Journey to Capitalism


Ayn Rand 1967 Lecture on Capitalism

 

John R. Houk

© October 7, 2018

 

In my twenties (early 1980s) I became enlightened that the Democratic Party had moved to a political place that placed its moral make-up and stealth support of Socialist principles were antithetic to the Founding Fathers’ vision of a Constitutional Republic

 

And so, I abandoned supporting the political party my family insured was the way of thinking that saved America from the poverty of the Great Depression (circa 1929 through the 1930s decade). My Grandparents and mother lived through that devastating economic period in America. (I have since learned that Franklin Roosevelt’s policies may not have been as saving as my Grandparents and Parents were led to believe. But that is another story.)

 

As a former Dem I didn’t exactly embrace Ronald Reagan in the 1980 voting cycle. I fell for the line that Reagan was such a Hawk, he would push the nuke buttons ushering in WWIII. And I was so disenchanted with President Carter, there was no way I would vote for him. In 1980 I went Third Party. I voted for Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party.

 

In those days Ayn Rand writings were very influential among Libertarians thus that was my introduction into Randian Philosophy. I was addicted to all things Ayn Rand.

 

By 1980 I had been a Christian for two years. In case you didn’t know it, Christian Morality and Randian ethics influencing moral thinking do not line up well. You can guess the longer I have been a Christian, the more I gravitated away from an extreme affinity to Randian Objectivism Philosophy. And yet I still like Rand’s economic principles.

 

As such you should be aware Rand was a staunch Capitalist and very combative against Socialism and Communism. Ayn Rand was born into Czarist Russia in 1905. She endured the travesty of the Bolshevik (Communist) Revolution. She managed to complete her education and find a way to get out of the USSR in 1925 one year of graduating from a college in St. Petersburg (then Petrograd – later Leningrad then back to St. Petersburg). Rand passed away in America 3/6/1982. (Ayn Rand Lexicon bio)

 

I stumbled onto a lecture provided by Ayn Rand herself on Capitalism:

 

VIDEO: Ayn Rand – What Is Capitalism? (full course)

 

Posted by Ayn Rand Institute

Published on Sep 28, 2018

 

This 1967 lecture is Ayn Rand’s flagship talk on capitalism. In it she explains in depth what capitalism is, why it is often misunderstood and why it is the only social system consonant with man’s nature. She discusses the philosophical and ethical roots of capitalism, and contrasts them with the moral-philosophic doctrines that lead to rule by force. She then discusses progress under capitalism and how it is fundamentally different from the so-called progress of a statist society. Along the way, Rand takes up such questions as:

 

  • What is the essence of man’s nature?

 

  • What is the fundamental basis for the concept of individual rights?

 

  • How is capitalism consonant with man’s nature? Why are other social systems not consonant with it?

 

  • Why is serving “the common good” not a sound principle for governing a free society?

 

  • What are the different perspectives on “the good,” and how do they inform people’s views on what constitutes a proper social system?

 

  • What has been the ethical basis of all tyrannies in history?

 

  • Who prospers on a free market?

 

  • How does a free market unleash man’s creative abilities?

 

  • What is so often misunderstood about progress under capitalism?

 

This talk is excerpted from Rand’s substantially longer and more comprehensive essay of the same name. Students interested in mastering Rand’s views on capitalism are encouraged to study the full essay, available here, in addition to enjoying this course.

 

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI’S ONLINE PUBLICATION

https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=9fade2f9b83ee2374e147b57f&id=daf46abc98

 

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM6z9wqPxdRHjAC_Pjdp5yQ?sub_confirmation=1

 

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE

ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand’s books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand’s ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI’s experts today.

 

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION

https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/creditcard

 

READ THE REST

 

JRH 10/7/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

 

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

 

President Trump has long formulated an “Ultimate Deal” between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. I am not going to lay out the perceived details of such a deal because so far those details seem to be a bit fluid. Meaning the Trump team hasn’t nailed down an internal agreement. My guess for that is negativity against potential details from Leftist supporters of the fake-Palestinians and some Jew-hating Muslim apologists globally as well some Arab nations.

 

In full disclosure, I’m a Christian Zionist. In case you haven’t realized it, ultimately that means I have little sympathy for the pseudo-Palestinian Arabs that can never pinpoint a historical period in which an Arab speaking nation of people called Palestinian EVER existed. INDEED, the current Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are overwhelmingly descendants of migrating Arabs outside the area who showed up after returning Jews began modernizing the land then managed by Ottoman Turks made employment attractive.

 

Prior to Arab immigration, the longstanding inherent Arabs were exploited peasants at the mercy of rich Muslim tenant owners who mismanaged the Land of the Jews into swamps and unusable agricultural land further impoverishing the shrinking peasant tenant farmers.

 

Thus my stand on Israel is leads toward disenfranchising hostile Arabs deporting them for sedition even if it means a forced depopulation of Arabs that do not accept the existence of the Jewish State of Israel. My Christian Zionist predilection of believing in the Jewish return to their Biblically promised homeland is my primary reasoning. And yes, I realize in the realm of political correctness, my ultimate plan for a One-State Solution is incomprehensible to Leftist Multiculturalists. I don’t care. Whatever hastens the return of Jesus the Messiah is the only realistic solution for world peace. (And yes I realize the Messiah concept produces misgivings among Observant Jews. But remember, I am not calling for any harm to Jews. I believe the Return of Jesus will inspire Jews rather than irritate them. SO, I stand with Jews for the Jewish State of Israel.)

 

The inspiration for these thoughts is some commentary by Martin Sherman on the President Trump initiative for the “Ultimate Deal” for Israel/Arab peace in the Middle. I found it in Ted Belman’s Israpundit.

 

JRH 9/23/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**************************

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

By Martin Sherman

Intro by Ted Belman

Email Alert Sent: 9/22/2018 3:17 PM

Israpundit

 

T. Belman.Martin’s point is that the “ultimate deal” must include incentivised emigration. I agree. In my article Trump’s Deal of the Century, I made no mention of this as I considered it to be the second stage of the process. First things first, namely end the Oslo Accords, UNRWA and the “peace process”. And finally destroy the Palestinian narrative. I did not want to jeopardize those very significant gains by suggesting that incentivised emigration must be part of the first deal.

Nevertheless the first deal as described by me includes a Jordanian initiative to incentivize emigration of Palestinians by providing free housing and jobs as the incentives. Also there is nothing to prevent Israel or others from providing further incentives.

I made it clear that the first deal, (Deal of the Century), includes Israel sovereignty west of the Jordan River. Pursuant to that sovereignty, Israel would appoint administrators of the former Area A namely a friendly Jordan. It is understood, though not mentioned, that Jordan would amend the text books and cirriculae [sic] for all students under its care to one acceptable to Israel. Jordan would be no more than the agent of Israel while admistering [sic] Area A and in no way autonomous.

 

By Martin Sherman

 

Trump EO to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

 

The potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team should not be the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”

 

…we will not put forth a plan or endorse a plan that doesn’t meet all of Israel’s security issues because they are of extreme importance to us—Jason GreenblattAssistant to the President & special representative for international negotiations, JNS, September 12, 2018.

 

…To defend itself Israel must retain control over the Jordan valley…[A]ny future arrangement must include Israeli control of the mountain ridge and a demilitarized Palestinian state…[T]o defend itself Israel must control the airspace over the West Bank—Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace, The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 25, 2010.

 

…Arab officials say, Mr. Kushner is pushing the idea of a confederation between Jordan and the Palestinian rump of the West Bank. Far from new thinking, this recycles one of the oldest mantras of Israeli irredentism: that the Palestinians already have a state—Jordan.—David Gardner, “Trump’s ‘deal of the century’ offers nothing good to Palestinians”, Financial Times, September 5, 2018.

 

In recent weeks, there has been a spate of media speculation that the White House is soon to release details of the Trump administration’s ultimate peace deal to end the century-long conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land.

 

Although almost no details have been revealed by official sources, rumors abound as to some of its more important components—and others have been inferred on the basis of some already implemented elements of Trump’s Mid-East policy.

 

Some transformative measures

 

Opening of US Embassy in Jerusalem: May 14, 2018.

 

Since the start of his presidency, Donald Trump has undertaken some bold, far reaching measures that have, in some significant ways, potentially transformed the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. These have all been unequivocally favorable to Israel and considerably undermine long-held Palestinians positions.

 

Thus, Trump has largely preempted the question of the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—albeit not its precise geographical extent. Likewise, he exposed the enduring and egregious anomaly of the Palestinian “refugee” ruse, terminating all US funding to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency(, the UN body charged with dealing with the Palestinian-Arab refugees and their multi-generational descendants. This burgeoning population has been held in political limbo for decades as stateless refugees until such day as they can exercise their illusionary “Right of Return” and reoccupy their now non-existent homes inside Israel, abandoned in 1948 and 1967.

 

As a direct derivative of the decision to defund UNRWA and to dispute the refugee status of millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent—resident in Arab countries for decades—there has been a flurry of reports suggesting another ground-breaking US initiative. According to these reports, the Trump administration is seriously considering engaging Arab countries over the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian-Arabs living as “refugees” within their borders, and their absorption as citizens of their host nations.

 

If implemented, such an initiative—which this writer has been promoting for almost a decade-and-a-half—would clearly take the “Right of Return” off the table and remove one of the most intractable—arguably the most intractable—issue from the agenda.

 

The question of durability

 

Although these are, of course, greatly welcome developments from Israel’s point of view and were totally inconceivable under earlier administrations—the previous one in particular—a word of caution is called for.

 

After all, just as such measures were unthinkable under the Obama administration, there is no way to ensure their durability under a post-Trump administration. Indeed, given the pathological animus toward the president from his political adversaries on the one hand; and the growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Democratic Party, on the other, there is good reason for concern that if a Democratic president were to be elected, a concerted effort would be made to undo anything perceived as a “Trump’s legacy”—including, perhaps, especially—his Mid-East policy initiatives.

 

Thus, just as a presidential decision precipitated the US’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal, the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the shuttering of the PLO office in Washington, the defunding of UNRWA and emerging rejection of the “Right of Return,” so can any contrary presidential decision reverse them—or at least largely neutralize them.

 

Moreover, the closer Israel is perceived to be to the Trump administration, the harsher and more vindictive the backlash is liable to be, should the Democrats regain the White House?—?particularly with the growing erosion of bipartisanship over Israel.

 

The hazards of hubris

 

Of course, this caveat should not be interpreted as a call for reticence in accepting the GOP’s warm embrace. Indeed, that would be both detrimentally counterproductive and inappropriately ungrateful.

 

It should however, be seen as warning against complacency and as a caution that more inclement times may well be ahead. For, at this stage, little can be more hazardous than hubris.

 

It is essential that Israel now undertake a vigorous initiative to cement these unexpected favorable developments and ensure that they cannot be easily undone by future administrations.

 

This must be accomplished by a comprehensive strategic endeavor, both at the diplomatic level, aimed at changing hearts and minds and at the physical level, aimed at changing facts on the ground.

 

The diplomatic component must be directed at undermining the Palestinian claims to statehood west of the Jordan River—by discrediting and delegitimizing the “Palestinian narrative”. The physical component must be directed at making the Jewish presence in Judea-Samaria irrevocable—by launching a largescale construction drive to increase the Jewish population beyond “the point of no return”.

 

Without such a strategic initiative, any welcome gains that have accrued to Israel because of Trump’s largely unexpected—and certainly unpredicted—electoral victory will remain potentially ephemeral—exposed and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the bile or the bias of some anti-Trump successor in the White House.

 

Rumors cause for concern?

 

But the potential impermanence of the positive measures already undertaken by the Trump team is not the only reason for Israeli concern over the brewing “ultimate deal”. For the rumors swirling around the ongoing contacts between US officials and various figures in the Arab world could also well be cause for alarm.

 

These rumors relate to the eventual source of authority envisioned for the governance of the territory beyond the 1967 lines in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Some rumors refer to giving Jordan (whether under the current Hashemite regime or under some yet-to-be determined successor) a range of civilian powers to govern the Arab residents there. Others raise the possibility of likewise empowering a reformed and repentant Palestinian Authority—with or without some affiliation to Jordan. Yet others relate to the possibility of engaging “alternative Palestinians” as a more pliant alternative to the recalcitrant Abbas, to manage the civilian affairs of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria.

 

All these suggested alternatives miss the most crucial point for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

This is that they all entail the permanent presence of a large, potentially hostile Arab population, resident in territory vital to Israel’s security-and nurtured on decades of Judeocidal incitement and exposed to irredentist influences from the wider Arab/Muslim world. It therefore makes little difference what/who the envisaged source of formal authority is over this population, since its continued presence in the commanding highlands adjacent to Israel’s most populous area will render any “deal” –ultimate or otherwise?—?inherently unstable and potentially perilous for Israel.

 

Accordingly, if all the steps taken hitherto by the Trump administration do not converge towards synthesis of a single, unequivocal outcome, they will—despite all their positive features—eventually be of little—if any—avail. At least if the goal is for Israel to endure permanently as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 

The autonomy paradox?

 

As I have been at pains to underscore repeatedly in the past, for Israel to indeed endure as the nation state of the Jews, it must extend its sovereignty over all the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—including the highlands that protect Israel from invasion/infiltration from the East, and ensure the security of its coastal megalopolis in the West. But Israel’s sovereignty over this territory is incompatible with providing authority to any other party that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of that sovereignty.

 

This is something that the rumored formats of Trump’s “ultimate deal” seem to overlook. After all, the only reason to suggest allowing Arab governance (whether Jordanian or Palestinian) over the Arab population in Judea-Samaria is that they reject the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty.

 

Indeed, this highlights the underlying contradiction in any attempt to confer “autonomy” (i.e. limited authority) on any Arab entity under Israeli sovereignty (i.e. unlimited authority) in the context of the conflict between Jew and Arab. For any “autonomous” arrangement to be inherently stable, it is essential that the autonomous entity acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the sovereign entity (Israel). But this is precisely the reverse of the underlying rationale of all the proposals to grant some Arab entity limited authority to govern the Arab population in Judea-Samaria.

 

Here, such authority is being granted precisely because the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty is rejected and hence, every limitation imposed on the authority of the Arab entity will be resented, and rejected—creating endless potential for friction.

 

The sovereignty imperative

 

Carcinogenic emission from Palestinian charcoal production

 

This will be particularly acute at the interface between areas under full Jewish sovereignty and those under Arab autonomy and in contending with cross-border issues, such as pollution (particularly the carcinogenic emissions of the wide spread charcoal industry), sewage, pollution from industrial effluents, agricultural run-offs, treatment of transmissible diseases, compulsory inoculation of livestock and rabies and so on Who would be charged with setting standards for dealing with these matters and for enforcing those standards? Israel or the Arab entity? If the Arab entity, how would Israel protect its citizens from the resultant hazards if those standards were not enforced? If Israel, what would remain of the authority of the Arab entity, which would be virtually emptied of all substance?

 

Similar questions could be raised for almost every walk of life. Would Israel impose standards of road safety for vehicles on its roads? If not, what would the consequences be? Would Israel determine the content of education to prevent continued incitement? If so, how would this erode the authority of the Arab entity? If not, how would Israel contain the consequences of such incitement?

 

These questions are thrown into even sharper relief when it comes to matters of law and order and security. If, for example, Jordan were given authority to run civilian affairs in Arab populated areas, what would happen in case of insurrection and Israel were compelled to use force to quell the violence? Could Jordan accept the use of force against those in its charge? How would it justify inaction to the rest of Arab world?

 

Worse, what if an assumedly amicable regime were given administrative status west of the Jordan River and, for reasons beyond Israel’s control, it was replaced by a far less amicable one? Would Israel continue to grant powers of governance to an inimical entity?

 

These are merely a sampling of the myriad of unavoidable and intractable questions with which the architects of the “ultimate deal” will have to contend—and whose significance and severity the Israeli leadership will have to convey to its American counterparts—lest ill-considered and irreversible decisions are made.

 

In the final analysis

 

In the final analysis, there is only one “ultimate deal” that can ensure Israel’s long-term survival as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This requires Israel extending its sovereignty over the entire territory—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

 

The only way Israel can do this, without being compelled to rule over a recalcitrant non-Jewish population, which rejects the legitimacy of its sovereignty, is to remove that population from the territory over which it must exert sovereign rule.

 

The only way it can do this without engaging in forced expulsion, is by material inducements?—?a.k.a. incentivized emigration.

 

So simple. So logical. So incontrovertible!  The real conundrum is why others don’t embrace it as the “ultimate deal”.

 

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

__________________________

Israel is Jewish, That’s My Ultimate Deal

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2018

______________________

INTO THE FRAY The rumored “ultimate deal”: Potential payoffs and possible pitfalls.

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

 

Lederman Islam Education Program


Edited by John R. Houk

By Michael Lederman

Posted August 28, 2018

I ran into a couple of posts from the G+ Community Islam: The Truth penned by Michael Lederman. I like Lederman’s post because he believes the information he provides about Islam is educational rather than confrontational. “Confrontation” is probably what I’m more often accused of because I can be a bit hostile by detractors of my blog posts.

 

For you Counterjihadists and Conservatives as well as you Leftist Multiculturalists and pro-Islam Apologists, prepare to discover the Lederman Education Program.

 

(Lederman titles are this Blog Editor’s best guess according to the essay’s content.)

 

JRH 8/28/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Questioning Islam

By Michael Lederman

Aug 21, 2018

Islam: The Truth

Quran

 

Muhammad and His Captives: Massacres, Atrocities, and Torture

An important test of a man’s character is his conduct towards those who are weak or in a vulnerable position. In Muhammad’s case, the group to which this description could be most readily applied was the captives who came under his control when their tribes were defeated by the Muslims. Muhammad may have been teaching his followers to call upon Allah as the ‘Merciful and Compassionate’, but his treatment of those whom his forces captured was often exactly the opposite of these values. In this section, it will be shown how Muslim forces engaged in human trafficking, rape, torture and genocide with his full approval and sometimes active participation. It should be stressed once again that what is related here comes from highly respected Muslim sources and not from raving critics of Islam. Full references are provided in case you are interested in verifying the accuracy of what is being related.

Muhammad ordered the torture of a man who had custody of a treasure.

In the aftermath of the Battle of Khaibar, Muhammad was desperate to get his hands on some of the wealth of the Jewish tribes that were vanquished by the Muslims. So desperate, in fact, that he did not shrink from torture as a means of gaining information. Ibn Ishaq106 relates the following:

 

Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came, to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” He said “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.”

Little more needs to be added to Ibn Ishaq’s account of this horrible incident and the way in which it gives us an insight into the character of Muhammad. Suffice it to say that lighting a fire on the chest of a fellow human being to satisfy your greed is not something that we would readily associate with a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21107).

Muhammad “married’ a woman on the same day her husband and most of her family were killed.

As if the fate that befell Kinana al Rabi was not bad enough, Muhammad also had his wife in his sights. In line with the practice of the Muslim armies, the women of the Jewish tribe were captured after the Battle of Khaibar. One of his followers named Dihya came to Muhammad and asked:

 

O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.” Instead of scolding Dihya for seeking to enslave a vulnerable fellow human being, Muhammad says: “Go and take any slave girl.”

 

He took Safiya bint Huyai. It should be noted at this point that the man who requested a slave girl was probably not looking for someone to clean his house. The Qur’an makes it clear that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with “those whom your right hand possesses” (Qur’an 4:24). What is in view here is sexual slavery in other words. Encouraged by Muhammad, Dihya goes and picks a slave girl. It is, however, pointed out to Muhammad that she was the wife of the, now dead, “head of the tribe of Jews”:

 

“A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’ Anas added: ‘The Prophet then manumitted her and married her.’” (Sahih Bukhari 8:1:367)

So on the very day when her world is destroyed by the violent actions of the Muslims (including the horribly violent and gruesome murder of her husband) and while she was no doubt still deeply in shock she is ‘married’ to Muhammad: The leader of the group who carried out the atrocities against her and her people. It is clear that she had no say in the matter. This is confirmed by the fact that Muhammad changes her name to Safiya, a humiliating word play indicating that she is part of the fifth of the booty that is due to Muhammad (Qur’an 8:41108). This is related as follows in Sunan Abu Dawud 2987:

 

“Qatadah said: When the Apostle of Allah participated in a battle, there was for him a special portion which he took from where he desired. Safiyyah was from that portion.”

 

It is interesting to note that the memory of the shocking and terrible circumstances under which Safiya was married to Muhammad lingered on in the Muslim community, often manifesting in questions about her loyalty. At least some members of the community clearly thought that it would be only natural for her to take revenge for what was done to her.

Muhammad allowed his followers to rape captive women.

In one of the most disturbing hadiths of the Sahih Muslim collection, some of Muhammad’s followers came to him with a question about the treatment of captive women. His answer was staggering in its callousness and its implications for later Muslim conduct during war:

 

“We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing “azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it (withdraw before climaxing), for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” (Sahih Muslim 3371, see also Sahih Bukhari 34:176:2229109)

So here we have a group of Muslim men raping captive women while taking care to withdraw before they reach the point of climax. Instead of furiously commanding them to stop such vile conduct and taking the women into his protection, Muhammad cheerfully instructs his followers to do to the women whatever they desired! To make matters even worse, Muslim tradition states that the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed precisely to ease the qualms of Muslim warriors about having sex with enslaved captives:

 

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess” (Qur’an 4:24)

 

So according to the world of Allah if “your right hand possesses” a woman, sex with her is totally lawful even if she is married!

Muhammad participated in a massacre where boys were killed simply for having pubic hair.

In the course of his campaigns, Muhammad came across the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. This tribe surrendered to him. After being disarmed, it was judged that the men of the tribe had to be put to the sword. Muhammad declared that this was in line with Allah’s judgment (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:447110). He then proceeded to actively participate in the massacre of these unfortunate unarmed men. According to Ibn Ishaq111:

 

“The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”

At least 600 unarmed males were killed in this way. It is clear that this massacre did not only include men of fighting age but also young boys. This is the testimony of a survivor:

 

“Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.” (Abu Dawud 38:4390)

 

The common response by Muslim apologists to charges related to this terrible massacre is to point to the alleged treachery of the tribe and to say something along the lines of ‘They deserved it’. This assertion can be challenged, but I will not do so here. I want to, instead, focus on the fact that boys of around 10-11 (the average age of the onset of male puberty) were massacred. The following questions should be asked to those who attempt to defend Muhammad’s actions in this instance:

Points To Ponder

What influence could these poor children have had on the policies of their elders that would justify their execution?

Why was such an utterly arbitrary measure (looking for pubic hair) used to decide who will die?

Is this kind of rough justice really what we would expect from a ‘perfect example’?

+++++++++++++++++

Michael Lederman responds to pro-Islam post from “Star Game” on G+ Community Islam: The Truth. Star Games post link: https://plus.google.com/113386995265761129876/posts/TFzcT4pZes5 on date 8/26/18 5:54 PM.

 

It’s in the Quran

Michael Lederman Owner of Islam: The Truth

 

You can post all the lovely portions of the Quran you like but we know about Islamic Abrogation and how most of these, if not all, have been replaced. Now let us not discuss what the Quran says but how Muslims, many of whom would find you to be less Islamic than they actually show the Quran’s teachings by their actions.

The fighting and killing in Islam. Well, let me tell you something. It is very interesting, really interesting that in the US we have a different kind of Islam. Muslim clerics in the US want to present to us a kind Islam, Islam of brotherly love, Islam of friendship. Is that the Islam in the Quran? It is not! The Quran is very explicit to tell the Muslims, “Go fight and kill.” And if we see a young man, 20 years, or 18 years in Palestine, and putting a bomb around themselves, and making a suicidal bomb, and kill himself and kill some Israelis, it is not an invention of the Hamas, or the Hezboulah, or anybody. It is the Quran.

 

The Quran says, “Go fight, fight, fight.” So if we want to see fighting, and the killing, in the Quran, let us read the words of the Quran. And I will begin with the words in surat Al Anfal, that is surat 8, and verse 65, “Oh, prophet Mohammed.” Listen, Allah is talking to Mohammed because this is what the Muslims believe. “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight.” What? “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight?

 

When Jesus spoke to His disciples, He said, “Love your enemy. Pray for those who persecute you.”

 

But here, “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight,” fighting is by inciting Muslims to fight.

 

And then, we go to another surat, and that is in the Quran, in surat (Al Bakara, that is surat number 2, verse 216, “Jihad (this is fighting, holy fighting in Allah’s name) is ordained for you, Muslims.” Now, if someone will come and say that those who are fighting, Jews and Christians are fighting then because they are fanatics, they do not know Islam. No! When I went on the national TV, years ago, and I said in very plain words, “If you are a faithful Muslim, you are obliged to fight Jews and Christians, because Jihad, the holy fighting in Allah’s name is ordained for you, ” you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which it is good, and that you like a thing which is bad for you. But fighting is ordained for Muslims.

Then we go to another verse, in the very same surat, in verse 244, “And the fight in the way of Allah (that is in surat number 2, verse 244), and know that Allah is all hearer, or knowing.” Fight in the name of Allah? Well, in one of my books I said that, if God is almighty then he should fight for himself. In fact, one time I talked to a Muslim cleric in Egypt, and he said to me, “If I had the power, I would make all Egypt Muslim.” I said, “But what mean?” He said, “By force, by sword. Fight in the name of Allah.” And I looked at him and I said, “Listen, your god is so weak!” “What?” “Listen, let us use our brains for one second, if you will. Who will fight for whom? The weak will fight for the strong, or the strong will fight for the weak?” He said, “Of course that the strong will fight for the weak.” I said, “Then, if God is almighty, He doesn’t need you to fight for him. Leave him to fight for himself. He can do it! But to fight for him, this is an indication that god is weak. Forgive me, but this is my understanding.” But this is what the Quran is saying.

Then we continue, and we will see, in surat(Al Taouba), that is surat number 9, and verse 29, you see, Allah is telling the Muslims to fight the Jews and the Christians in particular. Sometimes when I read the Quran I think, why didn’t he insight the Muslims to fight against Buddhists, Hindus? Why Jews and Christians? Whose wars? Well, we read in surat(Al Anfal), that is surat number 8, verse 63, no, I think I misplaced that. I’ll go back to that surat (Al Taouba), surat number 29, verse 29,

 

“fight against those who believe not in Allah; nor in the last day, nor forbid that which have been forbidden by Allah and his messenger Mohammed; and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth, Islam, among the people of the scripture.”

 

Who are the people of the scriptures? Jews and Christians. “you fight them until they pay the Gizia, the poll tax, the elevated tax, with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” This is very clear command for Muslims to go and fight Jews and Christians until they defeat them. And if the Christian and the Jew want to keep his religion, he should pay taxes to the Islamic government with his feeling of inferiority. I am a Christian but I am inferior. You, the Muslim, are superior. I am inferior. And you are protecting me, so I pay a poll tax, here is my tax. You buy your religion with taxes?

Well, I commented on that verse in one of my books, and I said, “You can exchange Islam with taxes.” It is very plain. Pay taxes, keep your Jewish religion or Christian religion. You can exchange Islam with taxes, money with Islam. And this is here, kill, kill, kill. See, and in many other verses, the Quran is saying what is the punishment of those who are against Allah and his messenger, Mohammed: to be crucified, to cut their hands and their legs, or to be cast away from the society. What kind of religion is that? Killing, killing, killing.

 

Killing is not an invention of fanatics. Killing is in the Quran, and I want to let, to get anybody who is really honest to himself, and tell him, “Tell me, don’t talk about friendship.” It is very interesting to notice one thing, that in one of the verses of the Quran it says, “Muslims, do not befriend Jews or Christians.” Period. But it came of the invasion of Iraq, of Kuwait. The Muslims forgot all about that.

 

And they came to the Christian country, to the US, and said, “Please, help us.” But the Quran said don’t befriend them, don’t ask for their protection, don’t go to them for help! How come that you are coming now to the US and England, and France, “Help us!” Because when it comes to politics, the Quran is forgotten, especially in the high places. And I want any Muslim to think about it seriously. This is not an attack on Islam, this is to open the minds and the eyes of the people to think. And I want people to think. God gave us brains to use it. And if I am not going to use my brain, I will give an account. If this is light I’d say it is light. If this is darkness, I’d say it is darkness. But to say that darkness is light and light is darkness, gray places, it is not that way.

 

There is killing in the Quran, there is torture in the Quran; there is much pain for the people living under the Islamic society if they are Jews or Christians. They are! They are always looked at as second-class citizens. And they don’t have the right to stand up and raise their head. They are inferior, and we are the superior, and that is it. I don’t think that anybody who reads the Quran could deny what I have said. I mentioned the verse, verse after verse, after verse. But let me tell you, I didn’t mention all the verse. There are a lot of verses that tell, that is telling the Muslim, “Go, torture, kill, go, fight, kill.”

______________________

Michael Lederman photo from G+ Profile page

©Michael Lederman

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Intro to Jay Smith Lecture on Islam Origins


John R. Houk, Editor

© August 26, 2018

 

 

Jay Smith Ph.D. (photo Wikipedia)

 

The Vlad Tepes Blog posted a video on the origins of Islam. The video is about one-hour and nine-minutes and 48-seconds. It is presented as a history lecture by Jay Smith.

 

In all honesty, as of this writing, I have not watched the entirety on this truth exposed video. I will be going back and watching it incrementally to get the full gist of Jay Smith’s theme. May I suggest you do the same unless you have more time than I do. In which case, knock yourself out and watch the whole video in one sitting.

 

I am relying on the Vlad Tepes Counterjihad reputation for the reliability of the Smith lesson. Ergo, watch and learn.

 

Here is a Wikipedia excerpt explaining Jay Smith’s credentials as a legitimate scholar that is more than able to show the truth of Islam’s nature:

 

Jay Smith (born 1953)[1] Jay Smith is a Christian evangelistapologist and polemicist. Since 1983, he has been a full-time missionary with the Brethren in Christ Mission with a focus on apologetics and polemics among the Muslims of London.

 

 

Focus on Islam

 

In 1981, while studying for his masters, Smith attended a seminar on Islam and noting that there were only 1,500 Christians ministering to Muslims worldwide, he decided to become a missionary to the Muslim world and pursued a second master’s degree in Islamic studies from Fuller Theological Seminary.[1]

 

In 1987, Smith moved to Senegal as a missionary and in 1992, he moved to London[1] where he continued his education at the School of Oriental and African Studies[5][6] and the London School of Theology In 2001, he halted his education to concentrate on apologetics following a series of Islamic terrorist attacks, including the attack of September 11, 2001.[1]

 

In 2010, Smith resumed work on his Ph.D at the Melbourne School of Theology which he completed in March of 2017[1]He helped run the Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, which emphasises the use of Polemics with Muslims alongside Apologetics,[1][2] and has made appearances at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, London[1][7][8][9] for over 24 years. Smith also engages in formal public debates with prominent Muslim apologists and scholars including Omar Bakri MuhammadAzzam Tamimi[3]Shabir Ally[10][11]Anjem Choudary[4]Abdur Raheem Green[6] and Edip Yüksel[5]and South African Muslim apologist Yusuf Ismail on peace and violence in the Qur’an and the Bible.

 

Smith believes that although both Islam and Christianity include radicals, moderates, and liberals, it is radical Muslims that commit violence as they take the Qur’an seriously, while radical Christians who also take the Bible seriously serve others in love. He claims that radical Muslims model their lives on Muhammad, while radical Christians model their lives on Jesus Christ.[11] Smith believes the growth in radical Islam in Britain is due to disaffected Muslims, often minimally religious, returning to their Islamic roots. He says that after reading the Islamic scriptures, (the Qur’an in conjunction with the hadithtafsir, and sira), they come to the conclusion that the Salafi/Athari understanding is the true form of Islam.[2] Smith also believes that although Western actions in the Islamic world can instigate Muslim discontent, it is the Islamic scriptures that encourage the violence. He also rues the fact that moderate Muslims are not able to challenge the radicals using scripture because he believes the radicals have the scriptural authority.[2] Smith believes that ultimately Muslims and others will realize that the Muslim scriptures, coupled with the example of their prophet Muhammad are irrelevant to modern times.[2] (Jay Smith (Christian apologist); Wikipedia; last edited on 7/30/18 20:55 (UTC))

 

JRH 8/26/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

VIDEO: Petra Was The Original Mecca

 

Posted by DragonDriver100

Published on Aug 16, 2016

 

Jay Smith The Historical Origins of Islam.

 

The Land of the Jews is NON-Discriminatory!


John R. Houk

© August 2, 2018

On July 19, 2018 the Israel Knesset (Israel’s form of Parliament/Congress) passed the Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People. As an American this might be understood as an Amendment process with the force of constitutional law. In essence the law defines the Land of Israel as a Jewish State. A fact the Israeli government has maintained since the 1948 independence from the British Mandate for Palestine and the ensuing war to fight for a national existence against roughly six invading Arab armies intent on Israel’s destruction and the genocide of repatriated Jews determined to free their land from foreign control. A freedom desired by faithful Jews ever since the Jewish exile executed by the Roman Empire in the early 100s AD (Common Era [CE] to non-Christian and secularist academic world). This exile was termed the Jewish Diaspora for nearly 2,000 years.

 

Despite the idiocy of Leftist Multiculturalist and self-loathing Jewish Leftists who are screaming Apartheid racism, this Basic Law changes nothing to the legal Rights of non-Jewish Israeli citizens. I should add Jew-hating Muslims to the list of misinformed whiners spreading and listening to the propaganda.

 

Below are articles explaining the truth of how the Basic Law of Israel the Nation State of the Jewish People actually affects individual rights of ALL Israeli citizens. There is NOT even a hint of Apartheid racism making non-Jews second class discriminated people as Black people were in old South Africa, the Jim Crow laws of pre-Civil Rights USA or even as non-Muslims are treated TODAY in Muslim dominated nations!

 

JRH 8/2/18

Please Support NCCR

*************************

This Year in Jerusalem – explaining the new Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State

 

By Phyllis Singer 

August 2, 2018

The American Israelite

 

The following information from AICE (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) explains the new Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State. There has been much controversy about the new law, and I think this information from AICE helps to clarify it. Israel has no constitution; instead a series of Basic Laws determines the legal aspects of the country.

 

On July 19, 2018, Israel adopted a new Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People. The law provoked controversy inside and outside of Israel. After the vote, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said:

 

“This is a defining moment in the annals of Zionism and in the history of the State of Israel. Today, 122 years after [Theodor] Herzl shared his vision, we have established into law the basic principles of our existence. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. A nation state that respects the individual rights of all its citizens and, in the Middle East, only Israel respects these rights. This is our state, the state of the Jews. In recent years there have been some who have attempted to cast doubt on this, and so to undercut the foundations of our existence and our rights. Today we etched in the stone of law: This is our state, this is our language, this is our anthem, and this is our flag (extracted from multiple news sources with slightly different translations).”

 

As Netanyahu said, this law codifies Israel’s status as the “national home of the Jewish people.” The law also declares Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, sets the Hebrew calendar as the state’s official calendar and confirms Shabbat and Jewish holidays as official days of rest while allowing non-Jews to determine their own rest days and holidays. It recognizes the current national flag as the official one, the menorah as the state’s symbol and “Hatikvah” as the national anthem. It also states that Israel will endeavor to ensure the safety of all Jews and “preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora.”

 

Some critics have suggested the law should have included the word equality. For example, Amir Fuchs, head of the Defending Democratic Values Program at the Israel Democracy Institute, said, “It is difficult to understand why the authors of this bill insist not to include this important value.” Supporters of the law counter the existing Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty defines Israel’s democratic character, but the new law was needed because Israel’s Jewish character was not embedded in constitutional law.

 

The law also enshrines the Zionist idea upon which the nation was founded, namely that Israel is a country established to fulfill the Jewish people’s “right to national self-determination.” Legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich notes that seven European states have similar “nationhood” constitutional provisions. … Furthermore, no nation grants a right to self-determination to a minority within its borders; otherwise the Basques in Spain and Kurds in Turkey or Iraq would have their own states. This clause is also a response to Israel’s detractors, such as advocates of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, who assert this right belongs to the Palestinians and not the Jewish people.

 

Much of the criticism of the law focused on the establishment of Hebrew as Israel’s sole official language. Formerly Arabic was also an official state language (as was English). Any alteration of a long-established status quo is jarring; however, the recognition of Hebrew is consistent with the policies of other countries which give official status only to the majority language. The previous recognition of Arabic was a remnant of the British Mandatory period and does not reflect today’s reality in which 80 [percent] of Israelis, including most Arabs, speak Hebrew. The law specifically states that it “does not change the status given to the Arabic language before the basic law was created” in any other way. Hence, Arabic speakers are no more discriminated against than minorities in more than 100 countries that have a single national language. …

 

Another clause that sparked controversy states that Israel will “encourage and promote” Jewish settlement around the country. The language was deliberately altered so as not to suggest this would lead to the creation of Jewish-only towns, however, some critics feared it would be interpreted as if that was the intention. Indeed, Israel’s enemies interpreted it that way, arguing the law promotes segregation.

 

David Hazony, executive director of the Israel Innovation Fund, noted that some critics have interpreted this clause as promoting Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. While that may be the political goal of some of its supporters, Hazony said the “word being translated as settlement is hityashvut, which to any Israeli ear refers more to the Galilee and the Negev and the history of building new Jewish communities a century ago across the country than it does to the West Bank.”

 

Kontorovich adds that this clause is consistent with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which sought to “encourage … close settlement by Jews.” More important, he says it does not “prescribe or authorize any particular policies” unlike, for example, the state constitution of Hawaii, which Kontorovich notes “authorizes land policies to promote homesteading by ethnic Hawaiians, and provides preferential land policies for them.” Kontorovich adds that Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that Arabs have a right to create residential communities in Israel that exclude Jews, but Jews do not have the same right to exclude Arabs.

 

One indication of the double standard applied to Israel is that no international uproar followed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ declaration that not “a single Israeli” would be permitted to live in a Palestinian state. …

 

The law did provoke negative reactions around the world and angered many non-Jews in Israel. This does not make it either undemocratic or discriminatory. Kontorovich explained:

 

“In reality, Israel’s Basic Law would not be out of place among the liberal democratic constitutions of Europe – which include similar provisions that have not aroused controversy. The law does not infringe on the individual rights of any Israeli citizen, including Arabs; nor does it create individual privileges. The illiberalism here lies with the law’s critics, who would deny the Jewish state the freedom to legislate like a normal country.”

 

In the case of the Nation State Law, members of Knesset voted by a 62-55 majority to approve the legislation. This is democracy in action. Still, like Americans, Israelis can challenge laws in court, and three Knesset members have already done so, one sign of the health of Israel’s democracy. … Another indication is the ability of Israelis to vote for new representatives who could revoke or alter the law if they can convince a majority of all Knesset members a change is warranted.

 

Even a critic of the law, IDI President Yohanan Plesner, admitted the practical impact of the bill was currently merely “symbolic and educational.” He said it “won’t have immediate concrete implications.” IDI vice president Yuval Shani added, “It is not a game changer and has very little problematic implications. … It won’t change how the country is run.”

 

[**Blog Editor: Source links added by blog Editor.]

++++++++++++++++++++

Excerpt of Times of Israel post: “Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People”

 

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

 

2 — The symbols of the state

A. The name of the state is “Israel.”

B. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

C. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

E. Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

 

3 — The capital of the state

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

 

4 — Language

A. The state’s language is Hebrew.

B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

 

5 — Ingathering of the exiles

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

 

6 — Connection to the Jewish people

A. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

B. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

C. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

 

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

 

8 — Official calendar

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of  the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

 

9 — Independence Day and memorial days

A. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

 

10 — Days of rest and sabbath

The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

 

11 — Immutability

 

This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

 

(From: Final text of Jewish nation-state law, approved by the Knesset early on July 19; By RAOUL WOOTLIFF; Times of Israel; 7/18/18 2:45 pm – Updated 7/19/18 3:27 am)

++++++++++++++++++++

Bogus Apartheid Claims Follow Passage of Israel Nation-State Law

 

By Ariel Behar

Aug 1, 2018 1:45 pm

Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

Anti-Israel groups in the United States are using a recently passed Israeli law to ramp up false claims of apartheid. The “nation-state” bill defines Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people” with Jerusalem as its capital.

 

“Israel arrogantly enshrines Jim Crow laws,” the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at New York’s New School blasted on Facebook.

 

“Apartheid is a legal term, not an insult. It’s the most suitable label to describe Israel’s treatment of millions of Palestinians over the last seven decades,” read a graphic shared via Facebook by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

 

SJP and JVP are known for their animosity towards Israel. The groups normalize hatepromote anti-Semitism, and previously hosted convicted-terrorist Rasmieh Odeh at a national conference in 2017.

 

“What this law really does is it enshrines racisms and discrimination and like you said apartheid into the foundational constitutional law of the state of Israel,” JVP Executive Director Rebecca Vilkomerson said in an interview with MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin. “So that means the 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish are being told, and the state is actually now obligated with this law to treat them unequally.”

 

“Formalizing de facto apartheid, the Israeli Knesset passes the racist nation-state law, which officially designates Palestinian citizens of Israel…along with all other Palestinians living in historic Palestine under Israeli sovereign power—as second-class citizens,” claimed Columbia University’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

 

Apartheid is a term used by anti-Israel activists and groups to smear and delegitimize Israel. And unlike apartheid South Africa, both Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis receive full voting rights, hold elected office, serve in the military and prominently on Israeli courts.

 

The nation-state bill passed the Knesset in a 62-55 vote. Israel’s Druze community voiced concern over the bill. But President Reuven Rivlin assured a delegation “that is the basis of the state we founded – the Zionist movement in full partnership with all who live here in this good land, which is good for all of us and where we can exist in equality without any problem.”

 

Still, the bill’s passage prompted Stanford University SJP member Hamzeh Daoud, a residential assistant, to threaten to “physically fight” pro-Israel students. He later changed the wording in his Facebook post from “physically” to “intellectually” and noted that “I edited this post because I realize intellectually beating Zionists is the only way to go. Physical fighting is never an answer to when trying to prove people wrong.”

 

Both Daoud’s Facebook and Twitter accounts have been deactivated.

 

Most analyses conclude the law is more symbolic than substantial. It does nothing to change the rights of Israeli Arabs, although many are displeased at its recognition of Hebrew as the country’s official language, seeing it as downgrading Arabic.

 

People are free to criticize Israel and the bill. But it’s clear that groups like SJP and JVP will do anything to bash Israel and delegitimize its existence.

++++++++++++++++++

Understanding “Israel – the Nation State” Basic Law

 

By Mida

19 Av 5778 – July 31, 2018

Jewish Press

 

{Originally posted to the MIDA website}

 

Feelings are running high on the latest addition to Israel’s Basic Laws or “constitution on the installment plan”, but I would like to try and shed a bit more light on the subject and a little less heat.

 

The Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State of the Jewish People, passed by the Israeli Knesset this week, declares that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people and determines specific matters which demonstrate the Jewish character of the nation. These include the county’s official language, the national anthem, the national flag, the state emblem, as well as the calendar along with holidays and days of rest. This is normal and appears in law in many democracies.

 

The special situation of the Jewish diaspora means that it also takes notice of the State’s connection to Jews abroad as well as policies on immigration and settlement.

 

It is important to stress that the law offers no privileges of any kind, nor does it reserve any particular rights, for individual Jews. It certainly does not deny any rights or privileges to individual non-Jews. All Israelis, regardless of the religion they follow or ethnic background, continue to enjoy all the human and civil rights customarily accorded to citizens of free countries. Those rights have not been diminished in any way by the passing of this law.

 

This new law seeks to codify the rights laid down in a much older document. The Mandate for Palestine, the international legal instrument, recognized the national rights of the Jewish people in our ancient homeland. The text of the Mandate includes, by reference, the Balfour declaration. That document reads:

 

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

 

A few points arising from this text:

 

1. The only people recognized as having “national” rights in the Land of Israel are the Jews.

2. Non Jews in the Land of Israel are to enjoy protection of their civil and religious rights.

3. Jews throughout the Diaspora are to continue to enjoy the rights and political status of citizens of the countries they live in.

4. In addition, the Mandate also requires the facilitation of Jewish immigration and the close settlement by Jews on the land (Article 6).

 

The new law is clearly an application of the principles of the Mandate to the sovereign Jewish state:

 

1. It specifies how the state will express the national rights of the Jews.

2. It draws attention to the special role the State has to play in safeguarding the rights of Jews abroad.

3. It accepts the obligation of settling Jews on the Land as now falling on the Israeli state.

There are those who argue that the provisions of the Mandate and the Balfour declaration are irrelevant to the state created in Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948. It seems that the framers of Israel’s Declaration may have felt otherwise.

 

1. The Declaration references the recognition of Jewish national rights included in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

2. It also refers to UNGA Resolution 181. Specifically that it, “required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution”.

3. The Declaration implies (rather strongly) that this “requirement” was binding on the Jews.

4. Resolution 181 explicitly positions itself to be the culmination of the Mandate.

What links the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate, UNGA Resolution 181 and the Declaration of Independence is that they all draw their legitimacy from the actualization of the rights of the Jews. I would go as far as to say that the legitimacy of the State of Israel itself is dependent on it fulfilling the national rights of the Jews.

 

I am finding it hard to understand how anyone who accepts the Mandate and the Balfour declaration that is contained in it, could have a problem with any of these points.

 

Of course, there are those who have never accepted the Declaration nor the Mandate and I would expect them to oppose the law simply because they oppose Israel’s basic legitimacy. Unfortunately, many people who do recognize the legitimacy of Jewish national rights in the Land of Israel seem to be troubled by the law, something which I find puzzling.

 

It is clear that the law does not contain a clause explicitly guaranteeing the rights of non-Jews and I can understand why some might see that as presenting potential problems for the future. In terms of the here and now though, the only mention of non-Jews in the law is to guarantee that the new law will not damage the status that the Arabic language has enjoyed up till now, despite no longer being an official language of the state.

 

(Interesting point to note is that the English language was also one of the three official languages of the State of Israel and the new law offers no guarantees for its status, but for some reason I don’t see Anglos up in arms about that!)

 

Why is there no formal minority rights clause in the law? One might hypothesize dark ulterior motives, but I think that it is quite as plausible to suggest that equality is already so entrenched in Israeli jurisprudence, that there is no need for it.

 

This new law does not stand on its own, but is part of the entire group of Basic Laws, each of which is supposed to be a chapter in the eventual constitution. The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom along with The Basic Law: the Freedom of Occupation, lay out many (some would say too many!) individual rights and offers the necessary protection of the rights of individuals in Israel. Although all this is true, none of the Basic Laws explicitly addresses the issue of minority rights, i.e. of minority communities. Although Israeli Arabs are guaranteed the right to an Arabic language school system in which Arabic culture is taught, this promise is made only in “regular” legislation, not in any Basic Law.

 

Professor Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University has an interesting explanation which he presented in a Facebook post: “Since 1993, Israel’s Supreme Court has used the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom to rule on the constitutionality of a variety of statutes and government policies involving Israel’s Jewish character, including laws regarding allocation of JNF land, the primacy of Hebrew as Israel’s language, rights to residency and citizenship, draft deferments and stipends of yeshiva students, and commerce on Shabbat. In principle, these cases called for delicate balance between Israel’s democratic character and its Jewish character, but in fact no such balance was achieved, precisely because Israel’s Jewish character, unlike its democratic character, is not anchored in any basic law. The proposed law is intended to address this asymmetry and to encourage a more sophisticated legal discourse regarding the tension between universal and national considerations.”

 

Whether one feels that the rights of non-Jews in Israel are already afforded sufficient protection in law or not, the new law only defines Israel’s Jewish character. If someone feels that there is a gap there that needs to be filled, then they should campaign for a Basic Law that adds the protections that they think necessary. Doing so is more likely to build a consensus than seemingly attacking the Jewish nature of the Jewish state.

 

(David Olesker is the Founder and Director of the Jerusalem Center for Communication and Advocacy Training)

Mida is a news and intellectual daily magazine, which aims to present the public with information and opinions not common in the Israeli media.

____________________

The Land of the Jews is NON-Discriminatory!

John R. Houk

© August 2, 2018

___________________

This Year in Jerusalem – explaining the new Basic Law: Israel – The Nation State

 

The American Israelite Homepage

__________________

Final text of Jewish nation-state law, approved by the Knesset early on July 19

 

© 2018 THE TIMES OF ISRAEL, All Rights Reserved

 

About The Times of Israel

____________________

Bogus Apartheid Claims Follow Passage of Israel Nation-State Law

 

Investigative Project on Terrorism Homepage

 

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

___________________

Understanding “Israel – the Nation State” Basic Law

 

© The Jewish Press 2018. All Rights Reserved. 

 

About The Jewish Press

 

It Could Always Be Worse


A dust storm approaches Stratford, Texas in April, 1935. (Credt: NOAA/MCT/MCT/Getty Images)

 

I’m a Baby-Boomer. My parents were teenagers during The Great Depression of the 1930s. Of course that means my grandparents were adults during that trial of economic poverty in America and globally for that matter.

 

You may have heard the old story from your parents or grandparents (depending on the generation you were born from) about the days they to walk to and from to school up hill both ways in the snow? Perhaps with little clothing or decrepit shoes? With no lunch or perhaps a stale dried biscuit? Though I suspect a little exaggeration to get their point across, this was the Depression era of which they were speaking.

 

So, what was the point being hammered into my thoughts?

 

If you want something in life, you have work for it. If you desire a decent future, you have to plan for it. Why? If you are looking for free lunch, you’ll probably starve to death.

 

Justin Smith addresses this issue of the Leftist preaching of everything must be made free or the end of the world as we know it is upon us. Life DOES NOT work that way.

 

JRH 7/23/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

It Could Always Be Worse

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/22/2018 11:26 PM

 

Keep complaining about not having enough. It could always be worse.

 

Today, we hear so many complain about needing $15.00 per hour and “free” this and “free” that, never understanding that nothing is “free” and someone, somewhere, ends up having to pay for it. They demand free healthcare, free college education, free housing and even free money. Some cities, like Stockton, California and Chicago, Illinois are even considering handing out free money, calling it a “universal basic income” for doing nothing.

 

A group of migrants waiting for relief checks outside of building. Calipatria, California. February 1937. Credits: Dorothea Lange; The Library of Congress

 

The Depression Era and the Dust Bowl Days were terribly hard and tough days. My dad, his siblings and my Grandparents lived through the worst dust storm in U.S. history. They were in Springfield, Colorado, one-hundred and sixty miles north of Amarillo, TX and eighty miles north of Guyman, OK, in the middle of the Black Sunday dust storm of 1935. There were many people who did not make it to shelter in time, and they died after being caught out in it.

 

Migrant man and woman walking along road. Crittenden County, Arkansas. May 1936. Credits: Carl Mydans

 

The Great Depression itself took a massive toll on everybody. Millions of Americans barely survived those years. The economic collapse was terrifying in its scope and impact. The average family income crashed from an average of $6132.22 in 1929 to just $1550 four years later. In Pennsylvania coal fields, three or four families crowded together in one-room shacks and lived on wild weeds. In Arkansas, families were found staying in caves, while whole families in Oakland, CA were living in sewer pipes.

 

Migrant family walking on road, pulling belongings in carts and wagons. Pittsburg County, Oklahoma. June 1938. Credits: Dorothea Lange; The Library of Congress

 

Incredibly, while there were millions of cases of malnutrition, the death toll from starvation was supposedly surprisingly low, as the government had interceded as best it could and soup lines and charitable kitchens were found in every city across the country. However, millions of Americans did too often come close to the edge of death by starvation, and according to many researchers, starvation deaths were very often attributed to some other affliction, for a litany of medical explanations.

 

President Herbert Hoover declared: “Nobody is actually starving. The hobos are better fed than they have ever been.”

 

But, in the New York City of 1931, there were twenty known cases of starvation, and in 1934, one-hundred and ten people starved to death. There were so many accounts of New Yorkers starving that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.

 

Tenant farmer family. Hale County, Alabama. 1936. Credits: Walker Evans; The Library of Congress

 

Despite the hardships it inflicted, the Great Depression drew some families closer together. They lost their cars and homes, often everything they owned and found their true nature, their true character and their souls. Families had to think outside the box in ingenious manners through the hard times, because their survival depended on it. They moved in with relatives to cut expenses, combined their incomes, bought day old bread and did without many necessities just to scrape by. And, while many people and families placed their faith in themselves and their own dogged determination to survive, many other families drew comfort from their faith and sustained themselves with hope for the future, that everything would turn out well in the end.

 

Today, far too many Americans no longer believe that our nation’s problems can be solved by people acting alone and through voluntary associations. Increasingly, they look to our federal government, the Nanny State, and currently, there are millions of Americans afforded massive amounts of aid, one-fifth of the population according to the 2012 Census Bureau report.

 

America’s poor now live better than some “affluent” leaders in Third World countries. They all have government housing and food assistance, along with scores of other programs designed to help clothe and educate them too.

 

Children on porch, leaning on railing. Pursglove, West Virginia. September 1938. Credits: Marion Post Wolcott; The Library of Congress

 

Today’s “poor” are millionaires in comparison to the real poor of the 1930s Depression Era.

 

And as my Dear Ol’ Lil Granma would tell me, right up until she passed from this world at age 96, “I cried because I had no shoes, until I saw a man who had no feet.”

 

by Justin O Smith

__________________

Depression Era Photos From: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/dustbowl/photos/

 

Edited by John R. Houk.

Embedded source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Hammond Ranchers Pardoned by Trump


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2018

 

Members of the Hammond family pose outside a ranch building on their property in Harney County in this undated photo. Steven Hammond, second from left, and his father, Dwight Hammond Jr., center, were pardoned Tuesday, July 10, 2018, by President Donald Trump. (Hammond family) [Photo from OregonLive]

 

President Trump gave pardons to Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond. Many, including myself, consider their convictions a huge blight on the Justice system. The Hammond family had a long dispute with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over cattle grazing and land management. They were actually convicted on terrorism charges because protecting their land from BLM started brush fires, they started their own fire on their own land. The Hammond fire slipped onto BLM managed Federal land. The BLM decided to make an example of the Hammonds undoubtedly to scare other ranchers in the Western States who also have long disputed BLM authority and practices.

 

The Hammonds actually pleaded guilty to the arson charges, but the original Judge saw how frivolous the Hammond fire was to Federal land, the gave very light sentencing. The light sentence ticked someone off in the Obama DOJ. Western Prosecutors appealed the short sentence which resulted in stiffer punishment that extended to years.

 

The incident of re-sentencing sparked a rancher rebellion in Oregon centered around the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

 

I found out about the pardons from the Freedom Outpost which I am cross posting. However, the local Oregon media under Oregon Live has greater detail.

 

JRH 7/11/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Trump Pardons Hammonds!

 

By TIM BROWN 

JULY 10, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Now, this is good news!  On Tuesday, President Trump Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been serving sentences for arson.

 

Statement from the White House read as follows:

 

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond.  The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land.  The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges.

 

At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct.  As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences.  The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison.  This was unjust.

 

Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison.  Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison.  They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit.  The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West.  Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.

 

Well, it took long enough, but thank you President Trump.  You did the right thing in this matter.

 

And for all those who took the time to keep this story alive and urge people to petition the White House on behalf of the Hammonds, thank you!

 

It should be noted that the protests that took place in Oregon a couple of years ago were a response to the injustice the Hammonds faced.  As a result, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum was killed by Oregon State Police.

 

Those who led the protest were all acquitted of all charges and reporter Pete Santilli had all of his charges dismissed.   No doubt, Finicum would have been found not guilty as well, but that’s not how tyrants work, is it?

 

Today is a day to celebrate a wrong that has not been fully made right, but has definitely turned in the right direction!

 

Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard.

++++++++++++++++

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose case sparked Bundy takeover of refuge

 

By Maxine Bernstein

July 10, 2018 9:33 AM – UPDATED July 11, 2018 7:55 AM

The Oregonian/OregonLive

 

President Donald Trump on Tuesday pardoned two eastern Oregon ranchers serving time in federal prison for setting fire to public land in a case that inflamed their supporters and gave rise to the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

 

Dwight Hammond Jr., 76, and son Steven Hammond, 49, walked out of a federal prison in California about 6 1/2 hours later. They were convicted in 2012 of arson on Harney County land where they had grazing rights for their cattle. They were ordered back to prison in early 2016 to serve out five-year sentences.

 

“The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement and farmers and ranchers across the West,” the White House said in a statement. “Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency.”

 

Susie Hammond, Dwight’s wife and Steven’s mother, said she was sound asleep when a call from U.S. Rep. Greg Walden awakened her Tuesday morning. “He said it’s a done deal, the papers were signed,” she said. “We’ve been waiting a long time. I think it’s wonderful.”

 

Though Susie Hammond believed her husband and son had a strong case for clemency, she was reluctant to get her hopes up.

 

“I’ve just been sitting here, on the phone since,” she said. “I still can’t believe it. I won’t believe it until I see them.”

 

Walden said he looks forward to welcoming the Hammonds back to Oregon.

 

“Today is a win for justice and an acknowledgement of our unique way of life in the high desert, rural West,” he said. “I applaud President Trump for thoroughly reviewing the facts of this case, rightly determining the Hammonds were treated unfairly and taking action to correct this injustice.”

 

Trump’s move marks yet another big victory for backers of the Hammonds, including Ammon Bundy and his followers who repeatedly cited the case as the trigger for the 41-day occupation of the wildlife refuge that abuts the Hammond family ranch. A jury acquitted him and other key takeover figures of all federal charges.

 

“The true reason the Hammonds have suffered has not been corrected. It must be corrected,” Bundy said. He pledged to continue to fight against the federal government’s “control over land and resources inside our states.”

 

Both Hammonds were convicted of setting a fire in 2001, and the son was convicted of setting a second fire in 2006. A federal judge initially sentenced the father to three months in prison and the son to one year after they successfully argued that the five-year mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

 

They served the time and were out of prison when prosecutors challenged the shorter terms before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won. Another federal judge in 2015 sent the ranchers back to complete the full sentences.

 

According to the Trump administration, federal prosecutors who challenged the Hammonds’ original sentences filed “an overzealous appeal.”

 

“This was unjust,” the White House said.

 

The Hammond family also said in a statement that they hoped the pardon will “help signal the need for a more measured and just approach by federal agents, federal officers and federal prosecutors – in all that they do.”

 

Amanda Marshall, who was Oregon’s U.S. attorney when the appeal occurred, defended it and said she was disturbed by Trump’s pardons.

 

“It means their conviction doesn’t exist. I find that incredibly troubling,” Marshall said. “I think it’s a slap in the face to the people in Pendleton who served on that jury and a slap in the face to the Constitution.”

 

Marshall said the Hammonds’ first sentences veered from the mandatory minimum set by Congress. The trial judge’s decision to issue shorter sentences violated the law, she said.

 

Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, also criticized Trump’s decision, saying it sends a “dangerous message” to America’s park rangers, wildland firefighters and public land managers.

 

“President Trump, at the urging of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, has once again sided with lawless extremists who believe that public land does not belong to all Americans,” Rokala said.

 

As of this month, Dwight Hammond has served two years and nine months in prison and 31 months of supervised release. His son has served three years and four months in prison and two years of supervised release.

 

“I am very happy for the entire Hammond family, who I have known and respected for 25 years,” said attorney Larry Matasar, who represents Steven Hammond. “I hope that Dwight and Steven will soon be able to continue their work on the Hammond Ranch.”

 

Attorney Kendra Matthews, who represents Dwight Hammond Jr., said the pardon is “a just and proper resolution of the Hammonds’ criminal prosecution and we are thrilled that the Hammond family will soon be reunited.”

 

Susie Hammond had heard several weeks earlier that Trump was considering a pardon. At the time, she said she had a “sense that things are moving forward and I have faith in our president. If anyone is going to help them, he’d be the one.”

 

Ryan Bundy, who joined his brother Ammon as a leader of the armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, said the pardons were “long overdue. It’s time. It’s overtime.”

 

Bundy said he and others would like to return to Burns to give the Hammonds a “hero’s welcome” when they get out of Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in San Pedro, Calif.

 

In clemency petitions, lawyers for the Hammonds cited the ranchers’ longtime service to their community, the severity of their punishment, the trial judge’s support and their family situation.

 

“Unlike some cases where clemency may outrage the community, clemency for the Hammonds would be embraced by the Oregon community, both rural and urban,” Matasar wrote.

 

The lengthy sentences, plus the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s refusal in 2014 to renew a grazing permit for the Hammond ranch, have crippled the operation, the family has said. The Hammonds have appealed the federal agency’s denial.

 

“If the Hammonds are unable to return to the ranch in the near future, the legacy and livelihood Dwight and Steven Hammond have been building for their family could truly be lost,” Matasar wrote in his petition. “A clemency would not only serve as a balm to the community’s angst about these sentences, but very practically, give the Hammonds a real chance to keep their ranch afloat.”

 

Dwight Hammond set a prescribed burn on about 300 acres of his own land that then traveled onto Bureau of Land Management property and burned an additional 139 acres, his lawyer wrote. The elder Hammond said he was trying to fend off invasive species.

 

Prosecutors argued the fire also was to cover up illegal deer poaching and got out of control, placing firefighters who had to be airlifted out of the area in grave danger.

 

The federal pursuit of the Hammonds followed years of permit violations and unauthorized fires, and they never accepted responsibility, Marshall said.  The Hammonds could have faced less than a year in prison under a plea offer they declined, she said.

 

The Hammonds’ lawyers pointed out in their clemency petitions that the father and son faced other sanctions. They paid $400,000 in 2015 to settle a civil suit brought by the government and are having a hard time sustaining the cattle operation because of the grazing permit denial.

 

They cited the opinion of the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who found the five-year sentences “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here” and noted that the fires didn’t endanger any people or property.

 

Prosecutors argued the fires did endanger others. When the government won the appeal of the Hammonds’ lower sentences, Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams issued a release, saying that the fires illegally set on public lands, even in remote areas, endanger firefighters called to respond. Marshall said “firefighters were in grave danger and had to be dramatically evacuated” after the fires set by the Hammonds.

 

Williams was asked by the Office of the Pardon Attorney to submit a written brief summarizing the Hammond litigation and his office’s position on the Hammonds’ clemency requests. He prepared a brief and submitted it, but his office declined to release it or summarize what Williams’ position was, calling the document privileged.

 

Williams also declined any comment Tuesday about Trump’s pardons.

 

Steven Grasty, a former Harney County commissioner, said he’s glad the Hammond saga has come to an end. He said he disagreed with first sentence, but didn’t see the value of sending the Hammonds back to prison after they had served their initial term.

 

“I’m really proud of the efforts of our community, Greg Walden, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association,” Grasty said.

 

But he said the pardons shouldn’t be considered a win for the Bundys. “The Bundys complicated this. They made it worse. The Bundys didn’t know the Hammonds. They used them.”

 

Among those who wrote letters of support for the Hammonds’ clemency petitions were Walden, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward, Malheur County Sheriff Brian Wolfe as well as leaders of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and Oregon Farm Bureau.

 

Ward, who was the face of law enforcement during the 2016 occupation of the wildlife refuge in his county, wrote to the White House that he personally felt the initial sentences and the financial penalties “covered the debt owed to society.”

 

“This case was thrust into the national spotlight when, for lack of a better term, anti-government extremists exploited the Hammond family and began attempting to use their unfortunate circumstance to gain support for their own agendas,” Ward wrote.

 

He noted that Dwight and Steven Hammond rejected pressure they faced from Ammon Bundy and others to defy federal orders and instead turned themselves in to prison.

 

“It is my humble opinion that justice would be better served if these gentlemen were afforded the opportunity to return home,” Ward wrote. “For Dwight to spend his remaining years with his wife. For Steven to return to his family … and to set an example that along with being a nation of laws, we are a nation of compassion and forgiveness.”

 

On Tuesday, Ward said he was “happy for their families and I respect the decision, as it is a responsible and lawful use of our governmental system. … Now please allow this community to move on.”

 

Other letters of support described good deeds done for their neighbors, children and grandchildren’s schools, the county’s 4H and FFA clubs and many others in need. They spoke of Dwight Hammond’s sincerity, decency, his humility and the respect for him in Harney County — a man who dressed up as Santa Claus for schoolkids and what one friend described as “a real life John Wayne.”

 

Dwight Hammond’s wife, who is ailing, lives alone in Burns. Steven Hammond is married with three children.

 

“I am seeking commutation of my sentence so that I can return home to take care of my wife,” Dwight Hammond wrote. “I live in fear that one of us will pass before we are reunited.”

 

Trump’s action follows a flurry of pardons, including for Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative author convicted of illegal campaign contributions; I. Lewis Libby Jr., a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio; and Alice Johnson, 63, serving life for her role in a cocaine distribution ring.

___________________

The Hammond Ranchers Pardoned by Trump

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2018

__________________

Trump Pardons Hammonds!

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.comSonsOfLibertyMedia.comGunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

___________________

Trump pardons Oregon ranchers whose case sparked Bundy takeover of refuge

 

The Oregonian/OregonLive Homepage

 

© 2018 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask for permission from Advance Local. If requested, I’ll remove the post.]