Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Zach Foster's Thanksgiving 2011 Message

Thanksgiving 2008 at Baharia, Iraq.
Photo by the U.S. Navy
This is a very special day in the United States, and I hope the traditions we celebrate here today will soon spread throughout the world.  The very first Thanksgiving in North America was a day when two clashing civilizations were able to set aside their differences as one helped the other not to starve, and they sat together as brothers and gave thanks to the Almighty.
 
Today, I have many reasons to give thanks to God, though Thanksgiving Day is by no means the only day I’m truly thankful.  I have a strong faith in God, a wonderful family, loyal friends, a comfortable job, and even further, I’ve been given the privilege of I living free in an exceptional Constitutional republic, of serving my state and country as a reservist, and to attend an excellent university.  I see the Almighty working in the world every day, guiding us all to make improvements in our lives and the way we get along with others.
 
I’m also incredibly thankful and fortunate for everyone reading this message.  It’s the readers of the Political Spectrum as well as the other Political Spectrum Publishing blogs that make this venture so worth it!  Every day hundreds of people stop by to get the latest news and commentary on the political and economic arenas, and among all the mainstream media and junk media available, I’m glad that those readers came here.  Thank you all!
 
So far we’ve all met many of Political Spectrum Publishing’s New Year’s goals:
·         We have more than doubled the combined readership of the blogs
·         My political Facebook account has over 1,500 friends (500 more than our goal by December 31, 2011)
·         We have over 300 loyal followers on Twitter, many of whom mention and re-tweet @PublishPolitics
·         Thousands of people have viewed Political Spectrum Publishing videos on YouTube (channel PoliSpecPublishing)
·         Political Spectrum Publishing has published several books and is merely waiting for the best time to release them to the market!
·         Readers continue to submit articles, op-eds, and comments which are great!  (If you have a submission, send it to politicalspectrumpublishing@gmail.com or politicalzachfoster@gmail.com)
 
May every one of you have an amazing day with your families, friends, or improvised families and have a warm time of togetherness to reflect all you’re thankful for.  I send my warmest greetings and best wishes to all troops overseas, from Japan and South Korea to Belgium and Germany, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Kuwait and North Africa.  Stay safe, brothers and sisters!
 
If you’re not with loved ones right now and won’t be with loved ones today, go out right now!  Find someone who’s hanging out all alone and invite them to have a Thanksgiving dinner with you, whether it’s beef jerky in the park or a large meal at your home or a restaurant.  Make new friends that will stick with you through thick and thin!
 
Because of the fact that the original thanks givers were able to set their differences aside like adults, despite radically differing faiths, cultures, languages, and systems of ethics, I have hope for the future of mankind.  I have hope that the Palestinian will soon be able to sit and dine with the Israeli, that the Shi’ite will be able to sit with the Sunni, the North Korean with the South Korean, the Christian with the Muslim, that angry and estranged brothers in the United States will forgive and embrace each other again, and that Almighty God will warm the hearts of human beings through knowledge and understanding.
 
Have a happy Thanksgiving.  God bless you.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Mosque Attack in Northern Israel

Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson (State Department)

The United States strongly condemns the dangerous and provocative attacks on a mosque in the northern Israeli town of Tuba-Zangariyye, which took place on October 3. Such hateful sectarian actions are never justified. We note that the Israeli Government also strongly condemned the attacks, and we endorse stepped-up efforts by law enforcement authorities to act vigorously to bring to justice those responsible for this heinous act and similar attacks that have taken place in the West Bank.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Justice Department Resolves Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discriminaton by Henrico County, Va., Against Muslim Group

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced a settlement with Henrico County, Va., resolving allegations that the county violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) when it denied the application of   a Muslim organization to rezone property to construct a mosque.   The settlement, which must still be approved by a federal district judge in Richmond, resolves a lawsuit between the United States and the county of Henrico.

“Religious freedom is one of our most cherished rights, and that right includes the ability to assemble and build places of worship without facing discrimination,” said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. “We are pleased that the county of Henrico has agreed to take steps to ensure that all people exercising this basic American right will not encounter discrimination during the zoning and land use process.”

“The law – not stereotypes or bias – should dictate whether a worship facility can be built in a community.” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “No one should be discriminated against based on their religion, and this agreement will ensure that religious freedom is upheld in Henrico County.”

The case arose from the county’s denial of a 2008 application from a Muslim organization for construction of a mosque.   The government’s complaint, which was filed with the court along with a consent decree resolving the lawsuit, alleged that the county’s denial of the rezoning application was based on the religious bias of county officials and to appease members of the public who, because of religious bias, opposed the construction of a mosque.   The complaint further alleged that the county treated the Muslim organization differently than non-Muslim religious groups that regularly have been granted similar rezoning requests.  

As part of the settlement, the county has agreed to treat the mosque and all religious groups equally and to publicize its non-discrimination policies and practices.  The county also agreed that its leaders and various county employees will attend training on the requirements of RLUIPA.  In addition, the county will report periodically to the Justice Department.

RLUIPA, enacted in 2000, prohibits religious discrimination in land use and zoning decisions. Persons who believe that they been subjected to religious discrimination in land use or zoning may contact the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at 1-800-896-7743.   More information about RLUIPA, including a report on the first 10 years of its enforcement, may be found at justice.gov/crt/about/hce/rluipaexplain.php .

Thursday, June 30, 2011

What Role for the Jewish Media in a World of Growing Anti-Semitism?

By Hannah Rosenthal

Good morning. Mazel tov on this conference – the second one of its kind – it’s encouraging to see that it has doubled in size from last year. I am pleased to be joined by members of the European Parliament, the Israeli Ambassador, leaders of Jewish communities throughout Europe, Jewish organizations and students, and, of course, media representatives.

The subject of this conference is timely as in the 21st century we are still regrettably faced with anti-Semitism. In a world that is increasingly connected, sharing ideas across borders adds to the growing global dialogue, be it constructively or intolerantly. Jewish media needs to be a part of that conversation.

People get their news from many sources these days. Studies by the Pew Research Center and Advertising Age tell us that 77% of adults use the internet – 90% of whom are 18 to 29 years old. When it comes to time spent online, Facebook tops its rivals, with a user base of 517 million people, 70% of whom live outside the U.S. Another trend is the increased use of mobile phones, because they are cheaper than the cost to access the internet in many places. In the developing world, mobile phone applications bring the news to people’s hands.

74% of U.S. adults read newspapers at least once a week in print or on-line; this tends to be an educated, affluent readership. However, despite the trend in the U.S. and Western Europe of decreasing newspaper circulation, the rest of the world is experiencing a boom in newspapers in terms of titles and circulation. But what about the others, those who are less educated and less affluent? TV dominates among the less educated, although the internet is gaining on TV as the public’s main news source. Even relatively poor populations now consider TV a necessity, especially in the developing world. All these trends point to more media consumed around the world, starting with the youth, whose time is mostly spent on social media. This next generation – our future—means that Jewish media needs to adapt to play the changing media game, not only in Europe, but across the developing world.

In my role as the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I have been tracking the rise in anti-Semitism around the world, most notably in Europe. Let me assure you of the unwavering commitment of the Obama Administration to this cause. The President began his Administration speaking out against intolerance as a global ill. In his historic speech in Cairo, he signaled a new path that embraces a vision of a world based on mutual interest and mutual respect; a world that honors the dignity of all human beings. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have honored me with this appointment and have elevated my office and have fully integrated it into the State Department.

We are attempting -- through diplomacy, public messaging and grassroots programs all over the world -- to confront and combat hatred in all its ugly forms, whether it is hatred directed against people on account of their religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or differences of political opinion or due to their country of origin. Anti-Semitism is one such form of hatred rooted in historical forces that go far beyond any current policy debate. If we want to change this trend, we need to stand together in our efforts to promote tolerance, acceptance and compassion. In that vein, we need to support and encourage Jewish and non-Jewish media outlets alike in their efforts to reveal the ignorance inherent in hateful ideologies like anti-Semitism.

I am here in Brussels on the tail end of a trip which began in Saudi Arabia. I have also visited Jordan, Lebanon and Lithuania. In Lithuania, I spoke to teachers in a Holocaust education program, co-sponsored by the Lithuanian and U.S. Governments. I saw first-hand the impact that social institutions, especially schools, can have on developing a sense of tolerance and responsibility in the minds of our children. These experiences remind me of the importance of the work that I have been charged with as the Special Envoy.

When this year began, I planned to focus my efforts on fighting anti-Semitism in the Arab media and Islamic textbooks. On my recent trip, I met with a range of government officials, women’s and youth groups, and interfaith and non-governmental organizations in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. I also met members of the press and bloggers in the Middle East.

In meeting with press, I am so often inspired by the efforts of journalists, news correspondents, photographers and others in the field to bring to light the important issues we face every day. While I am encouraged by the endless opportunities offered by the media, I also feel a sense of anxiety about its potential for misuse. A phrase, image or sound bite can affect millions of people in an instant, especially where no counterweight is present. In a world of increasing anti-Semitism, it is crucial that we understand the power of the media to change the minds and hearts of those who hate. Likewise, it is crucial for us to work hand in hand with other groups in their struggle for tolerance through the media.

In many countries, restrictive laws and administrative measures constrain fundamental rights to freedom of expression. The United States recognizes that areas for improvement exist in combating religious intolerance; however, we believe that the best response to hateful speech is debate and dialogue that condemns it and fosters tolerance. Not only do we believe that particular restrictions on expression violate universal human rights, we are convinced that they are counterproductive and exacerbate the very problems they seek to address.

I firmly believe that the most effective way to counter hateful speech and forms of anti-Semitism is by raising voices and taking actions that counter it. Bringing these hateful ideas to light reveals them for what they are and allows people to speak out against them. As President Obama said in Cairo, “suppressing ideas does not make them go away.” The media acts not only as the vehicle to amplify a variety of ideas, but it can also help expose the negative aspects of discriminatory ideas and actions. It is for this reason that I make it a priority to meet with bloggers and journalists wherever I go. The Jewish community must use media to put the spotlight on anti-Semitism and other hate speech wherever and whenever it appears.

At the State Department, we use the full range of media outlets at our disposal to get our message out; we use our webpage, State.gov; our embassy webpages; our blog, DipNote; Twitter; Facebook; webchats; traveling speakers; You Tube; Flickr; and daily press briefings. We tweet in nine languages – Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, French, Hindi, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Urdu and have over a 100,000 followers. We have a daily press briefing with domestic and international journalists, issue press releases, place op-eds, make speeches and provide testimony to Congress, as well as post online the remarks of the Secretary of State and other Department principals. We also have briefings for foreign journalists through our Foreign Press Centers in New York and Washington, as well as in media hubs around the world, including here in Brussels. The State Department uses international media engagement to communicate our priorities. In the same way, it’s critical that Jewish media and non-Jewish media cover Jewish priorities, and work together to combat anti-Semitism and intolerance.

As the President’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, I am charged with both monitoring anti-Semitic incidents and combating intolerance. As a child of a Holocaust survivor, anti-Semitism is extremely personal. When I was old enough to begin to understand what my father went through as the only member of his family to survive World War II, I asked him how he handled his guilt and kept his sanity. He didn’t miss a beat and said: “I survived to have you, Hannele!” – thus taking that guilt off his shoulders and putting it squarely on mine – and, as a result, I have dedicated my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense of urgency and passion that only my dad could give me.

Our daily actions are of great import, and I hope this conference will help us create connections in partnering to combat intolerance and promote understanding in our world. In addition to the larger communications managed by the State Department’s bureau of Public Affairs and bureau of International Information Programs, one of the things I do is to compile a weekly summary of news articles from around the world – thanks to the Internet, we have access to many sources, including some of the publications represented here today. These items are subsequently posted on my Facebook page under the heading “What We Are Hearing” so that social media users are more aware of anti-Semitism around the world.

I have been on the job for over a year now – and I’ve been hearing about six significant trends in anti-Semitism around the world:

I meet people who think anti-Semitism ended when Hitler killed himself. However, anti-Semitism is not History, it is News. More than six decades after the end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and evolving into new, contemporary forms of religious hatred, racism, and political, social and cultural bigotry.

This stems from the fact that traditional forms of anti-Semitism are passed from one generation to the next, and updated to reflect current events. We are all familiar with ongoing hostile acts such as the defacing of property, and the desecration of cemeteries with anti-Semitic graffiti. There are still accusations of blood libel, which are morphing from the centuries-old accusations by the Church that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood for rituals, to accusations that Jews kidnap children to steal their organs. Conspiracy theories continue to flourish, and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” continue to be best sellers in many countries, often being taught to religious students as truth. For example, in April, the state-run radio in Venezuela urged everyone to buy and read “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” I asked my colleague, the Special Representative to Muslim Communities, to issue a statement condemning this action. Her voice, and those of others, helped lead to that official being fired in May.

A second phenomenon is Holocaust denial. It is being espoused by religious leaders, heads of State, such as in Iran, in academic institutions, and is a standard on hateful websites and other media outlets. As the generation of Holocaust survivors and death camp liberators reaches their eighties and nineties, the window is closing on those able to provide eyewitness accounts and thus we have a heightened sense of urgency to promote Holocaust education, create museums and memorials, and carry the memory and lessons of the Holocaust forward. I am happy to report that in Lithuania, and in other European countries, the U.S. and OSCE provide funding for teacher training in Holocaust education to battle this trend.

Ironically, we also see the antithesis of this as there is a third, disturbing, parallel trend of Holocaust glorification which can be seen in events that openly display Nazi symbols and in the growth of neo-Nazi groups. In Latvia recently, a notorious neo-Nazi made blatantly anti-Semitic statements, including incitements to violence against Jews, on a Latvian television talk show. Holocaust glorification and the growth of neo-Nazi groups is especially virulent in Middle Eastern media – some of which is state owned and operated - calling for a new Holocaust to finish the job. Truly bone-chilling.

A fourth concern is Holocaust relativism – where some governments, museums, academic research and the like are conflating the Holocaust with other terrible events that entailed great human suffering, like the Dirty War or the Soviet regime. No one, least of all myself, wants to weigh atrocities against each other, but to group these horrific chapters of history together is not only historically inaccurate, but also misses the opportunity to learn important lessons from each of these historic events, even as we reflect on universal truths about the need to defend human rights and combat hatred in all of its forms. History must be precise – it must instruct, it must warn, and it must inspire us to protect universal values as we strive to mend this fractured world.

The fifth trend is the increasing tendency of blurring the lines between opposition to the policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. What I hear from our diplomatic missions, and from non-governmental organizations alike, is that this happens easily and often. I want to be clear – criticism of policies of the State of Israel is not anti-Semitism. But we record huge increases in anti-Semitism whenever there are hostilities in the Middle East. This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many to identify. But if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign State of Israel, when governments like Venezuela call upon and intimidate their Jewish communities to condemn Israeli actions – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism. When all academics and experts from Israel are effectively banned or their conferences boycotted, or individual Jews are held responsible for Israeli policy – this is not objecting to a policy – this is anti-Semitism.

Natan Sharansky identified the “three Ds” that cross the line: “It is anti-Semitic when Israel is demonized, held to different standards or delegitimized.” This is more readily illustrated by the fact that the U.S. is often the only “no” vote in international bodies where countries seem to have an obsession with singling out Israel for disproportionate condemnation.

The sixth trend is the growing nationalistic movements which target ‘the other’ – be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities -- in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation. When this fear or hatred of the ‘other’ occurs or when people try to find a scapegoat for the instability around them, it is rarely good for the Jews, or for that matter, other traditionally discriminated against minorities. The history of Europe, with Russian pogroms, Nazism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans provides sufficient evidence. When government officials talk about protecting a country’s purity, we’ve seen that movie before. This is a good opportunity for Jewish media to reach out to other faith-based media to educate its counterparts on the problems we face and encourage them to report on these issues. We, in turn, should be prepared to reciprocate.

The State Department monitors these trends and activities and reports on them in all 194 countries in two major annual reports: The International Religious Freedom Report and the Human Rights Report. They are posted on the State Department website and on HumanRights.gov. I am now involved in developing a major training initiative for State Department employees so they can better monitor what is happening in the countries where they serve, and sensitize them to the various forms of anti-Semitism. This will make our annual reports more comprehensive, and allow us to do an even better job of monitoring and confronting anti-Semitism in all its forms. These reports tell us that many countries are pushing hard to advance human rights and fight discrimination. It also tells us that there is so much more work to do. If we don’t chronicle it, if we don’t name it, we can’t fight it.

My approach to combating anti-Semitism is not just to preach to the choir, so to speak, but to join in partnership with non-Jews in condemning it – partnerships with governments, civil society, international institutions, business leaders, labor unions, and media.

And I would encourage all of us here to reach out to our counterparts in non-Jewish media, be it secular or faith-based. Sometimes, the messenger is as important as the message. If the non-Jewish media speaks out against anti-Semitism, people will take notice.

Last summer, Secretary Clinton launched an initiative to strengthen civil society across the globe and she instructed the State Department, including all overseas posts, to treat civil society as strategic partners because such relationships help us to build bridges among ethnic and religious groups and to change a culture – from one steeped in fear and negative stereotyping to one of acceptance and understanding; from narrow mindedness to celebrated diversity; from hate to tolerance.

I have an official website on State.gov and I am using Facebook and other social media to connect with all people – especially youth -- globally, and to encourage them to go beyond words, speeches, or even lectures by providing a vehicle for them to DO something tangible to promote tolerance and practice mutual respect. In February, my colleague Farah Pandith, the Special Representative to Muslims Communities, and I launched a virtual campaign called 2011 Hours Against Hate. We are asking young people around the world to pledge an unspecified number of hours to volunteer to help or serve a population different than their own. We have a Facebook page for this initiative, as well as a page for it on State.gov. We ask them to work with people who may look different, or pray differently or live differently. For example, a young Jew might volunteer time to read books at a Muslim pre-school, or a Russian Orthodox at a Jewish clinic, or a Muslim at a Baha’i food pantry. We want to encourage them to walk a mile in another person’s shoes.

Farah and I began meeting with hundreds of young people earlier this year – students and young professionals – in Azerbaijan, Spain and Turkey – countries that in their histories celebrated Jews and Muslims co-existing and thriving together. They want to DO something. They expressed strong interest in the campaign – and we have already surpassed our goal of 2011 hours pledged against hate. Really, we have just begun. Last week, Farah and I met with youth and interfaith leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon.

These are just some examples of how I and the Department of State use media daily. Anti-Semitism has been around since the beginning of Judaism, but since then, too, good people of all faiths and backgrounds have striven to combat it. The Jewish tradition tells us that “you are not required to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” Let’s all work together – let us, the Jewish, other faith and secular media representatives here today, use all forms of media at our disposal in our fight against anti-Semitism.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Dialogues with Socialists: Red Fiction, part 2

By Zach Foster
Continued from Part 1

As soon as I asked what the Communist revolution would do with bigots once it came to power (a jab to expose the bigotry of Marxism), Soviet immediately dodged any and all moral accountability by claiming that the “majority vote decides what to do with these people, not ‘my government.’”  The majority vote would be that of the workers’ councils or soviets, which are the governing bodies under a Marxian system.  Realistically, it truly is Soviet’s government that would decide what to do with bigots.  Soviet is simply mistaking government for Statehood.

After giving a less-than satisfactory answer in which any moral accountability is dodged, Soviet turns the issue back to racism, while avoiding any mention of Ron Paul.  The new race card being played is Islamophobia.  “…Islamophobia and xenophobia have once again become very real and all inclusive in our society which denotes racism ever present here.”  First of all, no it doesn’t.  Islamophobia is paranoia over a particular religion, Islam, while xenophobia is an aversion to cultures other than the Anglo culture dominant in the U.S.  Most if not all modern “xenophobes” have no problem with immigrants making their home in the U.S. as long as they speak English in public and adopt the Anglo culture as their dominant one.  They cite the slogan on the Seal of the United States, “E pluribus unum,” meaning “Out of many, one.”  I believe that these people are misinterpreting the slogan, but they certainly aren’t racist.

In response to the cry of Islamophobia, I countered that in my response. “FACT: Biggest Islamophobes I've ever encountered and whose works I've read are non-Muslims from the Middle East. Many are Jews and some are Christians. They find nothing wrong with Quranic teaching, especially since Surah Al Baqrah 2.62 teaches that all Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sabyans who believe in God will get into heaven. What they do have a problem with is the spread of medieval Islam, the way it’s practiced in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc., because medieval Islam is still in the crusader mindset and has ignored its own peaceful scripture.”  Moderate agreed with what I wrote.  What no one knows is that some of the non-Muslim Middle Easterners to whom I refer are militia veterans who have repeatedly fought Hamas and Hezbollah jihadists who repeatedly attack their towns and cities, or the family members of those who have fought.  The only crime these people have committed is being non-Muslim.  Though I disagree with their Islamophobia, it is certainly understandable why they feel the way they do.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Muslims are not radicals and disagree with the violent radicals, but do not speak up due to fear of reprisal.  My only regret is that there has yet to emerge a Muslim figurehead who speaks loudly of coexistence with non-Muslims and who decries the terrorism of jihadists and medieval Islam.

Soviet then swerved the argument away from Islamophobia (where it never belonged in the first place) and accused me of changing the subject.  “…we aren't speaking of violence and ‘gradual change’… we are talking about racism and on if the Libertarian Party can provide. Stick with it. Stop attempting to find random opportunities to red bait.”  No we weren’t, the Libertarian Party was never brought up in this dialogue.  Ron Paul holds many Libertarian ideas for government, which certainly can improve conditions in the U.S., and one of those is stopping federal government intervention so that change can be slow, peaceful, and all-inclusive.  Anyone can recall that the implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act sparked violence between police and protestors, National Guards and pro-segregationists, and also sparked a wave of violence on black Americans.  Any claim that “we aren’t speaking of violence and ‘gradual change’ is either a misinformed statement influenced by amnesia, or a lie.  We now can conclude that Ron Paul and his ideas—the main topic of the discussion—are based in freedom from government, pacifism, AND non-racism.

I was also accused of “Red baiting.” Red baiting is literally the act of accusing, denouncing, or persecuting an individual as being communist or socialist, or a communist sympathizer.  This is a false accusation against me.  I couldn’t have been Red baiting because everyone knows that Soviet Socialist is a dedicated communist.  I never denounced or persecuted Soviet for being a communist.  What I did was ask a direct question which would force Soviet to come to grips with the inherence of violence and intolerance in Marxist theory, which Soviet is fully aware of but still actively avoids admitting.  It’s much easier to call someone a Red baiter than it is to admit that under Marxism, groups of people need to disappear.  My reason for bringing this up was not to deviate from the main topic of the debate, Ron Paul, but to turn around the socialists’ accusations of bigotry against Congressman Paul and in doing so, exposing the hypocrisy in their argument.

Soviet then went on to name a few despots throughout history and then talk about CEOs (obviously equating CEOs with dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Franco).  Nice try.  My reply dissected the myth that CEOs and heads of state don’t work as hard as single mothers, third world workers, etc.  I stand by my claim that heads of state, even dictators, work just as hard and as long as Soviet’s oppressed demographics.  Soviet’s argument is flawed because the type of labor heads of state and CEOs do are different from the types of predominantly blue collar labor Soviet was alluding to.  I also took the list of despots and added the names Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolai Ceaucescu, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara—all Communist despots—in order to illuminate the lack of integrity in the CEOs-are-Fascist accusation.

The next blind swing was naming some of history’s great minds—Homer, Voltaire, Aristotle, Steinbeck, and Frederick Douglass—and by throwing in two other great minds, W.E.B. DuBois and Albert Einstein—dedicated socialists—implying that all of the above were socialists.  Falsehood!  I refuted that in the debate.

Throughout the entire debate, Soviet used flawed arguments full of fallacies and falsehoods.  My personal favorite was the inclusion of Jesus at the end of the list of great minds, in order to paint him as some kind of a socialist or communist, and probably also to appeal to me as a Christian, as if implying that the man I worship as the Son of God was a socialist will make me all of a sudden see the darkness of Marxism in a new light instead of for what it really is.

“Jesus of Nazareth, known by over a billion as the Christ, and by an additional billion as a holy prophet, advocated kindness and HOLINESS because it is the will of GOD. Jesus the rabbi taught that GOD made things good, therefore we as His creations ought to be good. He also taught loyalty and fidelity to GOD (not the dialectic), to be a city on the hill and a bright shining light in order to help others return to the grace of GOD. He also said RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S (i.e. taxes, citizenship, community service, etc.) AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S…”

The debate slowed from there and the climax was reached.  “CONCLUSION: Many of your above-used analogies are marred with fallacies and are erroneous. I will now divert this conversation back to the MAIN IDEA: RON PAUL and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Soviet came back to the debate several days later and expressed indignation as well as announcing the formation of a rebuttal.

UPDATE: Soviet Socialist completed the rebuttal and it can be read here.  Soviet has to be the third or the fourth person to create a new Blogger profile just for the sake of trying to refute me, so I must be writing engaging pieces. As a writer and a thinker who enjoys a challenge, this trend pleases me.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Dialogues with Socialists: Jesus Christ and Karl Marx


Continued from Part 1: Racism and Civil Rights

Zach Foster: … And really, the gov't CAN'T infringe on people's right to be bigots. They can't be forced to be good people, but only forced to obey laws. Furthermore Soviet, ask yourself what your revolution would do to these bigots once the proletariat comes to power?

Soviet Socialist: The majority vote decides what to do with these people, not "my government", as an isolated minority making decisions on their definition of "morality" like what the tone of your text insinuates. And as I've mentioned before, Islamophobia and xenophobia have once again become very real and all inclusive phenomena within our society which denotes racism ever present here. QED racism is far from being a "thing of the past". Thirdly, we aren't speaking of violence and "gradual change", opportunism and reformism vs. "Machiavellian" politics...we are talking about racism and on if the Libertarian Party can provide. Stick with it. Stop attempting to find random opportunities to red bait. Fourthly, I don't condone Socialist Worker’s comment of the "rich white" stereotype but for the past thousands of years, prominent members of society have been WASPs, and when racism reignites, normally Caucasians don't get thrown into camps, pulled over at check points or are deported for being white. And lastly, in regards to the comment of people finding themselves in glorious positions because of alleged intelligence...come off it. Bush, Hitler, Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, Franco and the CEOs of companies that DO NOT pay taxes (GE, Verizon, Chase, Bank of America, etc.) could NOT have possibly worked as hard as single mothers, immigrants, and residents of third world countries in the simple matter of trying to survive let alone have IQs anywhere near a gifted level. Fail. And don't be so rash as to mistake bitterness for a compassion for the downtrodden and a vendetta to the oppressors. If this was truly a great basis for intellectual thought, then Homer, Voltaire, Aristotle, Albert Einstein, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, and Steinbeck were all teenage cheerleaders on their periods.

Oh, and Jesus for that matter, since he DID rebel against that days law and order, shared compassion for sinners when others beat them down, and revolted against the "intelligent and glorious" leaders of the wealthier class.

Zach Foster: Alrighty then, I sense dodging on what I'm asking you. One more time: in regards to do with these people. Suppose YOU voted in the new society on what to do with bigots. What would your vote be? I'm not red baiting; I'm asking a question and you're avoiding giving a direct answer. What would you vote to be done with these bigots, and would others vote similarly?

FACT: Biggest Islamophobes I've ever encountered and whose works I've read are non-Muslims from the Middle East. Many are Jews and some are Christians. The find nothing wrong with Quranic teaching, especially since Surah Al Baqrah 2.62 teaches that all Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sabyans who believe in God will get into heaven. What they do have a problem with is the spread of medieval Islam, the way it’s practiced in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc., because medieval Islam is still in the crusader mindset and has ignored its own peaceful scripture.

FACT: Bush, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolai Ceaucescu, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Franco, Napoleon, etc. worked 12-20 hour days. They were all @$$holes; all were warmongers while some were outright genocidal, WHICH IS BESIDE THE POINT, oh capitalist baiter. Still, their labor is DIFFERENT from the labor of a single mother or a factory worker, just like a doctor's labor is different from an artist's and a coal miner's, therefore, a head of state's labor cannot be compared to other kinds of labor except that most if not all heads of state, and CEOs, work just as long and just as intensely as whatever X, Y, or Z labor you want to compare it to.

FACT: In most of the above dictators' concentration camps, the vast overwhelming majority of prisoners were of the SAME RACE as their persecutors. The real difference was ideas: utopian National Socialism against Judaism, international socialism, homosexuality, etc.; utopian Marxist-Leninism versus capitalists, petty bourgeois socialists, and other counter-revolutionaries; monarchal Republicans versus fascist Nationalists, etc.

FACT: DuBois and Einstein were international socialists. Voltaire was a nobleman who favored social REFORM, NOT REVOLUTION. Homer, Aristotle, Douglass, and Steinbeck were social reformers who were PATRIOTIC to their respective STATE.

FACT: Jesus of Nazareth, known by over a billion as the Christ, and by an additional billion as a holy prophet, advocated kindness and HOLINESS because it is the will of GOD. Jesus the rabbi taught that GOD made things good, therefore we as His creations ought to be good. He also taught loyalty and fidelity to GOD (not the dialectic), to be a city on the hill and a bright shining light in order to help others return to the grace of GOD. He also said RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S (i.e. taxes, citizenship, community service, etc.) AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S=== (i.e. worship, devotion, the soul). Never once did Jesus advocate uprisings. Furthermore, Jesus taught that ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD, and that ALL SINNERS CAN RETURN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS AND INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Example: Saul persecuted Christians violently for years, until his conversion. He then became a devout Christian and prolific writer and preacher. Marxism teaches people to have compassion for other proles while holding a vendetta against the “oppressors.”

CONCLUSION: Many of your above-used analogies are marred with fallacies and are erroneous. I will now divert this conversation back to the MAIN IDEA: RON PAUL and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[smiley emoticon]

Moderate: You go Zach. Islamaphobia...we don't care about their skin color...or even the way they worship....it's the radical extreme terrorist lifestyle some have chosen. Us whiteys don't give a rat's @$$ about their freaking ultimate conservative clothing selections. We do care about the ones who mistreat women and treat them as if it's the middle ages still. They do have a lifestyle goal in mind for the world...I believe it's called something like "Sharia" or something close to that. I read it last week on someone else's post. It's all about world domination by a systematic infiltration of poor areas of a city. Befriending the poor and weak with their propaganda. Not my world... Don't go planning how you're going to take over my country. Funny Soviet, how you stand up for the rights of all these others...and none of them have asked you to do so on their behalf. Also, how you put down anything that currently has governmental power....what has our country done to you personally, to make you so bitter? ...And I don't want to hear about anyone else’s causes.....just your own personal experience that brought you to this point....and please remember...anything you read, or were taught to believe...is second hand.....I need firsthand experience.

Zach Foster: Moderate, here's a GREAT article I read about “revolutionary” mindsets in the 20th century. [Link: article – About Socialism and Socialists by Frank Chodorov]

Moderate: Thanks Zach.  That's a lot to read...I'll muddle through it.

Zach Foster: lol it takes about 10 mins

Next: What does this all mean? REALITY vs. [Red] fiction

Monday, May 2, 2011

Libertarian Party celebrates end of bin Laden era

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle issued this statement today:

"I am glad to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden, who had no qualms about slaughtering American civilians.

"Unfortunately, bin Laden leaves behind an evil legacy in the United States: the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, the 'state secrets' doctrine, and other violations of Americans' civil and economic rights.

"Just like Osama bin Laden, these programs must be terminated.

"President Obama must also end the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It's time to stop being the world's policeman. It's time to bring all those troops home.

"Our government should also end its foreign aid programs, which create future terrorists by funding many dictators around the world."

The Libertarian Party platform (section 3.3) states, "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

In 2008, the Libertarian National Committee adopted resolutions calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website (LP.org).

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

Osama bin Laden Dead

Last night, President Obama addressed the Nation to announce that the United States has killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda. Watch or read his full remarks, and learn more from the transcript of the White House briefing call afterwards at WhiteHouse.gov.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Nowruz Message

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Washington, DC

I join President Obama in sending best wishes for health and prosperity to all those celebrating Nowruz throughout the world, including Americans, Afghans, Kurds, Azeris, Iranians and the people of Central Asia. For thousands of years, Nowruz has been a time for family and friends to gather and celebrate the beginning of a new year. Among the many rich traditions of celebrating Nowruz, the themes of rebirth and the pursuit of happiness are constant and aspirations we all share. As the Iranian poet Hafiz writes, “The breeze of Nowruz is blowing from the Beloved’s quarter; seek solace from this breeze to brighten your heart.”

This year allows us to reflect on recent events in the Middle East. We commend the demonstration of peaceful expressions of human rights and dignity we have seen in much of the region. We join the world community in embracing Nowruz’s opportunities and in striving to uphold its values.

May this new year be filled with a renewed sense of hope and a new commitment to the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are our universal birthright.

Nowruzetoon Pirouz, Haroozetoon Nowruz! Navruz Mubarak!

May your Nowruz be glorious, and may all your days be Nowruz.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Revolutions Today and Yesterday, Part 2

By Zach Foster
Read Part 1 (How this applies to the revolutions in the Middle East)

Oddly enough, despite incredible evidence and living testimonies that largely vindicate the United States’ actions in Southeast Asia (particularly Vietnam) from 1954 – 1975, political agendas still manage to distort history and paint Ho Chi Minh as a hero.  Ho, famous for “leading” the Vietnamese to freedom from French Colonialism and reunifying the “artificially divided” Vietnam.  It is only prudent to analyze Ho’s path to Leninism in his own words.

First and foremost, let it be noted that Vietnam had been naturally divided for centuries long after independence from the Chinese and long before the French ever arrived.  Northern and Southern dynasties fought multiple wars against each other, one of which lasted nearly fifty years (the Trinh-Nguyen Wars).  The nineteenth century arrival of the French, who did exploit and oppress the Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, only served to nominally and loosely unite some Indochinese independence factions.

Let it also be known that Ho’s actual name is Nguyen Sinh Cung.  He granted himself his nom de guerre “Ho Chi Minh” (meaning Enlightened One) in 1941.

After World War I, I made my living in Paris  I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.

At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.

Above is a statement to be taken in question.  Ho claims to have supported the October Revolution, which was carried out in October of 1917.  At that time, Ho was not living in France, but rather in England, and had not yet come into contact with Marxism or Marxists.  His first contact with Marxism was in 1919 in France, long after the October Revolution and well into the Russian Civil War.  If he did know about the October Revolution and about Lenin, it would have been through reading newspapers or hearsay and his opinion would have been incredibly ill-informed.

In regards to Vladimir Lenin, Lenin also being a nom de guerre (what is it with these ultra leftist revolutionaries and the fancy nick names?), his credibility as a Marxist is nil at best.  In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx describes how the proletariat will become conscious of their economic slavery and rise up as a whole to overthrow the bourgeoisie.  In The Civil War in France, Marx praises the national guards (defense militias) raised by the people, of the people, and for the people for the purpose of defending the Paris Commune from French police and military brutality.

Unfortunately for Lenin, the Russian proletariat wasn’t waking up fast enough for his taste.  This is where he developed the basis for Bolshevism, what the world knows today as Leninism: a system based on Marxist theory but dependent on “vanguards of the revolution” (militant/paramilitary agitators) to “lead” the proletariat to a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.  Lenin had basically turned a peaceful method of economic revolution into war.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Revolutions Today and Yesterday, Part 1

By Zach Foster

Part 1: Knowing the Past to Understand the Present

In the wake of the ongoing state of revolution in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya (where the revolution is being provoked to civil war by the Qadafi regime), and one expected to break out in Saudi Arabia, many people are wondering what directions these countries will go.  Will the revolutions be successful?  Can the people form new governments?  Will civil war ensue?  What system will the people choose to run their governments?

In the United States, emotions are running high as the American people watch the revolutions in awe.  Ultra-conservatives are scared out of their wits that Barack Obama’s Constitutional policy of nonintervention (which at this point is only direct nonintervention, as the U.S. has been performing humanitarian missions for the Egyptians, Tunisians, and Libyans) will pave the way for radical militant groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to take power.  It is highly unlikely that they could take power, since they are a scant minority among people protesting for their basic human rights to be respected.  The world knows how devastated the countries would be if radical (violent) Islam seized the reigns of fledgling revolutionary governments: they would parallel Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under the Ayatollah.  The educated and socially conscious revolutionaries are aware of this.  Nonetheless, more and more often Conservatives like to blame the President for the mere sake of blaming the President.

Leftists and socialists throughout America are riding revolutionary coat tails as usual, waving their flags, red banners, and claiming solidarity with the Middle Eastern revolutionaries from the safety of their college campuses, public parks, and police protection of the First Amendment, but not actually doing anything to fundamentally benefit the cause of the revolutionaries. The leftists are also protesting America’s policy of foreign intervention, though many if not most are doing so from a viewpoint of class struggle rather than pro-Constitutional reform.  Many are hoping that the Socialist and Communist parties of these countries will become leading forces in the revolutions (which they have yet to do).  In light of this, it may be beneficial to politically conscious Americans to study Communism in past revolutions and American interventionism, to see how the past affected America and how the current events could affect America.

Oddly enough, despite incredible evidence and living testimonies that largely vindicate the United States’ actions in Southeast Asia (particularly Vietnam) from 1954 – 1975, political agendas still manage to distort history and paint Ho Chi Minh as a hero.  Ho, famous for “leading” the Vietnamese to freedom from French Colonialism and reunifying the “artificially divided” Vietnam.  It is only prudent to analyze Ho’s path to Leninism in his own words.

Next: Ho Chi Minh's own words and Lenin's track record

734 ADT

Iowa Guardmembers of the 734th Agribusiness Development Team pull security during an International Women's Day event in Asadabad, Afghanistan. Speakers at the International Women’s Day event in Asadabad included, the provincial governor, the provincial prosecutor and an Imam who noted women’s rights are grounded in Islam. The Director of Women’s Affairs also spoke. She thanked the ADT and PRT for providing help to the women of Kunar – and expressed hope for a day when women in Afghanistan can leave their homes and participate in society without fear.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The Bill of Rights and Current Events – December 2010

By Zach Foster

USA.gov recently published a brief list reminding Americans of what freedoms they are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.  These freedoms are the cornerstone of American democracy and what it means to be an American citizen.  Nonetheless, these freedoms have been attacked or compromised through the ages and they continue to be attacked today.  Let us analyze some of the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights and how they stand in the face of today’s events.

Freedom of Religion: For the most part, American freedom of religion has persevered to unimaginable heights as nearly every denomination of every religion on earth is practiced in this country, from ancient traditional religions like Christianity and Buddhism to modern religions like Wicca and Scientology.  Religious diversity has brought the unexpected but direly needed side effect of teaching Americans to tolerate each other’s differences.  However, the religious group targeted in this country by much of the media for the last nine years, Muslims, has seen attacks on their freedom of religion.  No one is blind to the fact that since September 11th, 2001 there has been a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment.  Many wonderful and good natured Americans have allowed the better angels of their nature to be corrupted by the propaganda of a few paranoid religious xenophobes.  It is highly unpopular to be a Muslim in America.

What is even more highly unpopular is to be a Muslim in New York City.  Many big names in media launched one verbal assault after another at the idea of building a new mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero.  While it is easy to connect the dots that make this idea seem tacky, the people who have assaulted this idea have bought entirely too deeply into an alleged conspiracy that this is nothing but a slap in the face to America by Muslim extremists.  These people forget, however, that over three hundred of the victims—ten percent of the victims of the attack—were American Muslims.  They also forget about the thousands of good-natured Muslims who died fighting the Taliban between 1996 and 2001, and the patriotic pro-freedom Muslims of the Afghan National Army and the Iraqi Army who have fought and died next to American troops in the fight against extremism.

More importantly, they forget about the American Muslims who have fought and died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, whose memory is being slapped in the face every time an American utters anti-Islam rhetoric.  Americans forget that we are engaged in a Global War on Terror, NOT a global War on Islam (and let it be noted that former President George W. Bush’s family is very close friends with the  Saudi Royal family).  For all those who still believe that building that mosque in New York is a tacky and intentionally insulting move: is it too difficult to accept that the congregation wants to build their mosque there BECAUSE THEY ALREADY OWN THAT LAND?  Respect religions, condemn violence!

Freedom of assembly:  This freedom is still intact, though it is occasionally abused as Americans forget that this freedom explicitly applies to peaceful assembly.  There are places and times when far-rightist radical groups assemble in order to voice beliefs on racial supremacy and sometimes on how genocide of the lesser races would be a blessing.  Hate dominates their lives and probably always will.  On the other side of the political spectrum, radical leftists gather not just to protest actions of the American government, but advocate for its violent overthrow either for anarchy or for the purpose of proletarian revolution.  They forget that anarchy equals chaos, since social contracts are necessary for society to even function at the bare minimum.  They also forget or consciously disregard historical trends that when governments are violently overthrown by “proletarian revolutions,” the resulting “people’s governments” become more tyrannical and bloody than the ones they replace.  They fail to appreciate the government that, despite its shortcomings, allows them the luxuries of freedom they enjoy daily.

Freedom to keep and bear arms:  This Constitutional right is attacked on a regular basis.  Some states have passed laws overwhelmingly in favor of gun rights, while other state governments do everything in their power to try to remove guns from existence.  While some uneducated idealists truly believe that fewer guns in society will lower gun violence, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun violence is committed not with guns legally purchased from gun stores, but with illegal weapons, usually smuggled into the country and purchased on the black market.  Disarming the law abiding citizenry only makes them vulnerable to be preyed on by criminals.  The Second Amendment was most recently slammed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who claimed that James Madison only hastily threw it into the Bill of Rights to get the Constitution ratified by paranoid Congressmen.  However, James Madison’s explicitly pro-gun essay, #46 in The Federalist Papers, proves Breyer to be quite mistaken.

Freedom of speech:  This fundamental right continues to stand strong.  It is often used to voice hate and hateful vulgarity, but these are necessary evils in order to preserve Freedom of Speech for the moment when it is used to cry out a truth and right any grievous wrongs in our country or our world.

Freedom of the press:  This freedom stands strong and often is heavily abused by members of the press.  The press and media have the right to run any story they choose, but they DO NOT have the right to violate government secrecy when it comes to classified documents.  There comes a point where there must be—not a trade-off—but a compromise between freedom of information and national security.  Wikileaks and its American supporters have greatly strained this right in testing the limits of Freedom of the Press.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said it best: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”  If Americans completely give up their Freedom of Speech of Freedom of the Press in the name of national security truly deserve neither.  At the same time, those who would betray vital military or national secrets that would truly harm the security of the nation do not deserve to be free.  There needs to be a boundary for Americans—let each decide their own—where they decide when they are still free to say what they will while national security is respected.  Think of it this way: Will spilling these secrets get people killed?  Will keeping these secrets get people killed?

Freedom for those accused of crimes:  This freedom stands strong to this very day.  It was Cambodian (“Democratic” Kampuchean) dictator Pol Pot who said “It is better that ten innocents should die than for one guilty person to go free.”  In America it is just the opposite, and while crooks are occasionally able to slide past the justice system, many innocent people have been spared from being wrongly sent to prison.  We as a society are above Napoleonic law.  As a matter of fact, it is convicted felons that benefit most from this.  Most Americans misinterpret “protection for the accused” to carry over for those in prison when it need not be so.

There are many convicts in prison who actively fail to be reformed because of participation in rackets and crime from within prison walls.  Many activists rally in favor of improving (softening) living conditions in the prisons, and even for abolishing the death penalty, but they forget two things: 1) Imprisonment and execution are in compliance with Constitutional law, since people can only not be deprived of life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due process of law.  The Justice system is due process of law and CAN deprive a convicted felon of life (the death penalty), liberty (prison time), or property (fines or civil penalties); 2) Prison is meant to be a period of punishment and reform, NOT a child’s time out in his bedroom.

Instead of reading novels, pumping iron, and laying in their cells all day, perhaps prisoners should be doing twelve to fourteen hours of hard labor, followed by one or two hours in education on American history, American government, and the importance of contributing to the community and society as a whole upon release from prison (or, for the lifers without parole, helping others who will be our reform themselves).  While it is important that we protect those accused of crimes, we also have an obligation to teach and reform those in prison so that when they get out, we can also protect potential victims of crime.

Freedom of religion is the face of diversity.  Freedom of assembly is the face of political ideas.  Freedom to keep and bear arms is the face of self defense.  Freedom of speech is the face of expression, and sometimes, truth.  Freedom of the press is the face of knowing what goes on around us so that we may be one society, not an archipelago of people and information, and it is the face of awareness.  Protection for those accused of crimes, as well as legal disciplinary action for those convicted, are key aspects of a social contract and are the face of order.  All of these faces are the grand union that makes up this country.  The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and let us fulfill our dual responsibility of being aware of our rights and defending them at all costs.