wrongfully or otherwise—under civil commitment laws every year, regaining their freedom is nearly impossible, predicated as it is on a bureaucratic legal and judicial system. The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced or declared unfit for society. Governmental authorities at all levels have made it abundantly clear that they want no one questioning their authority. And for those who do take to the streets to express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at Information about the Institute is available at

DNC, Ideology, and 9/11

In a recent email article, Paul Eidelberg commented about the Democrats efforts to remove God from their party platform before its 2012 National Convention held last week. He not only states the obvious when identifying the Democratioc Party as the party of atheism but he also sees its as representative of elimating the Declaration of Independence and Jews as well.

The following are excerpts:

“[T]he brouhaha at the DNC was not simply the God issue but also the inseparable Jew issue. One may arrive at this conclusion by noting the unholy alliance of Islam and the Left lurking at the Democratic Convention, which surfaced by the omission of God and Jerusalem from the initial draft of the DNC party program.

“Erasing God from the DNC party program is tantamount to erasing God from the Declaration. Since the God of the Declaration is the God of the Jewish Bible, the Democrats came close to symbolically erasing the Jews. It was as if Ahmadinejad was drafting the DNC program!

“Although the Democratic Party reversed itself on the God-issue, the motive was political, not theological. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the American Democratic Party is the party of atheism. The forthcoming November election will be the first election in American history in which the paramount issue—whether muted or not—is theological. America is approaching a climax of world-historical magnitude.”

Eidelberg goes to attribute the liberalism of the left as one of the main causes of anti-Semitism in Europe and America:

“The Left was weaned on Jew-hatred, as may be seen in Marx’s anti-Semitic diatribe, “On the Jewish Question.” Marx was a historical relativist. His relativism underlies Carl Becker’s book on the Declaration of Independence, and Charles Beard’s economic interpretation of the American Constitution. These two books were published in 1913. Beard’s book took academe by storm. Its Marxist-type relativism has not abated to this day; indeed, it’s well-entrenched in the White House!”

So what does the athiestic Democratic Party and the predominance of liberalism have to do with 9-11? Journalists have investigated numerous aspects of 9/11. One journalist delved into the background of the lead terrorist Mohammad Atta, who was born and raised in Egypt. The journalist discovered Atta was not religious at all. He was already a pilot before coming to America. He was fluent in many languages other than Arabic. He was well connected to government and security contractors. He even cursed God while partying. The point is he was not a devout religious jihadist. He lived like a moral relativist liberal.

One might infer from the above that motivation behind 9/11 was rooted in liberalism and its opposition to the moral and religious foundations of the American empire.