53percenter's Blog

The vice chair of the Democrat National Committee (DNC) reportedly owes about $25,000 in back taxes to the state of New York.

Bronx Assemblyman Michael Blake, 36, who has called for the release of President Trump’s tax returns in the past, uncovered his tax debts in a federal financial disclosure report he filed in May as a Congressional candidate, according to the New York Post.

The former Obama White House aide is looking to take 76-year-old José E. Serrano’s (D-NY) seat for the 15th district of New York in 2020.

Blake’s profile on the DNC website stated:

New York State Assembly Member Michael Blake was born in The Bronx, NY to Jamaican Immigrants. He is in his third term, representing the 79th District. In the NY State Assembly, Blake is the chairperson of the subcommittee on Mitchell-Lama and member of the following committees: Banks, Correction, Election Law, Governmental Operations, Housing, Veterans’ Affairs, Black, Puerto Rican & Asian Legislative Caucus and Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force.

In 2018, Blake reportedly owed New York $13,000 in taxes, and later that year he was told he owed an additional $8,166.07.

“He said he is paying down the state and federal taxes in installment plans,” the Post article noted.

However, records showed he also failed to report that he received somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000 while doing consulting work for debt collection firm Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson in 2013.

“Linebarger is one of the nation’s largest government debt collectors and reportedly one of the most ruthless – helping inspire federal legislation to combat deceptive tactics used by the industry,” the New York Daily News reported.

On July 3, Blake said Americans deserved to know what President Trump was allegedly hiding from them when it came to his tax returns.

I commend the House Ways and Means Committee for filing a lawsuit in federal court to obtain President Trump’s tax returns. We demand transparency and know that Congress must conduct oversight. We know that Pres. Trump lied about his business dealings in Russia (1/2)

— Michael Blake (@MrMikeBlake) July 3, 2019

In a subsequent tweet, he wrote, “When elected to Congress, I will fight to protect the institutions of gov’t, and ensure there is not one set of rules for the President and another set for us.”

Arab/Israeli “peace talks” have been going on for the better part of a century without even a hint of serious progress. And the reason is quite simple — the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and they will come up with any excuse for frustrating the possibility, let alone the prospect, of a peaceful resolution.

At the outset, it might be helpful to focus in on our terms. When we speak of Arabs, we are usually focused on “Palestinians” (although the entire Arab world seems to be united behind the concept of driving Israel out of the Middle East; their larger goal — which some of them have openly admitted — is the extermination of Jewry in general, i.e. to complete the job undertaken by Hitler, with whom they were joined at the hip during WWII).

Also, it is important to note (and emphasize) that there has never been a Palestinian “nation” — only a land area designated as Palestine at the close of WWI with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, under whose rule that area had been presided over. Prior to the war ending, the entire Middle East was divided up among the victors, and new countries were created, e.g. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Among the territories assigned to the British was the land area designated as the Palestinian “mandate.” Most of this mass was originally to go to the Jews, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, but the British revised this determination and assigned most of the mandated territory to a new country to be called Transjordan (subsequently just called Jordan). The balance of the mandated territory was awarded to the Jews and Arabs residing in the remaining portion of the mandated area. Since the land area was designated as the Palestinian Mandate, the Arabs in residence understandably designated themselves as “Palestinians.” By this line of reasoning, it would be equally, if not more, appropriate for resident Jews to call themselves “Palestinians”; after all, they have been there for millennia. But it cannot be too strongly emphasized that there has never been a Palestinian “nation,” just a bunch of Arabs residing in that part of the Levant that fell under the Mandate; as noted, Jews have been in the area for centuries.

Nonetheless, on any number of occasions subsequent to the creation of the Mandate, the Jews and Arabs were given the opportunity to peacefully resolve their territorial disagreements by accepting the terms laid down by the conquering nations. The Jews accepted every one of those offers — even though they were being seriously shortchanged and awarded a land area that was considerably smaller than that originally promised and barely defensible at that. The Arabs never accepted any arrangement offered them in this manner. For example, in one of the more recent “peace” gestures, in 1990, Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, offered Arafat 95% of what he was demanding, including a significant piece of Jerusalem (Israel’s would be capital), plus some compensating territory for the remaining 5%. What did he get? Arafat’s flat rejection (to the consternation of Bill Clinton, who had arranged, and, I’m sure, orchestrated the meeting), followed by the second intifada and the slaughter of Jews. Barak’s successor, Ehud Olmert, offered Arafat even more and was met with the same degree of rejection.

Now, in fairness to the Palestinians, if either Arafat or Abbas had agreed to peace, and, in doing so, acknowledged Israel’s status as a State, he would probably have been assassinated. Recall how Anwar Sadat was treated after he signed a peace treaty with Israel on behalf of Egypt. Also, a peace treaty with Israel might limit the kleptocracy opportunities that Arafat and Abbas have availed themselves of over the years while covering their corruption tracks with their terrorist endeavors.

Also, it is important to note that the Jews were being offered this land by virtue of their righteous historical claim to it; Jews have been in this area for thousands of years (long before there ever was an Islam). To emphasize once again, that there has never been a Palestinian nation in residence in this area, and, as a consequence, the current “Palestinians” have no historical support for the claim to the land, and absolutely no legal claim to it. This point is well documented by David Meir-Levi titled History Upside Down — The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression.

The current alleged stumbling block to “peace” is the Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which comprise less than 2% of the West Bank’s land mass (more than 40% of which is unpopulated). The Arabs insist on a Jew-free territory! Isn’t this ethnic cleansing? Over 1,500,000 Arabs (Muslims) are “settled” in Israel — as citizens — where they enjoy the highest standard living of Muslims residing in any other country (with the possible exception of America). The Arabs have run almost 1,000,000 Jews out of Arab countries where the Jews resided for hundreds of years, and they are now turning their attention to that other group of “infidels,” Christians – whom they are slaughtering with impunity.

The bottom line? There will never be peace between the Arabs and Israel. Why not? Because, as noted, the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and will look for any excuse to avoid any kind of peace agreement. As Netanyahu once observed regarding the prospects for peace in the area: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence; if the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Or, as Golda Meir before him observed: “Peace will come when Arabs will love their children more than they hate us”.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians illegitimate arguments for their so-called oppression by a colonial power is resonating with the very real anti-Semitism that is abroad (particularly in Europe, but gaining a great deal of ground in America – particularly in our universities). 

So what are we to do? Exactly what Caroline Glick urges us to do in her exceptionally well written book, The Israeli Solution – A One-State Plan for Peace in The Middle East. Glick makes a very persuasive case for placing the West Bank (i.e. Judea and Samaria) under the jurisdiction of Israel. In doing so, she demolishes John Kerry’s argument that Israel can be either a Jewish State or be democratic; it cannot be both, says Kerry, and Glick demonstrates that he is wrong. (Has Kerry ever been right about anything significant?) So, don’t look for peace to break out any time soon between Israel and its neighbors.

Arab/Israeli “peace talks” have been going on for the better part of a century without even a hint of serious progress. And the reason is quite simple — the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and they will come up with any excuse for frustrating the possibility, let alone the prospect, of a peaceful resolution.

At the outset, it might be helpful to focus in on our terms. When we speak of Arabs, we are usually focused on “Palestinians” (although the entire Arab world seems to be united behind the concept of driving Israel out of the Middle East; their larger goal — which some of them have openly admitted — is the extermination of Jewry in general, i.e. to complete the job undertaken by Hitler, with whom they were joined at the hip during WWII).

Also, it is important to note (and emphasize) that there has never been a Palestinian “nation” — only a land area designated as Palestine at the close of WWI with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, under whose rule that area had been presided over. Prior to the war ending, the entire Middle East was divided up among the victors, and new countries were created, e.g. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Among the territories assigned to the British was the land area designated as the Palestinian “mandate.” Most of this mass was originally to go to the Jews, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, but the British revised this determination and assigned most of the mandated territory to a new country to be called Transjordan (subsequently just called Jordan). The balance of the mandated territory was awarded to the Jews and Arabs residing in the remaining portion of the mandated area. Since the land area was designated as the Palestinian Mandate, the Arabs in residence understandably designated themselves as “Palestinians.” By this line of reasoning, it would be equally, if not more, appropriate for resident Jews to call themselves “Palestinians”; after all, they have been there for millennia. But it cannot be too strongly emphasized that there has never been a Palestinian “nation,” just a bunch of Arabs residing in that part of the Levant that fell under the Mandate; as noted, Jews have been in the area for centuries.

Nonetheless, on any number of occasions subsequent to the creation of the Mandate, the Jews and Arabs were given the opportunity to peacefully resolve their territorial disagreements by accepting the terms laid down by the conquering nations. The Jews accepted every one of those offers — even though they were being seriously shortchanged and awarded a land area that was considerably smaller than that originally promised and barely defensible at that. The Arabs never accepted any arrangement offered them in this manner. For example, in one of the more recent “peace” gestures, in 1990, Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, offered Arafat 95% of what he was demanding, including a significant piece of Jerusalem (Israel’s would be capital), plus some compensating territory for the remaining 5%. What did he get? Arafat’s flat rejection (to the consternation of Bill Clinton, who had arranged, and, I’m sure, orchestrated the meeting), followed by the second intifada and the slaughter of Jews. Barak’s successor, Ehud Olmert, offered Arafat even more and was met with the same degree of rejection.

Now, in fairness to the Palestinians, if either Arafat or Abbas had agreed to peace, and, in doing so, acknowledged Israel’s status as a State, he would probably have been assassinated. Recall how Anwar Sadat was treated after he signed a peace treaty with Israel on behalf of Egypt. Also, a peace treaty with Israel might limit the kleptocracy opportunities that Arafat and Abbas have availed themselves of over the years while covering their corruption tracks with their terrorist endeavors.

Also, it is important to note that the Jews were being offered this land by virtue of their righteous historical claim to it; Jews have been in this area for thousands of years (long before there ever was an Islam). To emphasize once again, that there has never been a Palestinian nation in residence in this area, and, as a consequence, the current “Palestinians” have no historical support for the claim to the land, and absolutely no legal claim to it. This point is well documented by David Meir-Levi titled History Upside Down — The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression.

The current alleged stumbling block to “peace” is the Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which comprise less than 2% of the West Bank’s land mass (more than 40% of which is unpopulated). The Arabs insist on a Jew-free territory! Isn’t this ethnic cleansing? Over 1,500,000 Arabs (Muslims) are “settled” in Israel — as citizens — where they enjoy the highest standard living of Muslims residing in any other country (with the possible exception of America). The Arabs have run almost 1,000,000 Jews out of Arab countries where the Jews resided for hundreds of years, and they are now turning their attention to that other group of “infidels,” Christians – whom they are slaughtering with impunity.

The bottom line? There will never be peace between the Arabs and Israel. Why not? Because, as noted, the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and will look for any excuse to avoid any kind of peace agreement. As Netanyahu once observed regarding the prospects for peace in the area: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence; if the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Or, as Golda Meir before him observed: “Peace will come when Arabs will love their children more than they hate us”.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians illegitimate arguments for their so-called oppression by a colonial power is resonating with the very real anti-Semitism that is abroad (particularly in Europe, but gaining a great deal of ground in America – particularly in our universities). 

So what are we to do? Exactly what Caroline Glick urges us to do in her exceptionally well written book, The Israeli Solution – A One-State Plan for Peace in The Middle East. Glick makes a very persuasive case for placing the West Bank (i.e. Judea and Samaria) under the jurisdiction of Israel. In doing so, she demolishes John Kerry’s argument that Israel can be either a Jewish State or be democratic; it cannot be both, says Kerry, and Glick demonstrates that he is wrong. (Has Kerry ever been right about anything significant?) So, don’t look for peace to break out any time soon between Israel and its neighbors.

The relationship between Americans and their health care delivery is about to make a dramatic change for the worse.  Consumers of health care are poised to vote for a federally managed system.  Why would they go down this predictably awful rabbit hole?  They’ll do it because they are overwhelmed and frightened in the current system.  They’ll do it because this may be the only option that a typical voter understands.  They’ll do it because our elected leaders do not have the courage to enact changes that could make things work and don’t want to give up power.  And it will happen because the media will demonize and target anyone who isn’t on the socialist bandwagon.

Currently, we have a situation in America where the insured among us are utilizing health care less than in the past.  This is because of the financial implications of high-deductible insurance policies, most people’s only affordable option.  As a result, it is arguable that the very people who bear the financial burden for our medical care — namely, the minority among us who are insured Americans — are among those getting the worst care in our country.  It is well known that Americans often live on the edge of their finances.  So when it comes to budgeting for our deductible when health issues arise, we are frequently left with hard decisions.  This often results in the insured tolerating illness rather than seeking appropriate, expensive care.

The result of this development will most assuredly result in even conservative voters being swayed toward a federally managed health delivery system.  With the elderly freely using Medicare and Medicaid participants getting treatment with seemingly no debilitating financial consequences, it would be easy to desire something similar for the rest of us.  After all, what could be more messed up than the current system, where a simple visit to the emergency room can lead to bankruptcy?

The federal option for health care delivery will undoubtedly be wretched.  Ask any veteran or doctors who trained at those hospitals about their experience with the V.A., the best example of a federally run health delivery option.  You’ll hear stories that will curl your toes.  It is not possible for government to provide quality care in a timely manner affordably, just as equality and liberty can’t coexist without one sacrificing itself to the other.  Add on the layers of bureaucracy in a federally run hospital to the inefficiencies and redundancies they mandate, and the results are predictable.

Yet the people may opt for it anyway, because it is hard to imagine relying on the current system creating a more affordable market.  We are not using the economic tools that work to bring down costs.  There is no such thing as capitalism or a free market in health care delivery.  If a group of doctors think they can provide better care at cheaper prices than your community hospital, they cannot easily do so.  Government regulations would not grant them permission, because it is more “in the community’s interest” to keep the inefficient and expensive existing hospital afloat than to allow the creative destruction that capitalism provides.  Ending local government’s control over “certificate of need” would lower costs, but politics keeps these laws going.

Additionally, hospitals are allowed to charge much more for services than private practitioners of medicine and surgery.  This is because they have convinced local governments that this is justifiable because they have to take care of the indigent.  A lot of the recent dramatic rise in health care costs is a result of the incestuous relationship between hospital corporations and the government.  Doctors are getting absorbed into hospital employment with the lure that their pay will not go down as precipitously if they are paid the higher allowable fees that they can bill through the hospital.

You can add the insurance industry to the hospital corporations and the government as the three players that keep the system unaffordable and non-competitive.  Many competitive options for insurance coverage could decrease cost.  But these are opposed by the industry and are lobbied away.  The laws that could make these legal are unlikely to be enacted because power would shift from government and insurance companies to the individual.

One such idea is insurance pooling.  Suppose that someone who would normally be almost uninsurable, like a 33-year-old waitress with Crohn’s disease, could join in with other waitresses and shop as a group for policies across state lines.  This would put market forces to work and necessarily drive down her costs.  This is because most waitresses are young and fairly healthy, and the actuaries in the insurance companies would jump to bid for this business.  For particularly difficult to insure populations, there could even be federally subsidized pools.  This could work for the uninsured and unemployed.

For this concept to work, there would have to be allowances for buying insurance across state lines.  Politicians have too many pet causes to allow this to happen.  Most insurance coverage in New York City mandates coverage for transgender operations.  Years ago in Connecticut, insurance had to cover hair plugs.  As you might suspect, insurance can run much higher in these environments when compared to similar coverage (not including these boondoggles) in the upper Midwest.  If a resident of New York or Connecticut could buy the Midwestern policy for similar coverage without the local mandates, costs would go down.

Another priority would be transferring ownership of insurance to individuals rather than through their employers.  But tax incentives encourage the opposite.  Policies that do not end when changing jobs or crossing into other states would be preferable, but business tax deductions change the game.  If individuals could deduct insurance cost, as businesses have traditionally done, it could work.

Tort reform would remove a lot of dysfunction and wasteful spending.  But most lawmakers are lawyers, so the possibility of goring this cash cow is remote.  (What will happen to this sector if the federal government runs medicine?)  Allowing information technology to evolve naturally rather than instituting top-down, central control to the medical records, billing, and other information systems would result in savings, too.  But I.T. is essential to maintaining power, which makes any change non-negotiable.

Americans may have had enough, egged on by progressive media.  Plots to make medical care more affordable by re-introducing the free market and capitalism through changes in the current laws seem to have died off.  The fawning hero-worship directed toward former president Obama by the media glorified the idea of health care as a human right, with support for this wrong-headed idea achieving his goal of “fundamentally changing America.”  Medicare for all is depicted in the press as a desirable idea despite common sense suspecting the contrary.  When it is shown that the cost of administering health care through the existing system proves that insurance companies eat up around a third of the health care dollar, it does seem ridiculous to maintain the status quo.  After all, the cost of administration in the Veterans Administration is far less.  But we know intuitively that care will be worse.  And, as anyone who knows history can tell you, giving them power over our health care decision-making will be the final nail in the coffin of our freedom.

Yet, when the simple idea of a Health Savings Account, a necessary pillar of any health care reform, is above the heads of many voters, we have lost.  Because the media will shoot down any politician brave enough to try anything but a federal option (remember Tom Price, [R-GA]?), it is harder than ever to have any kind of inertia for reasonable change.  With the shortsightedness of insurance companies and hospital corporations essentially pricing themselves out of existence for access to more money today, it looks hopeless.  And when federal debt continues to be viewed as a “so what?” by politicians and citizens alike, we are done. 

The relationship between Americans and their health care delivery is about to make a dramatic change for the worse.  Consumers of health care are poised to vote for a federally managed system.  Why would they go down this predictably awful rabbit hole?  They’ll do it because they are overwhelmed and frightened in the current system.  They’ll do it because this may be the only option that a typical voter understands.  They’ll do it because our elected leaders do not have the courage to enact changes that could make things work and don’t want to give up power.  And it will happen because the media will demonize and target anyone who isn’t on the socialist bandwagon.

Currently, we have a situation in America where the insured among us are utilizing health care less than in the past.  This is because of the financial implications of high-deductible insurance policies, most people’s only affordable option.  As a result, it is arguable that the very people who bear the financial burden for our medical care — namely, the minority among us who are insured Americans — are among those getting the worst care in our country.  It is well known that Americans often live on the edge of their finances.  So when it comes to budgeting for our deductible when health issues arise, we are frequently left with hard decisions.  This often results in the insured tolerating illness rather than seeking appropriate, expensive care.

The result of this development will most assuredly result in even conservative voters being swayed toward a federally managed health delivery system.  With the elderly freely using Medicare and Medicaid participants getting treatment with seemingly no debilitating financial consequences, it would be easy to desire something similar for the rest of us.  After all, what could be more messed up than the current system, where a simple visit to the emergency room can lead to bankruptcy?

The federal option for health care delivery will undoubtedly be wretched.  Ask any veteran or doctors who trained at those hospitals about their experience with the V.A., the best example of a federally run health delivery option.  You’ll hear stories that will curl your toes.  It is not possible for government to provide quality care in a timely manner affordably, just as equality and liberty can’t coexist without one sacrificing itself to the other.  Add on the layers of bureaucracy in a federally run hospital to the inefficiencies and redundancies they mandate, and the results are predictable.

Yet the people may opt for it anyway, because it is hard to imagine relying on the current system creating a more affordable market.  We are not using the economic tools that work to bring down costs.  There is no such thing as capitalism or a free market in health care delivery.  If a group of doctors think they can provide better care at cheaper prices than your community hospital, they cannot easily do so.  Government regulations would not grant them permission, because it is more “in the community’s interest” to keep the inefficient and expensive existing hospital afloat than to allow the creative destruction that capitalism provides.  Ending local government’s control over “certificate of need” would lower costs, but politics keeps these laws going.

Additionally, hospitals are allowed to charge much more for services than private practitioners of medicine and surgery.  This is because they have convinced local governments that this is justifiable because they have to take care of the indigent.  A lot of the recent dramatic rise in health care costs is a result of the incestuous relationship between hospital corporations and the government.  Doctors are getting absorbed into hospital employment with the lure that their pay will not go down as precipitously if they are paid the higher allowable fees that they can bill through the hospital.

You can add the insurance industry to the hospital corporations and the government as the three players that keep the system unaffordable and non-competitive.  Many competitive options for insurance coverage could decrease cost.  But these are opposed by the industry and are lobbied away.  The laws that could make these legal are unlikely to be enacted because power would shift from government and insurance companies to the individual.

One such idea is insurance pooling.  Suppose that someone who would normally be almost uninsurable, like a 33-year-old waitress with Crohn’s disease, could join in with other waitresses and shop as a group for policies across state lines.  This would put market forces to work and necessarily drive down her costs.  This is because most waitresses are young and fairly healthy, and the actuaries in the insurance companies would jump to bid for this business.  For particularly difficult to insure populations, there could even be federally subsidized pools.  This could work for the uninsured and unemployed.

For this concept to work, there would have to be allowances for buying insurance across state lines.  Politicians have too many pet causes to allow this to happen.  Most insurance coverage in New York City mandates coverage for transgender operations.  Years ago in Connecticut, insurance had to cover hair plugs.  As you might suspect, insurance can run much higher in these environments when compared to similar coverage (not including these boondoggles) in the upper Midwest.  If a resident of New York or Connecticut could buy the Midwestern policy for similar coverage without the local mandates, costs would go down.

Another priority would be transferring ownership of insurance to individuals rather than through their employers.  But tax incentives encourage the opposite.  Policies that do not end when changing jobs or crossing into other states would be preferable, but business tax deductions change the game.  If individuals could deduct insurance cost, as businesses have traditionally done, it could work.

Tort reform would remove a lot of dysfunction and wasteful spending.  But most lawmakers are lawyers, so the possibility of goring this cash cow is remote.  (What will happen to this sector if the federal government runs medicine?)  Allowing information technology to evolve naturally rather than instituting top-down, central control to the medical records, billing, and other information systems would result in savings, too.  But I.T. is essential to maintaining power, which makes any change non-negotiable.

Americans may have had enough, egged on by progressive media.  Plots to make medical care more affordable by re-introducing the free market and capitalism through changes in the current laws seem to have died off.  The fawning hero-worship directed toward former president Obama by the media glorified the idea of health care as a human right, with support for this wrong-headed idea achieving his goal of “fundamentally changing America.”  Medicare for all is depicted in the press as a desirable idea despite common sense suspecting the contrary.  When it is shown that the cost of administering health care through the existing system proves that insurance companies eat up around a third of the health care dollar, it does seem ridiculous to maintain the status quo.  After all, the cost of administration in the Veterans Administration is far less.  But we know intuitively that care will be worse.  And, as anyone who knows history can tell you, giving them power over our health care decision-making will be the final nail in the coffin of our freedom.

Yet, when the simple idea of a Health Savings Account, a necessary pillar of any health care reform, is above the heads of many voters, we have lost.  Because the media will shoot down any politician brave enough to try anything but a federal option (remember Tom Price, [R-GA]?), it is harder than ever to have any kind of inertia for reasonable change.  With the shortsightedness of insurance companies and hospital corporations essentially pricing themselves out of existence for access to more money today, it looks hopeless.  And when federal debt continues to be viewed as a “so what?” by politicians and citizens alike, we are done. 

The Dearborn Public Schools website states it matter-of-factly: “Dearborn Public Schools ensures all meats served in our schools are certified Halal.”  Now one courageous mother is fighting back, challenging Dearborn public school officials to explain why they have done this and to provide options for students who object to halal food.

The mother wrote to Dearborn schools superintendent Glenn Maleyko, noting, “Schools have never changed lunches to fit any other religious needs.  If one needed a special diet due to religion or health, they did what all other students do, bring a lunch from home.”

Maleyko responded: “The decision was based on operational considerations only, not religion.  By implementing an all Halal meat option we have increased the number of students that we are serving[.] … It would cost a lot more to provide both Halal and non-Halal meat.”

In the long run, the superintendent will find it far, far costlier to have capitulated to Islamic supremacism and set this precedent.

Dearborn’s actions here should be a matter of concern for all free people.  This is a manifestation of the Left’s absolute march, without consideration or question, toward exclusionary, supremacist practices that any genuinely pluralistic society should reject.  Dearborn Public Schools officials are demonstrating a totalitarian assuredness in the delusional comfort of enlightenment, diversity, and inclusion.  They’re in for an unpleasant surprise: they’re accommodating a radically non-diverse, non-inclusive 

Dearborn’s policy is discriminatory against non-Muslim students of numerous perspectives, some having to do with different faith traditions.  There may be any number of reasons why people don’t want halal meat.  They may object to halal slaughter for humanitarian reasons or because they are concerned for animal rights.  Evangelical Christians may consider it meat sacrificed to idols, as discussed in the New Testament.  Jews are obliged to keep kosher, not eat halal food.  Still others may object to the fact that many halal certification organizations have links to jihad terror groups.

In light of all this, Dearborn should rescind its halal-only policy so as to make its schools truly inclusive and diverse, accepting of all students, not just Muslim students.

But that is unlikely to happen.  This initiative is already very far advanced.  If you’re in Europe, and in many areas in America as well, the meat you are eating is probably halal, unless you’re keeping kosher.  In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a barbaric, torturous and inhuman method: Islamic slaughter.

Where were the PETA clowns and the ridiculous celebs who pose naked on giant billboards for PETA and “animal rights”?  They would rather see people die of cancer or AIDS than see animals used in drug testing, but torturous and painful Islamic slaughter is OK.

Many people have written to me saying they simply won’t eat halal meat, as they object to the methods used to slaughter the animal.  And I agree.  The sharia term for halal slaughter is dhakat.  Dhakat is to slaughter an animal by cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, letting the blood drain out while saying, “Bismillah allahu akbar” — in the name of Allah the greater.

Seventy percent of New Zealand lamb imported into the United Kingdom is halal.  It is not labeled as such, so people are eating halal without even knowing it.  But people there are fighting back: when halal food was imposed on public schools in the United Kingdom in 2007, parents were in an uproar.  And in March 2010, Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE), the sister organization to my group SIOA, called for the cessation of mandatory consumption of halal meat on the continent.

In the United States, a great deal of meat sold in this country is already halal but is not labeled is such.  It’s a scandal, but an established practice: meatpackers generally do not separate halal meat from non-halal meat and not do not label halal meat as such.  We attempted to right that wrong.  But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has for four years now ignored, shelved, or just plain refused to rule on our petition.

As many Americans do not, for a variety of reasons, wish to eat halal meat, back in February 2012, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), filed a citizen petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, asking that a regulation be enacted to ensure that all halal food be clearly labeled as halal.  In April 2012, we agreed not to publicize our petition in order to give the agency some space to review the document without any pressure from the public.

On May 11, 2012, we had a face-to-face meeting in the USDA offices with top FSIS officials.  We discussed this petition and the need for halal meat to be clearly labeled.  Present at this meeting was Dan Engeljohn, a longtime USDA official who is now assistant administrator for the Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD) in the FSIS.  This position made him responsible for FSIS regulations.

Engeljohn and company had years to rule on our petition.  They never did a thing.  They just let it die on the table and stonewalled our repeated requests for an explanation.

As far back as October 2010, I reported on little noted but explosive revelations that much of the meat in Europe and the United States was being processed as halal without the knowledge of the non-Muslim consumers who bought it.

Then, in November 2011, I penned an article that caused a firestorm across the political spectrum, revealing that Butterball turkeys were all halal but were not labeled as such. Heads exploded on the Left — not over Butterball’s deception, but over my having the audacity to reveal it.  The clueless and compromised on the right were enraged as well: John Podhoretz tweeted, “I’d tell Pamela Geller to put a sock in it, but the sock might be halal.”

I was, of course, excoriated as a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot.  In reality, however, we have no objection to halal meat being sold, as long as it is clearly labeled as such, and as long as non-halal meat is available.

And now, all these years later, halal meat is being imposed on non-Muslims.  The Dearborn mother responded to Maleyko’s bland rejection of her concerns but at press time had not heard back from the superintendent.  Will he respond?  Will he take her concerns seriously?  And even more importantly, is this diversity?  Is this inclusion?  This is Islamic supremacism and totalitarianism.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI); publisher of The Geller Report; and author of the bestselling book FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.  Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

The Dearborn Public Schools website states it matter-of-factly: “Dearborn Public Schools ensures all meats served in our schools are certified Halal.”  Now one courageous mother is fighting back, challenging Dearborn public school officials to explain why they have done this and to provide options for students who object to halal food.

The mother wrote to Dearborn schools superintendent Glenn Maleyko, noting, “Schools have never changed lunches to fit any other religious needs.  If one needed a special diet due to religion or health, they did what all other students do, bring a lunch from home.”

Maleyko responded: “The decision was based on operational considerations only, not religion.  By implementing an all Halal meat option we have increased the number of students that we are serving[.] … It would cost a lot more to provide both Halal and non-Halal meat.”

In the long run, the superintendent will find it far, far costlier to have capitulated to Islamic supremacism and set this precedent.

Dearborn’s actions here should be a matter of concern for all free people.  This is a manifestation of the Left’s absolute march, without consideration or question, toward exclusionary, supremacist practices that any genuinely pluralistic society should reject.  Dearborn Public Schools officials are demonstrating a totalitarian assuredness in the delusional comfort of enlightenment, diversity, and inclusion.  They’re in for an unpleasant surprise: they’re accommodating a radically non-diverse, non-inclusive 

Dearborn’s policy is discriminatory against non-Muslim students of numerous perspectives, some having to do with different faith traditions.  There may be any number of reasons why people don’t want halal meat.  They may object to halal slaughter for humanitarian reasons or because they are concerned for animal rights.  Evangelical Christians may consider it meat sacrificed to idols, as discussed in the New Testament.  Jews are obliged to keep kosher, not eat halal food.  Still others may object to the fact that many halal certification organizations have links to jihad terror groups.

In light of all this, Dearborn should rescind its halal-only policy so as to make its schools truly inclusive and diverse, accepting of all students, not just Muslim students.

But that is unlikely to happen.  This initiative is already very far advanced.  If you’re in Europe, and in many areas in America as well, the meat you are eating is probably halal, unless you’re keeping kosher.  In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a barbaric, torturous and inhuman method: Islamic slaughter.

Where were the PETA clowns and the ridiculous celebs who pose naked on giant billboards for PETA and “animal rights”?  They would rather see people die of cancer or AIDS than see animals used in drug testing, but torturous and painful Islamic slaughter is OK.

Many people have written to me saying they simply won’t eat halal meat, as they object to the methods used to slaughter the animal.  And I agree.  The sharia term for halal slaughter is dhakat.  Dhakat is to slaughter an animal by cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, letting the blood drain out while saying, “Bismillah allahu akbar” — in the name of Allah the greater.

Seventy percent of New Zealand lamb imported into the United Kingdom is halal.  It is not labeled as such, so people are eating halal without even knowing it.  But people there are fighting back: when halal food was imposed on public schools in the United Kingdom in 2007, parents were in an uproar.  And in March 2010, Stop Islamization of Europe (SIOE), the sister organization to my group SIOA, called for the cessation of mandatory consumption of halal meat on the continent.

In the United States, a great deal of meat sold in this country is already halal but is not labeled is such.  It’s a scandal, but an established practice: meatpackers generally do not separate halal meat from non-halal meat and not do not label halal meat as such.  We attempted to right that wrong.  But the U.S. Department of Agriculture has for four years now ignored, shelved, or just plain refused to rule on our petition.

As many Americans do not, for a variety of reasons, wish to eat halal meat, back in February 2012, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), filed a citizen petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, asking that a regulation be enacted to ensure that all halal food be clearly labeled as halal.  In April 2012, we agreed not to publicize our petition in order to give the agency some space to review the document without any pressure from the public.

On May 11, 2012, we had a face-to-face meeting in the USDA offices with top FSIS officials.  We discussed this petition and the need for halal meat to be clearly labeled.  Present at this meeting was Dan Engeljohn, a longtime USDA official who is now assistant administrator for the Office of Policy and Program Development (OPPD) in the FSIS.  This position made him responsible for FSIS regulations.

Engeljohn and company had years to rule on our petition.  They never did a thing.  They just let it die on the table and stonewalled our repeated requests for an explanation.

As far back as October 2010, I reported on little noted but explosive revelations that much of the meat in Europe and the United States was being processed as halal without the knowledge of the non-Muslim consumers who bought it.

Then, in November 2011, I penned an article that caused a firestorm across the political spectrum, revealing that Butterball turkeys were all halal but were not labeled as such. Heads exploded on the Left — not over Butterball’s deception, but over my having the audacity to reveal it.  The clueless and compromised on the right were enraged as well: John Podhoretz tweeted, “I’d tell Pamela Geller to put a sock in it, but the sock might be halal.”

I was, of course, excoriated as a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot.  In reality, however, we have no objection to halal meat being sold, as long as it is clearly labeled as such, and as long as non-halal meat is available.

And now, all these years later, halal meat is being imposed on non-Muslims.  The Dearborn mother responded to Maleyko’s bland rejection of her concerns but at press time had not heard back from the superintendent.  Will he respond?  Will he take her concerns seriously?  And even more importantly, is this diversity?  Is this inclusion?  This is Islamic supremacism and totalitarianism.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI); publisher of The Geller Report; and author of the bestselling book FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.  Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.