What do Islamophobia and Voter Suppression Have in Common?

Predictable cries of Islamophobia are heard after every terrorist attack even when jihadis screaming “Allahu Akhbar” (Allah is greater) make it irrefutable that they are killing in the name of Islam. Leftists and their apologists ignore this obvious fact and instead steer the discussion to Islamophobia.

So what is Islamophobia?

A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Islam is a set of ideas. Criticizing a set of ideas that blatantly states its intention to destroy Western civilization and replace it with a worldwide religious Islamic caliphate is not irrational. Considering that Islam’s particular set of ideas has also created a military corps of jihadists willing to die killing infidels (non-Muslims) to make their Islamist dreams come true, it is not irrational to fear it or be averse to it. Self-preservation is the most basic of human instincts – it is neither irrational nor phobic.

The Leftist/Islamist axis deliberately blurs the boundary between criticizing ideas and criticizing people to shut down any rational debate about the ideology that is Islam. The accusation of Islamophobia is an accusation of bigotry. It is an emotional and deceitful political strategy designed to restrict freedom of speech and advance the goal of open borders. Why do Leftists and Islamists seek open borders? Because both groups have the shared goals of toppling America-first President Donald Trump and destroying American democracy. This is how it works.

The Leftist/Islamist axis requires social chaos to achieve its shared ambitions. If the alliance is successful in toppling the President the Leftists seek to impose secular socialism, and the Islamists seek to impose a religious caliphate. At this moment in history their shared goals take precedence over their separate goals. War on America makes strange bedfellows and explains the unlikely partnership between Leftists and sharia compliant Islamists.

So, what does any of this have to do with voter suppression?

California allows non-citizens to obtain drivers licenses and its 2015 New Motor Voter Law automatically registers all eligible voters to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Voters are no longer required to fill out a separate voter registration form. Here is the problem. The boundary between eligible and non-eligible has been blurred which seriously threatens the integrity of elections.

Election integrity is the single most important element in a representative government. Voting is an American privilege and responsibility reserved for American citizens exclusively. The American public places its trust in legitimate elections that honestly calculate their votes. Non-citizens are not legally eligible to vote. Any policy or person that encourages illegal non-citizen voting is corrupting the integrity of the electoral process.

Why would Barack Obama invite illegals to vote? Why would Governor Jerry Brown sign the 2015 New Motor Voter Law into effect just in time for the 2016 presidential election? Because non-citizens vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Non-citizen votes are enough to swing elections. Joan Swirsky has just published an extraordinary article exposing the vehement Democrat opposition to President Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity and his determination to investigate voter fraud.

Why would any honest American oppose election integrity?

Think about it. Democrats reflexively scream “Voter Suppression” when confronted with voter ID requirements specifically designed to protect election integrity. They also reject any investigation that would expose voter fraud capable of illegally tilting elections. Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project discovered a shocking discrepancy between census statistics and voter registration rolls. There are 3.5 million more people on the United States election rolls than are alive among America’s adult voters! These 3.5 million “ghost voters” suspiciously coincide with the number of popular votes that crooked Hillary insists were hers. Dead voters, non-citizen voters, voting in more than one place have all been documented and the Leftist/Islamist axis wants to stop any further investigation. They scream “Voter Suppression” for the same reason they scream “Islamophobia” – the noise drowns out the honest voices demanding a rational debate about the existential dangers of voter fraud and Islamism.

What “Islamophobia” and “Voter Suppression” have in common is that they are both deceitful political slogans being used by the Leftist/Islamist axis to bring down President Trump’s government. Americans wishing to preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution must oppose manipulative sloganism and actively support the courageous efforts of truth seekers like Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton.

We are at a pivotal time in American history.

We must fight to preserve our individual freedoms and liberty or we can be silenced and surrender them to the deep state. I reject the deceitful cries of “Islamophobia” and “Voter Suppression.” I unapologetically choose freedom and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I unapologetically choose election integrity. I unapologetically choose America first, national sovereignty, protected borders, the meritocracy, and unrestricted freedom of speech without which there is no other freedom.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. 

Excellent Black American Role Models Are Being Erased From History

There is a tragedy of historical and philosophical ignorance that is benefitting a tiny handful of people at the expense and well-being of the vast majority of black Americans.

This tragedy is the ongoing, purposeful scrubbing from the education system the history of successful, self-reliant black Americans before the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s, and the reason for their success and that of large numbers of other blacks.

The leading black American at the turn of the 20th century was Booker T. Washington, whose approach was the virtual opposite of today’s grievance-focused approach that looks to government for personal progress. Washington, born into slavery, thought the black man’s best hope lay in personal responsibility, education, entrepreneurship, business and family. And indeed, there were great economic gains arising from that until the 1970s.

The result of this erasure of Washington and others (such as Frederick Douglass) is that black Americans have ever more intently looked to government, ironically still run largely by the dominant race of white Americans, for their future success. This means too many black Americans’ reliance ultimately rests on the largesse of white people, the total opposite of what was being promoted successfully for 60 years after the Civil War.

The Civil Rights Movement was an imperative for black Americans and the strength of all of America, crushing the last poisons of fully institutionalized racism (at least until hiring quotas, affirmative action and intersectionality began reintroducing the poison.) But if it had been married to the earlier teachings of Washington the result almost assuredly would have been a dynamic, black community in full competition with white and Asian Americans.

Washington was born into slavery in 1856, but grew from emancipation to be an American educator, author, orator, advisor to multiple presidents of the United States and for a quarter century until his death in 1915 was the dominant leader in the American black community.

He was a forceful proponent of black-owned businesses and a founder of the National Negro Business League. Based at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama as lynchings in the South peaked in 1895, Washington delivered his “Atlanta compromise” speech. He called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship, rather than trying to challenge directly the Jim Crow segregation and the disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. (Although he quietly helped those who were fighting the Jim Crow laws.) He felt blacks best situation would be had by being self-reliant.

Washington mobilized and led a broad, nationwide coalition of the growing middle-class of blacks, church leaders who were not so much political as Christian, and white philanthropists and politicians who supported his vision. His goal was the long-term, foundational building of the black community’s economic strength and pride through self-help and schooling. In this way, black Americans would not be reliant on the government or the largesse of white people. And their economic strength would naturally integrate them into the American capitalistic culture.

This was precisely what was happening and can be seen in the economic growth among black Americans that erupted in the immediate aftermath of civil rights laws dismantling legal discrimination. This short era was while the concept of self-help was still dominant — before the welfare culture took hold.

According to an in-depth study by the University of Indiana:

“For both African–American men and women, the greatest improvement in labour income relative to their White counterparts occurred in the 1960s and 1970s (Donohue 2007, pp. 1424–25). In the 1960s, African-American men and women of all age groups enjoyed positive growth relative to their White counterparts, with the men enjoying growth rates ranging from 6.5 percent to 21.8 percent, and the women enjoying growth rates ranging from 23.5 percent to 38.7 percent.”

These high growth numbers are actually above the rate of income growth for whites during the same period, meaning that the gap was being closed. Black Americans made their biggest strides in closing the economic gap with white Americans at a time when the self-reliant ethos of Booker T. Washington and others was still somewhat intact, and discrimination laws had been eliminated.

Unfortunately, going forward, the black labor participation rate that was 90 percent in 1970, plummeted to 77 percent by 2010. The white rate went from 95 percent to 91 percent in the same time period. Of course, this was the same time period in which the Great Society took hold.

There are many other data points showing that blacks were closing the gap on whites at a quick pace economically until the welfare state took hold most deeply among black Americans. Then progress not just slowed, but stopped and in some ways went backward. We see more black people in public, successful positions now but that is because of both opportunities and certain advantages that have been created for black Americans tend to accrue to those that already “have,” compared to those who “have not.”

Classic result of state-driven social policies.

Washington understood much of what was happening in his time and what could happen if black Americans took the path that was ultimately taken. His words both lift and inspire — not just black Americans, but all Americans — just as Martin Luther King’s do.

Here are some of his fascinating and worthy insights. (Language is time-stamped. If you are offended, avoid all history and pretend it didn’t exist. But you probably have not read this far if you are of that nature.) You see how Washington consistently looks at the individual, at the character of the man as MLK pointed to, not any outside forces. He is actually far more in the traditional American mode than any of today’s progressives of any race.

“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.”

“Character, not circumstances, makes the man.”

“Of all forms of slavery there is none that is so harmful and degrading as that form of slavery which tempts one human being to hate another by reason of his race or color. One man cannot hold another man down in the ditch without remaining down in the ditch with him.”

“There are two ways of exerting one’s strength: one is pushing down, the other is pulling up.”

“Men may make laws to hinder and fetter the ballot, but men cannot make laws that will bind or retard the growth of manhood. We went into slavery a piece of property; we came out American citizens. We went into slavery pagans; we came out Christians. We went into slavery without a language; we came out speaking the proud Anglo-Saxon tongue. We went into slavery with slave chains clanking about our wrists; we came out with the American ballot in our hands.”

And these two, that could with little imagination, attach to some current so-called “civil rights” leaders afflicting the county and American blacks:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

“I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”

It’s truly a tragedy that Washington’s legacy has been erased, that so few students learn of him today, and that we have turned our back on the wisdom of his life and insights.

RELATED ARTICLE: W.E.B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington and the Origins of the Civil Rights Movement

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit the Revolutionary Act YouTube ChannelHelp Us Fight For American Values.

21 Travel Tips To Make You The World’s Smart Traveler [Infographic]

Almost everyone resembles to be savvy travelers when you travel on road. At the primary stage, it is often quite common to make some mistakes. Here you will find 21 traveling tips that will make you the world’s smart Traveller.

The following infographic is courtesy of ViewTraveling.com:

Media Matters moves to force policy changes at social media giants to ban and silence conservative voices

The Soros-funded hate group Media Matters means to force policy changes at Tech Companies to silence and ban conservative news. Media Matters is getting desperate after the Democrats’ catastrophic defeat in 2016, which, of course, the left still hasn’t accepted and will probably never forget. These sinister forces are moving now to make sure it doesn’t happen again in 2018 by labeling everyone who dissents from the leftist agenda as “fake news” and banning them. The only voices that anyone will hear all through the campaign will be those of the leftist media.

If this isn’t stopped, it could be the end of our republic.

“Media Matters: Force Policy Changes at Tech Companies to Fight ‘Fake News,’” by Joe Schoffstall, Washington Free Beacon, April 19, 2018:

A group founded by liberal operative David Brock spoke of the need to force policy changes at Google, Facebook, and YouTube to combat the “proliferation” of “fake news” at the left’s largest dark money donor conference, according to an agenda obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Confidential documents previously obtained by the Free Beacon showed that Media Matters refers to right-leaning news sites when discussing “fake news” and that they had already consulted with a number of social media giants.

The Democracy Alliance, a secretive group of deep-pocketed donors who each push hundreds of thousands of dollars to progressive groups approved by the network, held their spring investment conference this week at the five-star InterContinental Buckhead Hotel in Atlanta.

Top Democrats such as Terry McAuliffe, who is often floated as a potential 2020 candidate for president, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, and billionaire “Need to Impeach” campaign leader Tom Steyer were in attendance.

The conference featured a heavy security presence and only members of the Democracy Alliance could enter the hallways where the sessions were being held. Free Beacon reporterswho were on site throughout the gathering, obtained the group’s agenda and other documents that shed light on their discussions at the event.

Media Matters President Angelo Carusone spoke on the “New Tactics for a New Challenge” panel at the conference where he was joined by Bradley Beychok, the president of American Bridge, another group founded and led by Brock.

Carusone spoke to Democracy Alliance members about forcing social media giants to change their policies to combat fake news.

“Media Matters President Angelo Carusone will describe the importance of mapping and understanding the fake news ecosystem and how forcing policy changes at Google, Facebook, and YouTube, can prevent the proliferation of fake news and suppressive tactics online in the lead up to the midterms,” the event’s descriptionreads.

While Media Matters did not return a request for comment about what was said on the panel, the Free Beacon obtained confidential documents last year that laid out details on how the group would approach this agenda.

“Media Matters will continue our core mission of disarming right-wing information, while leading the fight against the next generation of conservative disinformation: The proliferation of fake news and propaganda now threatening the country’s information ecosystem,” the group’s documents read. “Utilizing our capacity as the nation’s premier progressive media watchdog and rapid-response research center, Media Matters will further increase our visibility in the ecosystem, strengthen the ability of our supporters and partners to influence it, and improve the infrastructure on which it rests.”

Within Brock’s agenda, Media Matters said that over the next four years the group would focus on exposing “serial misinformers and right-wing propagandists inhabiting everything from social media to the highest levels of government.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Netflix Original Series: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Came to Love the Beheadings

Netflix is rumored to be considering doing a series based upon “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a 1964 political satire black comedy film that satirizes the Cold War fears of a nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, Hollywood has been looking for a new theme that is top of mind with the movie going audience.

According to unnamed Hollywood investors, “Today the fears of a nuclear war have been replaced with the fear of being beheaded, particularly if you are the President of the United States, a Republican, Christian, Jew, Hindu, atheist, gay or just a non-Muslim.  We see this as an opportunity to create a new reality show for our growing progressive audience. Fear sells at the box office!”

The Netflix original series working title, according to anonymous sources, is “Dr. Mohammed: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Came to Love the Beheadings.”

The series will be directed by former comedian and Hollywood favorite Kathy Griffin. The cast will be actors whose roles portray members of the Democratic National Campaign Committee (DNCC), Antifa, Muslim Brotherhood and Black Lives Matter. According to anonymous sources, ISIS (a Muslim Brotherhood organization) will be sending its displaced migrant members to be interviewed for the action sequences in the new Netflix series “Beheadings.”

This Netflix original series will be the comeback of Harvey Weinstein since the #MeToo movement. Mr. Weinstein said in a press release:

I’m glad to be back in the saddle again, no pun intended.

I am aroused and excited, no pun intended, to be working on/with Kathy Griffin and Netflix on this new series that raises beheadings to an art form. It is time for us to stop worrying about being beheaded.

As a heterosexual, white, migrant Jew it is important to understand how our Muslim brothers and sisters have used the beheading of others to express their deepest feeling and emotions. We will be using volunteers to be beheaded.

In this Netflix original series heads will actually roll, no pun intended.

Netflix in a statement noted:

The well know character Dr. Strangelove, played by Peter Sellers in the original film How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, will be played by former British citizen, and member of ISIS, Mohammed Emwazi (a.k.a. Jihadi John, John the Beatle). John will play the role of Dr. Muhammad (founder of the Religion of Peace) in the series.

We are seeking Christians, Jews, Hindus, Confusions, and other non-Muslims for parts in our original series Beheadings. If you are looking for a part and making film history just call 1-800-BEHEADME. These positions are temporary and only require kneeling and bowing your head.

Any current or former employee of the White House is welcome to apply for this once in a lifetime opportunity.

Ms. Griffin, the Director of Beheadings, noted, “This is my comeback, my opportunity to show the world how a head in the hand is worth two in the White House.”

Al Hayat Media Center noted:

This gives our brothers and sisters a new lease on life. After being driven out of Syria and Iraq, we are looking for new opportunities to use our unique skills. We cannot think of a better place than Hollywood, California. Allah Akbar!

President Trump tweeted:

Fake news.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared in the beheadings wanted section of the ISIS magazine Dabiq.

Erasing the past until the United States of America is culturally disemboweled

Click on the image to order Confronting The Deception by Tabitha Korol.

While reading Tabitha Korol’s new book “Confronting The Deception: Inflamed by 9/11, fired up by eight bad years” I came across this paragraph about Islamic jihad (holy war):

Jihad’s purpose is establishing Allah’s kingdom on earth, and expropriating booty and land. Defeat and death bring everlasting Paradise and spiritual benefit. The complete imperialism, Islam seeks to erase the past so the vanquished are culturally disemboweled, with nothing left of religion or relics of historical importance, their support system destabilized. [Emphasis added]

I suddenly realized that America is fading away much like H.G. Well’s the invisible man.

Korol does a masterful job in explaining how all of America’s cultural systems are being transformed. Korol notes:

Academia, from kindergarten to university, is disinviting valuable speakers, and turning patriots into globalists. Curricula, textbooks and teaching methods are being changed, inspiration quenched, and competition discouraged by an equalizing grading system, engineering the children’s psyche to produce a compliant, nonproductive generation.

Confronting the Deception” challenges the insidious propaganda with arguments supported by irrefutable facts.

Korol exposes the gravity of the threats we face with copious links to Koranic quotes, historic accounts, and trustworthy documentation not available in any other single source, and reveals the mentality that creates the jihadi terrorist, in order to help the reader to navigate the distortions that are peddled as truths.

Deception lays out the modus operandi of Islam and the Left.

We are being indoctrinated to disrespect and dislike America, to devalue our freedoms, and to cast aside the advancements we’ve made since our founding. The “Eight Years” have brought us an increase in divisiveness, intolerance, street violence, rapes, honor killings and FGM, combined with a drip-feed of false narratives to direct the thinking of the gullible. This book is an attempt to redress our endangered world by Confronting the Deception.

Korol concludes “Confronting the Deception” with this warning:

With the end of the eight Obama years came the hope that we might quickly overcome and repair the damage done to America. Instead, we are being subjected to an intensifying twofold attack. If there is a design, as many suspect, then these twin jaws are evidently engineered to crush the substance of our culture.

While Islam slowly operates to grind down our current generation by intimidation and indoctrination, in academia, the media, and religious institutions, the Left has grown obsessed with destroying our core institutions; demolishing our historic monuments; erasing our common sense and freedoms; redefining the family unit, the sexes, our laws and policies; dismembering our language, and dividing our citizens into separate antagonistic camps. The danger of multiculturalism is that it intimidates the generous heart to suspend all intelligent discernment. Islamophobia curbs our inalienable rights and makes us submissive; and, as Aristotle warned, “the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” We are in danger of losing the best of what we have achieved. [Emphasis added]

This is a must read book for those who want to understand what is happening to America. We can only hope that there are those valiant warriors who will deliver us from these evils.

Comprehensive new report shows ‘troubling’ social media censorship of conservative views

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing — badly.”

For years I have warned the greatest threat to our nation, our precious freedoms, was the left’s war on our first amendment rights. We filed suit against the social media giants — little notice was paid. As if censoring Geller was OK. No one wanted to dirty themselves with that fight. But it was never about Geller. It was about our freedom, I was merely the tip of the spear. Going on two years later, and now we have reached a tipping point which may be unrecoverable.

On Monday, the Media Research Center released a comprehensive report detailing the suppression of conservative opinions on major social media platforms. Empirical evidence what was previously described as a “rightwing conspiracy theory.”

There is conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact. This is surely the latter.

I document in detail the breathtaking war on free speech in social media in my book, FATWA: Hunted in America. Get the book, you will be shaken.

The 50-page report, “Censored! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech” examines the four largest internet entities — Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — and declares that their handling of political speech is “far more troubling than most conservatives realize.” Indeed. It lists the conservative blog Legal Insurrection, foreign policy commentator Pamela Geller, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, video bloggers Diamond and Silk, Dennis Prager’s PragerU series, and several pro-gun channels as having seen their videos either deleted, age-restricted, or demonetized, and in the cases of Geller and Legal Insurrection, their accounts terminated entirely [after taking action, my account was reinstated].

Facebook has adopted sharia-complaint policies for some time now. My feed is blocked from my millions of followers on Facebook, and I have seen my circulation drop precipitously in the past three months. For news publishers, Facebook is the motherboard of link traffic. No news site can survive without them. None of us are immune, which is why my traffic is down upwards of 70% since the block. My Facebook page has a million followers; add my organizations to that, and it is roughly 1.5 million people. Now imagine their sharing capability, and their friends and their friends — you get the picture. It’s how we fight fake news. All of my FB followers experience similar issues with their posts and shares. I receive scores of emails everyday from readers telling me of new blocks, bans and Facebook jail sentences. It’s why I am suing.

I do not know how far my lawsuit against the social media giants will get, but I do know that something must be done. Whether through legislation or anti-trust lawsuits, the chokehold that the uniformly leftist corporate media managers at social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google have on our means of communication must be broken.

If the US government could break up Ma Bell, the USG can break up Facebook. Today’s IP address is yesterday’s phone number. It’s how we communicate today — whether by FB comment, messenger, Twitter DM, etc.

Related: Facebook Executive travels to Pakistan to assure government it will remove “anti-Islam” material

NEW REPORT SHOWS ‘TROUBLING’ SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP OF CONSERVATIVE VIEWS

By Calvin Freiburger, LifeSiteNews, April 17, 2018:

April 17, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — On Monday, the conservative Media Research Center released a comprehensive report detailing the suppression of conservative opinions on major social media platforms.

The 50-page report, “Censored! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech,” was written by Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor. It examines the four largest internet entities — Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube —  and declares that their handling of political speech is “far more troubling than most conservatives realize.”

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing — badly,” the report’s executive summary says. “If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media.”

The report finds that all four websites actively hide or deemphasize conservative content from users, and that in some cases staffers have admitted doing so was intentional. It further criticizes the platforms for relying on left-wing organizations to provide advice and screening sources that are presented as impartial.

The report finds that Google, the world’s most influential search engine, displayed a “tendency toward left-wing bias in its search results.” Its lead source was a study by Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, which found that search results for decided voters “were nearly twice as biased in favor of (Hillary) Clinton” in the 2016 presidential election.

“Censored!” also highlights a January 2018 Project Vertias video, which filmed Twitter employees admitting that they “shadow-ban” some conservative users — a practice by which others cannot see a shadow-banned user’s content, but the target has not been notified of an action against him. Twitter has attempted to block several pro-life advertisements, as well.

The report also notes that Twitter attorney Sean Edgett admitted to a House panel that during the election Twitter censored 25 percent of tweets carrying the #PodestaEmails hashtag, and 48 percent of those tagged #DNCLeak (referencing a scandal over leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee).

Regarding Facebook, the report calls attention to a 2016 Gizmodo report that quoted several former employees as admitting that Facebook “routinely” manipulated its trending news feature to exclude topics such as the Conservative Political Action Conference, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and the scandal concerning former IRS official Lois Lerner.

“It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” one former news curator is quoted as saying.

YouTube has suppressed conservative content as well, according to MRC. It lists the conservative blog Legal Insurrection, foreign policy commentator Pamela Geller, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, video bloggers Diamond and Silk, Dennis Prager’s PragerU series, and several pro-gun channels as having seen their videos either deleted, age-restricted, or demonetized, and in the cases of Geller and Legal Insurrection, their accounts terminated entirely.

Prager and Diamond and Silk’s cases are ongoing, but YouTube has since reversed most of the decisions listed here, claiming they were unintentional errors.

Nevertheless, suspicions remain that the trend is due to a persistent, deliberate bias rather than occasional, benign mistakes. “Censored!” notes that each company takes advice and outsources some fact-checking and guideline enforcement to organizations that themselves have left-wing biases.

Twitter relies on a “Trust and Safety Council” to provide advice on “safety products, policies, and programs.” Its America-based member organizations include just one conservative group, the Network of Enlightened Women, but 12 left-wing groups, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the pro-homosexual GLAAD. Bothorganizations have labeled mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups.”

ADL is also one of the groups YouTube employs to flag “hateful content” for restriction, as is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), another left-wing organization infamous for accusing mainstream conservatives of “hate.”

Facebook’s “fact-checking” feature relies primarily on left-leaning publications such as Snopes and PolitiFact for ostensibly-impartial “fact checking,” as well (in fairness, the conservative Weekly Standard is also listed as a fact-checker). Facebook does not formally employ SPLC as part of that process, but in August 2017 it deleted 57 of more than 200 alleged “hate groups” suggested by SPLC. Google faces similar criticism.

The report lists several recommendations for tech companies, including greater transparency for when and how content restriction decisions are made, publishing clear guidelines for ideological content, cutting ties with “bad actors” such as GLAAD and SPLC, employing truly neutral fact-checkers, and overhauling their algorithms, advertising policies, and systems for flagging and reporting disputed content.

“The conservative movement is facing a threat to its very existence — a new, insidious form of media censorship,” Goldenberg and Gainor warned. “It’s almost too much for conservatives even to contemplate fighting. But they need to do much more than contemplate it.

“Americans have always had to be willing to fight for a righteous cause, from Lexington and Concord to the beaches of Normandy,” they concluded. “Now it’s the conservative movement’s turn to fight. This is a different kind of battle, but it’s still a fight for freedom.”

White House:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/#page
Ajit Pai, head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  Email: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Urgent Case for Legislation against Facebook and Google – American Thinker

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here. The featured image is by Zach Guinta. Twitter: @zach_guinta.

Trump’s Vitally Important Anti-Poverty Initiative

It takes a lot of courage for a president to target almost a quarter of the federal budget for reform in an election year.

But this is exactly what President Donald Trump is doing with his executive order, “Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility.”

We’re now spending more than $700 billion per year on low-income assistance, which is more than we are spending on our national defense. And there are plenty of reasons to believe this spending is inefficient, wasteful, and counterproductive.

Over the last half-century, some $22 trillion has been spent on anti-poverty programs and yet the percentage of poor in this nation remains unchanged. And it is not only a matter of the percentage staying the same but also that the people and families who are born poor stay that way.

The “Better Way” report produced by the House speaker’s office in 2016 reported that 34 percent of those born and raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale remain there all their lives.

The point has often been made that the greatest charitable gesture is teaching those in need to help themselves.

This principle defines the president’s reforms to our anti-poverty programs and spending. Let’s make sure that every dollar spent goes to those truly in need and that those dollars are spent to maximize the likelihood that the recipients will get on their feet and become independent, productive, income-earning citizens.

The executive order directs federal agencies to review the some 80 federal anti-poverty programs, consolidate where there is redundancy and overlap, and look to reform by applying the principles of hard work and self-sufficiency.

Needless to say, the usual left-wing megaphones, those that can’t tell the difference between compassion and spending billions of other people’s dollars, have wasted no time to go on attack.

The headline from the Southern Poverty Law Center screams, “Trump’s executive order on work requirements punishes low-income people for being poor.”

Calling the executive order “heartless,” the Southern Poverty Law Center rejects the premise that there are those receiving benefits from these programs who could work but don’t.

However, Robert Doar of the American Enterprise Institute reports that there are almost 20 million working-age Americans receiving benefits under Medicaid and food stamps who don’t work.

The Better Way report notes that “44 percent of work-capable households using federal rental assistance report no annual income from wages.”

But it’s not just about work requirements.

Vital to this reform project is moving programs out of Washington’s grasp and into the administrations at the state and local levels. Assistance programs need humanity and flexibility. This can only be done locally. There’s no way an army of bureaucrats in Washington can develop and implement programs for 50 million needy individuals that can properly recognize what unique individuals need to move out of poverty.

Assistance programs need to promote and embody those principles that go hand in hand with prosperity—ownership, investment, savings, and personal freedom and responsibility.

According to the Better Way report, almost 10 million Americans have no bank account and another 25 million have an account but get financial services outside of the banking system.

When I was a young woman on welfare, I saw the destruction that occurs when assistance programs penalize work, marriage, and saving, as was the case with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Subsequently, this was reformed and transformed with great success to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

We can’t go on spending hundreds of billions of dollars of limited taxpayer funds on programs that may have been conceived with sincerity and compassion but don’t work.

Trump deserves credit for exercising the courage and vision to move to fix what is broken in our anti-poverty programs. It is vital for the poor and vital for the nation.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Star Parker

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Ivy Imboden, originally from Anchorage, Alaska, clutching a warm drink after arriving at a new tent established for the homeless in San Diego, California. (Photo: John Gastaldo/Zuma Press/Newscom). The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

VIDEO: The most compelling argument yet for gun control

Comrades! This brief instructional video will put you on the cutting edge in the gun debate. No more will you need to fear facts and logic because now they’re on your side! Master the basics of this video, and even lifetime members of the NRA will be silly putty in your hands.

Also, please help a comrade by posting your informed user comments explaining how…

  • this video is amazingly factually accurate and logically irrefutable
  • that you’re a gun owner whose mind was changed by this video
  • that guns are extremely dangerous to our democracy

And without further ado…

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Komissar al-Blogunov originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

The New York Times Best-Seller List: Another Reason Americans Don’t Trust the Media

About half the American people do not believe the mainstream media tell the truth. They believe the media are more interested in promoting their left-wing views than reporting the truth.

I am, I note with sadness, a member of that half.

Here is but one more example: The New York Times best-seller list.

As a writer (who, for the record, had a previous book on that list), I have long known it isn’t a best-seller list, and I don’t pay attention to it. But I paid attention last week to see if my recently published book, which opened up on Amazon as the second best-selling book in America, was on the list. It wasn’t.

The book, “The Rational Bible: Exodus,” the first volume of a five-volume commentary on the first five books of the Bible (the Torah), was No. 2 in nonfiction on The Wall Street Journal best-seller list; No. 2 on the Publishers Weekly nonfiction best-seller list; No. 1 on Ingram, the largest book wholesaler in the country; and, according to Nielsen BookScan, the organization that tracks 75 to 85 percent of book sales, No. 2 in hardcover nonfiction.

In fact, according to BookScan, it outsold 14 of the 15 books on The New York Times hardcover nonfiction best-seller list. But again, it is not even listed on The New York Times best-seller list.

I was told years ago that the Times best-seller list almost never includes overtly religious books. I believe it but cannot prove it. I was told the Times doesn’t even monitor Christian bookstore sales (though many Christians have bought my commentary, few of its sales thus far have been through Christian bookstores).

At least as suggestive of bias is that the No. 1 hardcover nonfiction book on The Wall Street Journal and Publishers Weekly lists, “12 Rules for Life” by Jordan B. Peterson, is also not listed on The New York Times best-seller list.

Is it a coincidence that Peterson is a conservative, and that I am a conservative and my book is a Bible commentary?

In order to think it is mere coincidence, you have to believe The New York Times more than reality itself, which about half the country seems to. While the Times occasionally lists conservative books and, very rarely, religious books, after comparing the list and the BookScan list, the Observer concluded in 2016:

If you happen to work for The New York Times and have a book out, your book is more likely to stay on the list longer and have a higher ranking than books not written by New York Times employees. … If you happen to have written a conservative-political-leaning book, you’re more likely to be ranked lower and drop off the list faster than those books with a more liberal political slant.

In other words, The New York Times best-seller list is not a best-seller list—which even The New York Times once acknowledged.

In the early 1980s, William Peter Blatty, author of the monumental best-seller “The Exorcist,” sued The New York Times for only listing his novel on the list one time, even though it sold in the millions. In defending itself before the court, as reported by Book History, the annual journal of the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing (Penn State University Press), the Times said, “The list did not purport to be an objective compilation of information but instead was an editorial product.”

Yet when asked last year about the announcement by Regnery Publishing (my book publisher) that it was no longer referencing The New York Times in any author publicity, New York Times spokesman Jordan Cohen told the Associated Press: “Our goal is that the lists reflect authentic best sellers. The political views of authors have no bearing on our rankings, and the notion that we would manipulate the lists to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous.”

According to The New York Times, it is “simply ludicrous” to question why a conservative book and a religious book, which are the No. 1 and No. 2 books, respectively, on every best-seller list other than that of The New York Times, do not even appear on the Times list.

Here’s a different view: What is “simply ludicrous” is wondering why the “fake news” charge against mainstream American media resonates with half the American people.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

Andrew McCabe Lied. So Will the FBI Apply the Same Rules Against Him That It Applies to All of Us?

It’s official: Andrew McCabe lied.

The new report from the Justice Department inspector general concludes that McCabe, the former FBI deputy director, lied to then-FBI Director James Comey, to other FBI agents, and to officials of the Office of the Inspector General. Some of those lies came when McCabe was under oath.

What did he lie about? Unauthorized disclosures about the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The information was leaked to a reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The inspector general has completed his work. The question now is, will the Justice Department prosecute McCabe? Or, put another way: Will the FBI and the Justice Department follow the same rules they apply to members of the public who lie to a federal agent?

Remember, the only charge brought against Gen. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was lying to the FBI, a felony. And Flynn wasn’t even under oath when he supposedly lied to the FBI.

Given that recent history, failure to prosecute McCabe would tell the American people that officers of the Justice Department and the FBI think they are above the law.

According to the inspector general’s report, “law enforcement sensitive information” appeared in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article titled “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.” Until that time, the FBI had publicly refused to confirm that an investigation into the Clinton Foundation was underway.

Despite that official stance, the inspector general determined, McCabe told his special counsel and an assistant director in the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs that they could give information about the probe to Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett.

In particular, McCabe told them to disclose a phone call he had received in August from the Justice Department’s principal associate deputy attorney general. The report does not identify the person by name, but the principal associate deputy attorney general at the time was apparently Matthew Axelrod.

McCabe claims that the official called him and “expressed concerns about the FBI agents taking overt steps in the [Clinton Foundation] Investigation during the presidential campaign.” According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking, “Are you telling me to shut down a validly predicated investigation?”

McCabe told the inspector general the conversation was “very dramatic” and that he had never had a similar confrontation with a high-level Justice Department official “in his entire FBI career.”

The way The Wall Street Journal reported this was that a “senior Justice Department official” called McCabe “to voice his displeasure” that the FBI was “still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season.” The “Justice Department official was ‘very pissed off,’ according to one person close to McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant.”

What spurred McCabe’s disclosure, according to the inspector general, was a prior Wall Street Journal story “that questioned McCabe’s impartiality in overseeing FBI investigations involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” This was due, according to that Oct. 23 story, to the fact that a PAC run by longtime Clinton friend and associate Gov. Terry McAuliffe, D-Va., had donated nearly $675,000 to the unsuccessful 2015 state Senate campaign of McCabe’s wife.

Friday’s report from the inspector general presents a series of findings. It concludes that McCabe lied when he told Comey that he had not authorized the disclosures to The Wall Street Journal and did not know who did. He repeated that lie when questioned by agents from the FBI’s Inspection Division and again when questioned by the Office of the Inspector General.

Only in a second round of questioning by the inspector general did McCabe finally acknowledge that “he had authorized the disclosure to [The Wall Street Journal].”

The inspector general notes that McCabe could have authorized the disclosure of the existence of the Clinton Foundation investigation if it were in the “public interest.” However, the report concludes, that was not his motivation.

Instead, it finds, McCabe violated FBI policy because the disclosure was “designed to advance his personal interest at the expense of department leadership.” Therefore, what he did “constituted misconduct.”

The inspector general cannot prosecute. All he can do is provide his office’s report to the FBI “for such action as it deems appropriate.” And so we wait to see what, if anything, is next.

Flynn was charged with lying to FBI agents about conversations with the Russian ambassador. Lying to a federal agent is a felony, even if—like Flynn—you are not under oath at the time. It is clear from the inspector general’s report that McCabe lied to federal agents multiple times, including while under oath.

Will he be prosecuted as Flynn was? It seems as if the FBI and the Justice Department have no choice—unless they believe that their colleagues are somehow above the law.

And if the Department of Justice no longer believes in the rule of law, the whole notion of America is turned on its head.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: How 4 Big Comey Claims Stack Up to His Senate Testimony

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testifing before the Senate intelligence committee on May 11, 2017. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)

Robert Mueller Is Following The Infamous Playbook of Patrick Fitzgerald

We’ve seen this before, just on a smaller scale.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is following the infamous playbook of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who managed to convict an innocent man while the guilty one walked free — and Fitzgerald knew it.

They both went after and indicted people who either did not commit any crimes or were indicted for things unrelated to the purposes for which they were appointed. Both were in hotly political environments with supportive media. Both were open-ended investigations. And, it seems, both were hungry for convictions for the sake of convictions — not truth or justice.

Fitzgerald is the special counsel appointed in 2003 to investigate the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame (who it turns out was a desk jockey in the D.C. area, not an undercover agent who was endangered by the outing as the media liked to imply.) Nonetheless, there was a leak that identified her.

At the time it was thought this was done by the Bush Administration, and specifically Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, in retaliation for Plame’s husband writing an op-ed in the New York Times saying he doubted Saddam Hussein had bought uranium in Africa before the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The purchase, along with other intelligence, was part of the case for invading Iraq. Two weeks later, Plame was outed.

Fitzpatrick was appointed to find out who did it, and soon fixed his eyes on Cheney and his staff, for what appeared to be political reasons. In the end, he wrongly identified the leaker as Scooter Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Libby’s crime? Not being the leaker, but providing false or misleading information to the special counsel, for which he actually went to prison.

So we can draw a lot of comparisons between Mueller’s current investigation and Fitzgerald’s four-year-long investigation — it can take a long time to get someone to even accidentally contradict themselves. The one comparison that is not there is that Fitzgerald had an actual crime he was investigating in the illegal uncovering of a CIA agent, whereas Mueller’s original appointment was to investigate collusion, which is not a crime. So from the start, there was more legitimacy to the Fitzgerald appointment than to Mueller’s.

However, both prosecutors are following a similar path.

Fitzgerald’s long investigation came up with one indictment, that against Libby. Libby was not charged with leaking, the actual crime Fitzgerald was investigating, but with a “process” crime of misleading the FBI. That is exactly what Mueller charged Gen. Michael Flynn with. Not Russian collusion or really anything related to Russian collusion, but lying to the FBI (or not correctly remembering) about the timing of an event for which there was also no underlying crime. So it was a clever form of entrapment.

The tragedy of the Libby case is that apparently, Libby didn’t even lie or mislead. Much of his convictions were based on the testimony of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who testified that she believed it was Libby who told her about Plame. Her testimony was the key to convicting Libby. However, after Miller read Plame’s autobiography “Fair Game” she realized that she had been misled by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

In April 2015, Miller published an autobiography in which she, “now concluded, after reviewing old notes, that her testimony about her conversations with Libby that led to his conviction may have been false … Had I misconstrued my notes? Had Fitzgerald’s questions about whether my use of the word Bureau meant the FBI steered me in the wrong direction?”

She realized that she was wrong and her testimony “made no sense.” However, her recantation meant nothing to Libby’s conviction during Obama’s presidency and was roundly ignored by the media.

In the same way, Flynn pleaded guilty to making statements inconsistent with tapped and taped conversations he had with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak during the transition. However, Flynn’s conversation was legal. He was not charged with the content being illegal, or even having the conversation with Kislyak. He was charged with giving the FBI the wrong time for the conversation, and part of his reason for the plea was because the investigation was bankrupting him personally. He has had to sell his house to pay his legal bills. But why was the FBI even questioning Flynn when they had the entire transcript of a conversation that they knew contained nothing illegal, and that conversation took place legally? Because they were looking to entrap him in a process crime, just as Libby was entrapped.

Worse yet, we later found out that it was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage that actually outed Plame. Apparently he did accidentally in a long interview about the intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Many news outlets thought they knew it was Armitage, not Libby. Fitzgerald also knew it was Armitage, but was going after Libby for lying under oath, and asked Armitage not to go public with the information. But Armitage, who had testified to the grand jury that indicted Libby, asked Fitzgerald again if he could go public and on Sept. 5, 2006, Fitzgerald relented. Two days later, Armitage admitted publicly to being the source in the CIA leak.

On March 6, 2007, six months later, a jury convicted Libby and to this day many people think that Libby was the one who leaked.

That’s why Trump rightly pardoned Libby, although even pardon seems like the wrong word.

Both investigations were also broad and open-ended, meaning the prosecutors could go after about anyone or anything. We see that with Libby, who had nothing to do with the outing and was charged relating to nothing to do with it.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was so negligent drafting the appointment of Mueller that he failed to limit the investigation in either scope or time. Totally open-ended. It appears that Mueller can investigated Trump until he dies. This resulted in Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump presidential campaign, being indicted for alleged financial crimes that happened years before he was on team Trump. Both the Flynn and Manafort charges have zippo to do with Russian collusion, just as Libby’s had nothing to do with leaking Plame’s identity — and he didn’t even do what he was charged with.

Another comparison is that they were and are both all political. There is no search for truth or justice. There is a search for political targets. Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage who leaked, but he accepted it was just an accident, but after four years, he had to show something. And so Libby.

But look at the comments from Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame on the pardon of Libby:

Wilson told the Huffington Post:

“Libby’s problem was with the Justice Department. He was indicted, tried and convicted on obstruction of justice and perjury charges for basically violating the national security of the United States of America…Now he’s being pardoned for it, which suggests of course that Mr. Trump is willing to allow people to violate the essence of our defense structure, our national security, our intelligence apparatus and essentially get away with it.”

Plame told MSNBC that “you can commit crimes against national security and you will be pardoned.”

There is no way that Wilson and Plame don’t know that Libby neither lied nor was the leaker. They are both misleading, shall we say, to make Trump look bad just as Wilson maneuvered with the New York Times to make Bush look bad.

In the same way, we see Mueller’s investigation going far and wide to get indictments for people that have nothing to do with the original charge he was given. And they all make Trump look bad.

Finally, the man who had oversight of Patrick Fitzgerald was none other than James Comey, a close friend and confidant of Mueller.

None of these comparisons bode well for actually getting to the truth of Russian collusion. Just as Fitzgerald let the actual leaker off the hook, it seems Mueller is not interested in the actual colluder, which resides in the Clinton campaign, DNC and the Russian dossier.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please join The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

Updating Just-War Theory

Note: This column was written and uploaded prior to the U.S. attack on Syria late last night [April 13, 2018]. The questions it raises about further developing just war theory, however, remain current – now perhaps even more than earlier. – Robert Royal

Over the centuries, “just war theory” was proposed and developed by a series of great thinkers – Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Hugo Grotius, and others.

In the past, what they had in common, aside from the intention of combating the incessant plague of wars, was a standard vision of what wars were like: namely, some nation with a formidable military force threatened another nation(s). The latter would have to deliberate whether their military resources were adequate, or whether non-military means might remove the threat; or whether, as a last resort, military action would protect them or make things worse.

The principles “just-war” theorists emphasized include: the urgency of the threat, whether negotiation might still be feasible, identification of the proper authority to declare and initiate war in various forms of government, whether the consequences of war might be worse than surrender, and also ethical considerations regarding lethal weaponry, treatment of war prisoners, the harm of noncombatants, etc.

A vision of massed armies, sometimes with allies, facing down and conquering other armies on the battlefield, was common to all these theorists – even in World War I and World War II, with the addition of powerful infantry and explosives, air power, submarines, and other products of modern engineering.

But the scenario began to change sharply during and after WWII – nuclear arsenals, guerilla warfare, tremendously lethal chemical and biological agents – in short, the possibility of mayhem in quantities and intensities never previously conceived. If Julius Caesar or Ghengis Khan had had the atomic bomb, they might have hesitated using it to conquer territories they planned to occupy.

Just this week, after discussing abandonment of Syria “very soon,” President Trump threatened to launch missiles against Syria, because of the deadly chemical gas attack on civilians in the rebel-held town of Douma. Russia’s foreign minister claims that a “foreign intelligence agency” staged this attack, and a member of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry points to evidence that rebels trying to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad were responsible.

It is indeed strange that Assad, who has been winning the war against rebels, would invite international retaliation at this time. But the United States along with allies Britain and France are all but convinced that Assad ordered the attack, and that that there must be a response both to punish Syria and deter future attacks of a similar nature.

But it’s precisely here that the kinds of “prudential judgments” (which were never very easy even in simpler times) have become quite complicated. An initial question in just-war theory would be: is there any clear threat to our country? There is obviously no direct threat to the U.S. from Syria. But in fact an attack on Syria, allied with Russia, could trigger a new cold war, or worse.

President Trump launched a successful missile attack on Syria in April, 2017, and is apparently confident that this could be repeated without enraging the Russian Bear. But such acts of brinkmanship not only challenge Constitutional war-making powers, but “throw away the script” on justifying wars. And deposing Assad, instead of improving the situation, could pave the way for a takeover by ISIS or Islamist rebels, certainly no improvement over Assad.

And such complexities are not limited to the Middle East. Traditional just war theory seems impotent in dealing with several contemporary realities and is desperately in need of further development if it is to continue to provide guidance to nations and their leaders. For example, here are some situations needing careful analysis:

  • Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), in which two nuclear powers in a war could easily annihilate each other – or even bring about a “doomsday” state of affairs if other nuclear powers entered the combat – still prevails. Is there any contemporary crisis so dire that would justify a nuclear power to make a preemptive nuclear strike on a rival?
  • Thousands of terrorist “cells” sprouting up throughout the world. Could any conventional army, navy or air force be effective against these?
  • Widespread use of “human shields” – missile launchers set up in hospitals, explosive caches stored in schools, terrorists setting up shop in cities surrounded by innocent noncombatants, and refusing to allow any noncombatant to exit from the city. What could justify destroying a hospital occupied by terrorists manning artillery?
  • Possible accidents as “the wrong button is pushed,” and war begins willy-nilly. The recent incident in Hawaii reminds us that similar incidents, which could have sealed the fate of the world, have happened in the past.
  • Insane and/or suicidal leaders of nuclear-armed states, who don’t care about mutual annihilation. MAD is based on the supposition that world leaders are rational actors and not misanthropic and suicidal.
  • Jihadists under the influence of religious beliefs bent on converting the world, by force, if necessary.

In an ideal world, we might seek:

  • Universal nuclear disarmament and absolute prohibition of proliferation – although this is difficult to imagine after what happened to Muammar Gaddafi who obligingly disarmed in 2003.
  • Fail-safe international intelligence systems capable of foiling electronically transmitted plans for attack.
  • Refusal of any further building of mosques unless reciprocity in building of churches prevails in the Middle East. The prevailing lack of reciprocity has facilitated importation of violent religious operatives under the cover of uni-directional “religious freedom.”

But several more practical and less idealistic strategies might be: 

  • “Surgical” bombing of nuclear reactors in “rogue states,” as Israel did to Iraq in 1981 and to Syria in 2007– which would require incredibly accurate intelligence resources.
  • Identification and destruction of all chemical and biological arsenals, as well as dismantling arsenals capable of producing a high-altitude nuclear explosion, causing an “electro-magnetic pulse,” which would disable electrical resources throughout nations.
  • A nuclear “Marshall Plan” offering aid in transforming dangerous nuclear facilities to peaceful nuclear power plants – thus advancing the Biblical prophecy about “swords” being transformed into plowshares (Is. 2:4).
  • Taking a cue from the targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, the assassination of the most demonic leaders, who both enslave their populations and threaten destruction of the United States.

According to the famous Doomsday Clock published by the Atomic Scientists, mankind is now at “two minutes before midnight.” So those of us who dream of world peace feel a certain urgency. If this is not a starkly exaggerated urgency, it may be time to think “outside the box.”

Recent diplomatic developments indicate that an unprecedented meeting between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un may take place in May. The president has insisted that denuclearization is a precondition for such a meeting, and Kim seems to accept that precondition, saying, “The ‘issue of denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula can be resolved’ if the U.S. and South Korea respond ‘with goodwill’.”

After so many failed diplomatic efforts at removing one of the most serious threats to world peace, can we attach any realistic hope to such a meeting?

Kim is not in the vulnerable position that Gaddafi was in disarming. He has China at his back and South Korea open to reunification. Turning “swords into plowshares” in that area is not completely unimaginable – although certainly “outside the box.”

But actually, the most “impractical” strategy for world peace would probably be the most effective: I am thinking of the battle of Lepanto in 1571 in which a small Christian fleet defeated a Turkish Armada, as well as the nationwide Rosary crusade in Austria in 1955, leading to the withdrawal of Soviet armies. In other words, a worldwide Rosary Crusade. But I know, I know – this is too far “outside the box.”

Howard Kainz

Howard Kainz

Howard Kainz, Emeritus Professor at Marquette University, is the author of twenty-five books on German philosophy, ethics, political philosophy, and religion, and over a hundred articles in scholarly journals, print magazines, online magazines, and op-eds. He was a recipient of an NEH fellowship for 1977-8, and Fulbright fellowships in Germany for 1980-1 and 1987-8. His website is at Marquette University.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a mourning man in Douma Syria [Photo by Mohammed Hassan/UPI]. © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Does Facebook send Christians to jail?

I had the pleasure of being on PIJN News to discuss how Facebook censors those that do not fit its mold.

During the first two segments I discussed with Dr. Chaps how Facebook uses its algorithms to censor. The last segment is a comparison of two films “Paul – Apostle of Christ” and “Chappaquiddick.”

To learn more about Facebook censorship visit Letters From The Facebook Jail.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

VIDEOS: Chappaquiddick – Guns Don’t Kill People. But Ted Kennedy Did.

LAUNCHED: Letters from the Facebook Jaill

Paul, Apostle of Christ: Ancient Rome is a grim reflection of Today’s World

A Wedge: An Adversary’s Most Powerful Tool

VIDEO: The World vs American Freedom