A heroine for our times: Trump should invite Polish Prime Minister to White House!

If Donald Trump (the real Donald Trump ) is still a free man!, he should invite Beata Szydło to a meeting in the Oval Office followed by a lavish state dinner at the White House.

He would send a message to the wimps in Europe, to the cheapskates at NATO, and remind voters here of his promises to keep America safe (not to mention thrilling hardworking/patriotic Polish Americans!).

Did you know that RRW has a Facebook page?  It has 44,000 likes and this simple message, as of this morning, has reached over 50,000 people.  I have to admit (and apologize) that I stink at commenting and responding to comments, but I truly appreciate all of you who forward my page to your friends.

This (below) is a screenshot of the message that had been up for 24 hours as of last night when I captured it.  Thanks to whoever it was that drafted the message that has been making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook.

My complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here.

EDITORS NOTE: The map below shows terrorist attacks in Europe. Note that Poland has had no attacks.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

CCTV shows Manchester bomber sauntering towards gig on night of attack

Trump State Department opens the flood gates, refugee admissions will explode in coming weeks

At present rate of admissions, Trump FY17 refugee numbers will be in average range

Australia dumb deal: If this is “extreme vetting” we are in deep trouble!

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: Tell Congress we need more $$$ for refugees

U.S. State Department continues its pattern of secrecy regarding refugee resettlement

1,600 of Australia’s rejected migrants want to come to America in Obama “dumb” deal

Human Rights First and five refugee contractors/others oppose tightening U.S. security

There’s No Way Obamacare Can Last by Charles Hughes

The Congressional Budget Office score of the American Health Care Act [claims to shows] that the bill will reduce deficits by $119 billion over the next decade and result in 23 million more people being uninsured by 2026. This leaves the impression that people would be better off if Obamacare were unchanged. But a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services dispels this myth.

Premiums have doubled and tripled and are rising further. 

The HHS report shows that premiums in the individual market exchanges increased by 105 percent in the 39 states using Healthcare.gov from 2013 to 2017. This is equivalent to $244 per month in additional premium payments for people buying insurance through the exchanges, or $2,928 over the course of a year. People not eligible for exchange subsidies are fully exposed to these increases, while taxpayers will bear the brunt in the form of higher outlays for subsidies for enrollees who are eligible.Despite the promises that Obamacare would “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year,” average premiums on the exchanges more than doubled over this period. In some states, such as Alabama and Alaska, the average premium more than tripled.

The high average increase is not driven by a few outliers, as 23 out of the 39 states included in the analysis experienced premium increases in excess of 105 percent. Only three states, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, had cumulative premium increases below 50 percent.

Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Created with Datawrapper

As the report acknowledges, the composition of the population enrolling in plans through the exchanges has changed over time due to the adverse selection problems created by the laws subsidy and regulation frameworks.

For example, the community rating age bands, which dictate how much more companies can charge older, higher-risk enrollees, were set at 3:1 under Obamacare. A recent study by Milliman estimated that relaxing these age bands to 5:1 would reduce premiums for people aged 20-29 by 15 percent while increasing premiums for older enrollees.

Lower premiums for younger, healthier people would encourage more of them to enroll through the exchanges instead of foregoing health insurance because it is too expensive for them. Older, less healthy people make up a larger share of the exchange population now than in earlier years, which exacerbates the premium increases on that population.

Due to data limitations, the report does not deal with the population getting plans on the individual market but not through the exchanges. These people accounted for more than a third of the total individual market. They are not eligible for the law’s subsidies, so there is likely less adverse selection for the off-exchange population, but these enrollees have to bear the entirety of the costs of those increases.

Families choosing a plan through the exchanges have seen their premiums more than double since 2013. In some states, a wave of insurers leaving the exchange market has created situations where only one insurer is offering products for entire states.

Alabama and Alaska, which have seen the two highest cumulative premium increases, are both down to only one insurer. In the entire country, only Virginia saw the number of participating insurers increase from 2016 to 2017. Just today, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City announced it would be exiting the exchange, leaving 25 counties in Missouri without a participating insurer for now.The lack of choices and competition in a growing number of places makes it unlikely that there will be an end to rapid premium growth, absent reform. While the CBO estimates will provide some insight into the effects of the bill in its current iteration, a working group of Senators is crafting a revised bill with major alterations.

Getting the design of replacement legislation right is important, and the CBO score will give the working group of senators more information about which aspects of the bill that passed the House need the most adjustment. Provisions that allow for more competition and choice for people trying to get insurance through the individual market will help bring down annual premium increases.

Since 2013, this group has had to grapple with fewer choices while their premiums doubled. A well-crafted bill could go some way to reversing that unsustainable trend.

This originally ran on the E21 blog.

Charles Hughes

Charles Hughes is a research associate at the Cato Institute.

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

Manchester Muslima wears shirt with LOVE spelled out with guns, knives and grenades

Coexist with that. What better way to show one’s horror at the Manchester jihad massacre than to wear a shirt showing the word “love” spelled out using various weapons as letters?

Is this niqabbed Muslima a moderate? Is her shirt moderate, or extremist? Was she radicalized on the Internet (where, presumably, she bought the shirt, since no one would sell such a thing among the peaceful and benign Muslim community in Britain, right?)? Did anyone in Britain notice or care about her shirt, which, given the context, seems unwise to ignore?

Channel 4 has pulled this segment, which is full of the usual finger-pointing and blaming of others by the Muslims who are interviewed, but the Internet remembers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Muslims arrested with guns and bomb-making materials get only light charges

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump’s temporary immigration ban

8 Big-Government Policies that Hurt the Poor by Patrick Tyrrell

It’s clear that many big government policies are creating winners and losers in America.

The story has been the same for decades. Government makes friends with a company or an industry, blocks out the competition with regulation, and in some cases gives the company subsidies.

Such cronyism is bad for innovators and for consumers. But fewer people realize that it’s also bad for the poor. A recent report from The Heritage Foundation detailed 23 of these big government policies that hurt the poor, and provided concrete ways to address them.

Winners and losers from big government policies are not always clear. And yet for some crony policies, the winners and losers are very clear. The winners are a small group of identifiable government cronies, while the losers include people of little or no influence with the government.

Here is a look at eight big government policies from the report that benefit government cronies at the expense of other groups of people, including the poor.

1. Renewable Fuel Standard

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that renewable fuels be mixed into America’s gasoline supply, primarily by using corn-based ethanol. Then, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Acts significantly increased the amount that must be mixed in.

This mandate is known as the Renewable Fuel Standard. It forces the use of higher levels of biofuels than the market would otherwise bear. The result has been higher food and fuel prices.

Who Wins: Corn farmers, soybean farmers, and biofuel companies.

Who Loses: Consumers of gasoline, consumers of food, and farmers that rely on feedstock and restaurants.

2. Federal Sugar Program

The federal government tries to limit the supply of sugar that is sold in the United States.

This federal sugar program uses a combination of price supports, marketing allotments that limit how much sugar processors can sell each year, and import restrictions that reduce the amount of imports.

As a result, the price of American sugar is consistently higher than world prices.

Who WinsSugar growers and sugar harvesters.

Who Loses: Workers in sugar-using industries, and consumers of food (including bread) that contains sugar.

3. Catfish Inspection Program

As a result of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s catfish inspection program, the USDA inspects catfish while the Food and Drug Administration inspects all other seafood.

This creates duplication because seafood processing facilities that produce both catfish and any other seafood will have to deal with two different types of seafood regulatory schemes instead of just one.

This program also creates a non-tariff trade barrier that will make it extremely difficult for foreign catfish exporters to export to the U.S., likely reducing competition for the domestic catfish industry.

Who WinsDomestic catfish producers.

Who Loses: Domestic catfish consumers.

4. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (the Jones Act)

The Merchant Marine Act – nicknamed after Sen. Wesley Jones, R-Wash. – requires the use of domestically built ships when transporting goods between U.S. ports. The ships must also be U.S.-owned, and mostly U.S.-crewed.

Who WinsThe U.S. domestic shipping industry.

Who Loses: The U.S. military, automobile drivers, users of propane and heating oil, and anyone benefitting from the trade and transportation of goods between U.S. ports.

5. Occupational Licensure

Licensure laws create government requirements for being allowed to practice a profession. These requirements exist even though the market would produce certification options if consumers desired such information.

Who WinsWorkers who have already obtained licenses.

Who Loses: People wanting to work who can’t because they don’t have a license, and consumers who have to pay higher prices for services.

6. Economic Development Takings

On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the government can seize private property and transfer it to another private party for economic development.

This type of taking was deemed to be for “public use” and ruled a proper use of the government’s eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Who Wins: People who successfully lobby the government to seize other people’s property for financial gain.

Who LosesProperty owners who have their property seized.

7. Home-Sharing Regulations

Local governments sometimes ban or excessively regulate home-sharing – that is, renting out one’s home to accommodate travelers, such as through Airbnb.

When this happens, consumers have less choices of where to stay when traveling, hotels can charge higher prices, and homeowners and renters can’t make full use of their legally possessed homes to earn income for themselves.

Who WinsHotel employee union lobbies, and the hotel industry.

Who Loses: Homeowners and renters.

8. Ride-Sharing Regulations

In some state and local jurisdictions (such as outside Portland, Oregon; Alaska; and Austin, Texas), the government bans or heavily regulates ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft.

These companies are popping up all over because they meet consumers’ needs, but they are being held down in certain cities where the government backs the establishment industry.

Who WinsTraditional taxicab companies.

Who Loses: Uber, Lyft, and drivers looking for low barriers to entry; taxicab customers; customers who want to go in or out of certain neighborhoods that traditional taxi drivers avoid; and users of public transportation seeking to complete the “last mile” of their trips.

When industries or groups win special favors from politicians at the expense of ordinary Americans and the poor, it is an affront to freedom – especially to the economic freedom of the poor.

Policies that drive up prices – especially of commodities – are harder to absorb if you are poor.

The policies listed above can block off the only escape route that poor people have from poverty, preventing them from doing what they are good at for a living, for example, or from renting out their home or other property.

All Americans should have the same opportunities open to them. But when government cronyism rears its ugly head, they don’t.

Those who fall on the losing side of cronyism are more likely to agree with President Ronald Reagan when he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Reprinted from Daily Signal.

Patrick Tyrrell

Patrick Tyrrell is a research coordinator in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

President Trump’s ‘Taxpayer First’ Budget

President Trump’s first proposed budget shows respect for the people who pay the bills. The administration’s proposal reverses the damaging trends from previous administrations by putting our nation’s budget back into balance and reducing our debt through fiscally conservative principles, all the while delivering on President Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security retirement or Medicare. The budget’s combination of regulatory, tax, and welfare reforms will provide opportunities for economic growth and creation. Get the facts about President Trump’s budget.

BALANCE & CUTTING SPENDING

Unlike any budget proposed by the previous administration, the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget achieves balance within the 10-year budget window and begins to reduce the national debt within that same window.

The policies in this Budget will drive down spending and grow the economy. By 2027, when the budget reaches balance, publicly held debt will be reduced to less than 60 percent of GDP, the lowest level since 2010.

NO CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

The President’s Budget does not cut core Social Security benefits. And the President is fulfilling his presidential campaign promise not to cut Medicare benefits.

SAVING TAXPAYERS MONEY

President Trump’s budget saves the American people billions of dollars through welfare, tax, and regulatory reform.

SUPPORTING OUR MILITARY

The President is requesting $54 billion, or 10 percent, more than the defense level President Obama signed into law for both the 2017 CR and the 2018 budget cap. This increase balances the need to rebuild the military with the need for disciplined, strategy-driven, executable growth.

KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE

The Budget includes over $2.6 billion in new infrastructure and technology investments in 2018 to give CBP frontline law enforcement officers the tools and technologies they need to deter, deny, identify, track, and resolve illegal activity along the border.

PUTTING AMERICAN FAMILIES FIRST

President Trump’s budget provides national paid family leave for the first time in the history of this country.

Find out more information about President Trump’s Taxpayer First Budget at WhiteHouse.gov/taxpayers-first.

Here are the 66 programs eliminated in President Trump’s budget:

Agriculture Department — $855 million

  • McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
  • Rural Business-Cooperative Service
  • Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account
  • Single Family Housing Direct Loans

Commerce Department — $633 million

  • Economic Development Administration
  • Manufacturing Extension Partnership
  • Minority Business Development Agency
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grants and Education

Education Department — $4.976 billion

  • 21st Century Community Learning Centers
  • Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants
  • Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
  • Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property
  • International Education
  • Strengthening Institutions
  • Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants
  • Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants
  • Teacher Quality Partnership

Energy Department — $398 million

  • Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
  • Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
  • Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

Health and Human Services — $4.834 billion

  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • Community Services Block Grant
  • Health Professions and Nursing Training Programs
  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

Homeland Security — $235 million

  • Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program
  • Transportation Security Administration Law Enforcement Grants

Housing and Urban Development — $4.123 billion

  • Choice Neighborhoods
  • Community Development Block
  • HOME Investment Partnerships Program
  • Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program Account

Interior Department — $122 million

  • Abandoned Mine Land Grants
  • Heritage Partnership Program
  • National Wildlife Refuge Fund

Justice Department — $210 million

  • State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

Labor Department — $527 million

  • Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training
  • OSHA Training Grants
  • Senior Community Service Employment Program

State Department and USAID — $4.256 billion

  • Development Assistance

Earmarked Appropriations for Non-Profit Organizations

  • The Asia Foundation
  • East-West Center
  • P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid

State Department, USAID, and Treasury Department — $1.59 billion

  • Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative

Transportation Department — $499 million

  • National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER)

Treasury Department — $43 million

  • Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

Environmental Protection Agency — $493 million

  • Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs
  • Geographic Programs

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million

  • Five Earth Science Missions
  • Office of Education

Other Independent Agencies — $2.683 billion

  • Chemical Safety Board
  • Corporation for National and Community Service
  • Corporation for Public Broadcasting
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services

International Development Foundations

  • African Development Foundation
  • Inter-American Foundation
  • Legal Services Corporation
  • National Endowment for the Arts
  • National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
  • Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Regional Commissions

  • Appalachian Regional Commission
  • Delta Regional Authority
  • Denali Commission
  • Northern Border Regional Commission
  • U.S. Institute of Peace
  • U.S. Trade and Development Agency
  • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

RELATED ARTICLES:

Finally, a Budget That Slashes Funding at Education Department

5 Things Congress Can Do to Get a Budget That Controls Spending

9 Key Takeaways From Trump’s First Budget

RELATED VIDEO: Romina Boccia joins CNBC’s “Closing Bell” to talk President Trump’s budget.

England again! Trump calls perpetrators ‘evil losers in life’

Manchester terrorist attack survivor.

CBS News has confirmed that the man who blew himself up at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, was 23-year-old Salman Abedi, a Muslim, who was known to British authorities prior to the attack.

England has embraced refuges from the Middle East. English politicians and police have covered up gangs of Muslim men who have “groomed” young English girls for lives of prostitution. England has looked the other way when radical Islamic terrorists have run down, stabbed and blown up its citizens. Even the Church of England has repeatedly defended Islam as the “religion of peace” and called for all English school children to be forced to learn about Islam.

All of this kowtowing and appeasement has not stopped the terrorist attacks.

The UK Mirror posted a video of a soldier of the Islamic State claiming responsibility for the bombing in Manchester, England. ISIS has claimed the attack was carried out by one of its soldier.

Many, like former DHS agent and author Phillip B. Haney, argue attempts not to offend Muslims or expose Islam’s basic tenants has emboldened terrorists, and terrorist organization like ISIS, to plan and execute more attacks, killing more innocents. David Gaubatz, a former U.S. federal agent and Iraq war veteran, writes:

There are no two separate Islams.  Sharia law is enforced in Saudi Arabia at the same level as ISIS does in Syria.  There is not a Sharia law interpretation for ISIS that is not practiced in the same manner as any Islamic country/government in the Islamic world.  People at some point must begin to understand that Islam is the enemy of the world, which is led by the Saudi government.  All Muslims are required to travel to Saudi Arabia at least one time in their life.  I have conducted research in over 280 plus mosques in America.  Most of the violent material is directly from Saudi Arabia.

I visited one such mosques in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida.  Sharia based material in the mosque advocated the killing of innocent people, especially our children.  The local media and police ignored the evidence.  For years I have warned that Islamic terrorists will target the hearts of innocent people.  The hearts are our children.

Last night in Manchester England we saw an example.

President Trump in his speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia said:

When we see the scenes of destruction in the wake of terror, we see no signs that those murdered were Jewish or Christian, Shia or Sunni. When we look upon the streams of innocent blood soaked into the ancient ground, we cannot see the faith or sect or tribe of the victims we see only that they were children of God whose deaths are an insult to all that is holy.

What we saw last evening in Manchester, England was “an insult to all that is holy.”

We learned that the attack took place at an Ariana Grande concert. Ariana Grande in 2015 was caught on video at a California donut shop saying, “What the f**k is that? I hate Americans. I hate America.”

There are those in England who hate England, including some who are English citizens. As this terrorist attack unfolds we shall see if this is yet another example of a follower of Mohammed carrying out the mandate to kill the infidel and strike fear into their hearts.

President Trump made comments on the Manchester attack at a press conference with Palestinian leader Mahmood Abbas in Israel. Here are President Trump’s remarks:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

CBS: 800 Churches Nationwide Harbor Illegal Immigrants

Refugee industry wants Trump to admit 75,000 refugees this fiscal year, and another 75,000 in FY18

Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted By Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again’

UK Schools told to change class times, exam times and sports days because of Ramadan

Ex-GITMO detainee ISIS Suicide BOMBER in Iraq awarded $1.5 MILLION by UK Govt.

Prince Charles and Islams “Sacred Spirituality” by Hugh Fitzgerald

VIDEO: Muslim Protesters in London Call for Caliphate

UK Police arrest 900 Muslim migrants for crimes including rape and child abuse

Trump’s triumph in Riyadh proves America is back on top of the world

Democrats who believe Hillary Clinton won the election and who remain dedicated to besmirching President’s Trump’s actions irrespective of facts need not read this column, since there is nothing this president can do that would win their approval.

For those still in touch with reality, please read on.

I was about to go the air on Sky News Arabia on Friday when Defense Secretary James Mattis began a live press conference, where he touted recent U.S. military success against ISIS.

You wouldn’t know about the on-the-record briefing, which also featured the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Dunford, and Obama-appointee roving ambassador Brett McGurk, from the U.S. news media.

In fact, even if you searched Google for it, you would find just a single mention of the press conference, which was just a preview from the Washington Examiner with the misleading headline, “Today’s Mattis briefing: Progress report, but no ISIS strategy.”

Think of that for just a moment: even Google, the world’s principal gatekeeper to information on the world wide web, is engaging in anti-Trump censorship.

Alternative web search engine Bing is slightly better. There, you would find seven relevant stories, led by a New York Times piece with the ominous headline, “Mattis says escalation against ISIS doesn’t imperil more civilians,” a reference to a charge from unnamed human rights organizations that an alleged change in U.S. rules of engagement has “jeopardized the safety of civilians” in countries of increased U.S. action.

Melania Trump shakes hands with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud

Only in the ninth paragraph would you learn the news that U.S. military action, which vastly accelerated once President Trump took office, has pushed ISIS out of 55,000 square kilometers of territory it once occupied in Iraq and Syria, the core areas it is claiming as its caliphate.

Reporters at the press conference were so stunned — as I was — to hear such a statistic that they immediately tried to walk it back, and General Mattis obliged. “[We] were talking about the campaign since 2014,” Mattis said, when ISIS had the initiative and was “shattering every force in their path. “Since then it’s been reversed. We’ve accelerated…I was not saying it all started with us,” Mattis said.

Even more important than the numbers, however, is the momentum on the battlefield. ISIS is no longer winning. We are finally killing more of them than they are recruiting. And this was not happening under Obama.

Shortly after taking office, President Trump ordered a review of the war against ISIS. Two changes came from that review, as Mattis revealed, “Delegation of authority to lower command levels, and the president directed a tactical shift from shoving ISIS out of safe locations in an attrition fight to surrounding the enemy in their strongholds, so we can annihilate ISIS.”

Both changes were directed by the president with the goal of crushing ISIS. “The intent is to prevent the return home of escaped foreign fighters,” Mattis said.

This was welcome news to Saudi King Salman and the more than 50 Arab leaders he assembled in Riyadh over the weekend, who breathed a collective sigh of relief when President Trump arrived. And it wasn’t just because he and his cabinet took part in a traditional sword dance.

It was both Trump’s attitude and his reputation as a man of action — a reputation they could already changing the battlefields of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

The president’s signature accomplishment was the speech on Sunday, where he outlined America’s new approach to defeating radical Islamic terrorism. “We are not here to lecture,” Trump said, a clear allusion to President Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo, which is credited with having helped to spark the Arab spring revolts that brought down the governments in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt and led to the rise of ISIS.

Instead, President Trump laid out a vision where the United States and its allies, including Israel, cooperate with Muslim countries to vanquish radicalism before it takes root in the heart. “This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations,” he said. “This is a battle between Good and Evil.”

Instead of blaming Muslim leaders for the rise of radicalism, he called on them as partners to “drive them out”:

“Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out  of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land, and Drive them out of this earth.”

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called Trump a “unique personality that is capable of doing the impossible.” With characteristic modesty, Trump replied, “I agree.” And everyone laughed — good-naturedly, not as the Washington insiders do, to conceal a snicker.

The Arab leaders gathered in Riyadh understood what they were witnessing: the strong horse has returned.

I say to the president’s critics, watch this president on the world stage and feel proud for your country. America is back.

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump’s Trip Abroad: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Deportations of Africans up in 2016

You’ve been hearing the news here and at other news outlets about the stepped-up deportations of Somalis back to their homeland. Many failed asylum seekers are in the mix.

Asylum, for new readers, is, in a way, the other side of the same refugee coin.  Either ‘refugees’ are chosen abroad (usually by the UN these days) and are flown to your towns after supposedly proving that they are persecuted people, or one gets in to the US either illegally or through some temporary legal way and then applies for asylum.

It is difficult (impossible I think) to find photos of Somalis being deported from the US, but there are an unending supply of the Saudi deportations in 2014. Saudi Arabia deported as many as 12,000 Somalis that year. I wonder did Trump ask the Saudis why they don’t take any refugees, including their fellow Muslims?

When the wannabe ‘refugee’ cannot prove his or her case—that they will be persecuted if sent home—then they are supposed to go home!

Conversely, if granted asylum, the migrant is then given all the rights of a ‘refugee’ who was chosen abroad and flown here and will be put on track for US citizenship.

Now, under the Trump Administration, more of those who failed in their asylum bid are being found, detained and sent home.

By the way, this up-tick in deportations is news that should be sent far and wide so as to discourage even more illegal entry and flimsy asylum claims that clog up the courts.

DHS should actually promote an ad campaign around the world trumpeting the news of stepped-up deportations!

Here is Voice of America on the news about Africans, but more importantly I learned about a new and very cool data base.

The United States has expelled about 326 Somali nationals since January.

That number is greater than the total for all Somalis expelled from the country in 2016.

This is the third consecutive year in which the number of Somalis deported by the U.S. government has risen. The rising numbers have increased immigrants’ fears of raids, detentions and deportations.

The deportations of Somali citizens appear to be part of a larger movement, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse*** at Syracuse University. It found that in the first three months of 2017, the U.S. government ordered the deportation of more than 1,200 Africans. Citizens of Ghana, Nigeria, Somalia and Kenya have received the most removal orders.

Recent deportation orders are undoing a ten-year-long trend.
From 2006 to 2016, the number of Africans deported every year fell from 2,100 to about 1,000. If the trend continues, four times more Africans will be deported by the end of this year than during 2016.

Continue reading here.

***Now check out the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse!

Here is one page that I screenshot to show you what interesting stuff is archived there.

On this page we see that there were 19 deportations for reasons of national security in fiscal year 2017 (that fiscal year began on October 1, 2016). You can learn in what states and what courts those cases came from and the nationality of the person to be deported. From this screenshot page, we note that there was one, an Iraqi, ordered by the court in Detroit to be removed.

This post is filed in our Where to find information’ category.

You can watch that 2014 video about Saudi deportations here:

RELATED ARTICLES:

CBS: 800 Churches Nationwide Harbor Illegal Immigrants

Yes, Virginia, U.S. refugees commit crimes

Harvard Study: Media coverage of Trump’s first 100 days ‘set a new standard for negativity’

“The press is your enemy. Enemies. Understand that? . . . Because they’re trying to stick the knife right in our groin.” – President Donald J. Trump.

A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed news coverage of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).

Thomas E. Patterson, Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press,  in the Introduction and Methodology section of the report writes:

Trump’s dislike of the press was slow in coming. When he announced his presidential candidacy, journalists embraced him, and he returned the favor.  Trump received far more coverage, and far more positive coverage, than did his Republican rivals. Only after he had secured the Republican nomination did the press sharpen its scrutiny and, as his news coverage turned negative, Trump turned on the press.

[ … ]

The media have been fascinated by Trump since the first days of his presidential candidacy. Our studies of 2016 presidential election coverage found that Trump received more news coverage than rival candidates during virtually every week of the campaign. The reason is clear enough. Trump is a journalist’s dream. Reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovel full. Trump is also good for business. News ratings were slumping until Trump entered the arena.  Said one network executive, “[Trump] may not be good for America, but [he’s] damn good for [us].”

Read the full report of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office

The report found:

  1. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.
  2. Once upon a time, the “honeymoon” period for a newly inaugurated president included favorable press coverage. That era is now decades in the past. Today’s presidents can expect rough treatment at the hands of the press, and Donald Trump is no exception (see Figure 4 below). Of the past four presidents, only Barack Obama received favorable coverage during his first 100 days, after which the press reverted to form.
  3. Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent.
  4. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak (see Figure 5 below).
  5. Trump’s attacks on the press have been aimed at what he calls the “mainstream media.” Six of the seven U.S. outlets in our study—CBS, CNN, NBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post—are among those he’s attacked by name. All six portrayed Trump’s first 100 days in highly unfavorable terms (see Figure 6 below).
  6. CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting—negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks. Trump’s coverage on CBS also exceeded the 90 percent mark.
  7. Trump’s coverage exceeded the 80 percent level in The New York Times (87 percent negative) and The Washington Post (83 percent negative). The Wall Street Journal came in below that level (70 percent negative), a difference largely attributable to the Journal’s more frequent and more favorable economic coverage.
  8. Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was not merely negative in overall terms. It was unfavorable on every dimension. There was not a single major topic where Trump’s coverage was more positive than negative (see Figure 7 below).
  9. Immigration was, at once, both the most heavily covered topic in U.S. news outlets and the topic that drew the most negative coverage. The proportion of negative news reports to positive ones exceeded 30-to-1.
  10. Health care reform and Russia’s election involvement were also subject to starkly negative coverage—in each case, the breakdown was 87 percent negative to 13 percent positive.

Figure 4. Tone of President’s News Coverage during First 100 Days. Sources: Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Mediated President (2006), p. 37 for Clinton and Bush; Center for Media & Public Affairs for Obama; Media Tenor for Trump. Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.

Figure 5. Weekly Tone of Trump’s Coverage. Source: Media Tenor. Sunday through Saturday was the coding period for each week. Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.

Figure 6. Tone of Trump’s Coverage by News Outlet. Source: Media Tenor, January 20-April 29, 2017. Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.

Figure 7. Tone of Trump’s U.S. Coverage by Topic. Source: Media Tenor, January 20-April 29, 2017. Percentages exclude news reports that were neutral in tone, which accounted for about a third of the reports.

Four Unanswered Questions Surrounding the Murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich

Seth Rich

Seth Rich, former DNC staffer, was killed in a shooting in July 2016. The media’s been largely silent about the sudden shooting death of Democratic National Committee staff Seth Rich.

But some curious minds have raised questions about the timing of Rich’s killing, which was reportedly an act of armed robbery in Washington, D.C., and the release of WikiLeaks documents that painted Hillary Clinton in poor light.

For one: If it was robbery, why wasn’t Rich’s wallet, watch or phone stolen?

Good question.

Here are more, from Breitbart:

“2. Why haven’t the DNC offered a reward for information related to his murder?

“Numerous groups, organizations, and individuals offered a reward for information related to Rich’s murder, including WikiLeaks, GOP lobbyist Jack Burkman, crowdfunding bounty site WeSearchr, and author Mike Cernovich. The DNC and other Democratic Party organizations, however, have not.

“Rich’s death was memorialized by the DNC with a bike rack and plaque.

“3. Why are the left-wing and mainstream media ignoring the case?

“The murder of Seth Rich has been a hot topic among conservative, libertarian, and alternative news outlets since the incident took place last year, however the left-wing and mainstream media has largely ignored the case, only mentioning the staffer’s name during conspiracy articles about Russian hacking.

“A quick Google search of “Seth Rich” will return dozens of news articles on the subject from sources such as Fox News, The Washington Examiner, and Heat Street, but few from outlets such as CNN or MSNBC. The Washington Post did publish a story related to Rich Wednesday afternoon but focused on Rich’s parents’ claim that reports of him contacting WikiLeaks were without evidence.

“Those articles which do appear on left-wing sites all feature headlines which immediately brand questions surrounding his death as “conspiracy theories” and seek to deter investigations.

“The Washington Post published an article in August 2016 titled ‘Trump allies, WikiLeaks and Russia are pushing a nonsensical conspiracy theory about the DNC hacks,’ while The Huffington Post‘s coverage of Rich’s murder last year consisted of stories such as ‘Donald Trump Has A History Of Linking His Political Opponents To People’s Deaths,’ and ‘Conspiracy Theorists Won’t Stop Accusing The Clintons Of Murder.’

“CNN published one single story on Seth Rich’s death last year– a straight news article on the murder with a quote from former DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“The majority of left-wing sites have also completely ignored the recent reports that Rich was the source of “thousands of internal emails” leaked to WikiLeaks before his death, despite the fact that they worked consistently to refute these claims beforehand.

“4. Will the Democrats still push that Russia hacked the DNC?

“Despite the increasing amount of evidence proving the opposite, a frequent left-wing talking point is to claim that it was “Russia who hacked the DNC” and leaked information to WikiLeaks.

“This argument, however, ignores the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stated on numerous occasions that Russia was not a source of the leaks, implying instead that it was Rich. DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 also allegedly claimed in messages to an actress that Rich was one of his whistleblowers, while a private detective claimed this week that Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks before his death.

“Most of the claims that Russia “hacked the election” are based on reports from CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm which has been reported to have ties with Google and the Obama administration, while the FBI did not examine the DNC’s server themselves.

“CrowdStrike’s report was heavily refuted by DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 in a report of his own.”

RELATED VIDEO: Rod Wheeler on his investigation into DNC staffer Seth Rich’s murder

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former Muslim Leader NONIE DARWISH to Speak at #CancelSarsour Protest at CUNY May 25th

Turkish Caliph-President Denounces Trump’s Anti-ISIS Strategy To His Face

Washington Post newsroom CHEERS after their Trump smear goes viral in enemedia

Norming Evil: the enemedia must stop citing hate machine Southern Poverty Law Center

Icelandic Leftist POISONS Robert Spencer

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

The backdoor law used to bring illegals to America

Illegal aliens under the age of 21-years old are migrating to America legally. They are coming under the provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act – Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) program.  SIJS has been used to flood border states, like California, with illegal migrants from the “violence-prone Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.”

In a column titled A ‘Generous’ Pathway to Citizenship, Foster Care Bret Schafer reports:

For the past fifteen years, Casa Libre has served as a refuge for unaccompanied minors who arrive in Southern California from the violence-prone Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Many of those children have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States through a form of relief known as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which provides green cards to unauthorized refugee children who cannot be returned to one or both parents due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The program has been widely used by child welfare agencies and advocates as a way to support the needs of unaccompanied minors living in the U.S. 

Enacted in 1990, SIJS was originally created by Congress to protect vulnerable, non-citizen homeless and foster children from deportation and exploitation. But in 2008, President Bush signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which expanded the definition of SIJS to include minors under the age of 21 who have been declared a dependent of a juvenile court, who cannot be reunified with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect or a similar basis, and for whom a return to their country of origin is determined to be against their best interests.

“It’s the most generous form of relief I know of in the world,” said Lenni Benson, a professor of law at the New York Law School and the director of the Safe Passage Project, a non-profit that provides pro-bono legal representation to unaccompanied immigrant children. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

There is growing concern that ISIS is using fake passports to gain entry into the United States or crossing the southern border illegally. We also know that ISIS has recruited, trained and deployed an estimated half million children to fight the infidels.

According to Schafer, “USCIS received 19,475 petitions, more than double the annual quota. At the end of 2016, there were more SIJS applications awaiting decisions (8,533) than there were total applications submitted (6,840) between 2010-2012.”

Are some of these “children” coming to America under the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status program terrorists and/or drug cartel gang members?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

HALF A MILLION children recruited by ISIS

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: ISIS Child Executioners

VIDEO: Five Children of the Islamic State Execute Kurdish Prisoners

List of refugees receiving assistance in Florida in FY2016 by county

RELATED VIDEO: Grooming Children for Jihad — The Islamic State

Barack Obama Wrote Becoming Donald Trump Was The American Dream

In a Complex.com article  wrote:

In 1991, Obama, a 29-year-old soon-to-be Harvard Law School grad, wrote a paper with a friend, Robert Fisher, called “Race and Rights Rhetoric.” Obama summed up the average American’s mindset with the following sentence: “I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.”

This quote came to light following the publishing of Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, a new 1,460-page biography of the former U.S. president by David J. Garrow. That law paper was previously unpublished.

Here’s the full excerpt:

[Americans have] a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don’t make it, my children will.

So why is Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) working against President Trump and his agenda? After all, it was Barack Obama who said the elections have consequences.

For example, OFA is against President Trump’s immigration initiatives including securing America’s southern border. OFA’s website states:

WHY WE REJECT “THE WALL”

One of the first actions the new administration took after entering office was to sign an executive order that advanced a plan to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on a massive wall along our southern border.

Now, let’s be clear: This wall is unnecessary, unpopular, and unpaid for. But even more importantly, it would be a physical embodiment of precisely the kind of fear and division that America must reject. It won’t serve to make us more secure, but instead cast a shadow of intolerance.

PROTECTING LAW-ABIDING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

For the millions of undocumented immigrants living in America, we have entered a time of great concern and uncertainty. Already, the new administration has signed an order aimed at punishing sanctuary cities, whose policies protect law-abiding undocumented immigrants in order to increase public safety. And as other potential policy changes are discussed, the threat of deportation continues to haunt many of our friends and neighbors.

President Trump made it a key part of his campaign to build a wall along the border with Mexico. OFA’s phrase undocumented immigrants is actually illegal aliens who came to America to take jobs away from legal immigrants and natural born American citizens.

So, why is it necessary to build a wall along America’s southern border?

Perhaps one reason is that there is a war going on in Mexico and it is spilling over our southern border into our towns and cities. But the media does not report how this violence, primarily from drug cartels and gangs like MS13, are causing crime and violence to rise in our major urban areas.

CNN’s Elizabeth Roberts in an article titled Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016 wrote:

It was the second deadliest conflict in the world last year, but it hardly registered in the international headlines.

As Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dominated the news agenda, Mexico’s drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016 — second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died as a result of the civil war.

In comparison, there were 17,000 conflict deaths in Mexico in 2015 and 15,000 in 2014 according to the IISS.

And Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist.

Here are the top 5 countries for killings in 2016:

  1. Syria                             50,000 [Est.]
  2. Mexico                         23,000
  3. Iraq                               17,000
  4. Afghanistan                16,000
  5. Yemen                          7,000

Note that four of these “dangerous countries” are on President Trump’s travel ban, which several judges have stopped. OFA is also against the travel ban, even though it was former President Obama who declared the countries on the ban as harboring terrorism.

OFA is anti-Trump, the same Trump that Obama dreamed of becoming. Can you say ironic?

RELATED ARTICLES:

As a Harvard Law Student, Barack Obama Said Becoming Donald Trump Was The American Dream | Complex

Portland Bar Offers ‘Free Whiskey for Life’ As Reward For Punching Steve Bannon – Big League Politics

Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers to North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

Stop legitimizing the regime in Iran!

The Islamic republic in Iran’s elections have NEVER been democratic under their electoral system and its Islamic constitution.

Unlike many Iranians, I do not travel back and forth to Iran, do not do business with the Islamic Republic, and do not hold a valid Iranian passport. As such, I have no vested interest in the survival of this regime.

I am a Canadian with an Iranian heritage. not an Iranian with a Canadian passport living in Canada merely as a “guest”. I wish to cut off the hands of the Islamic Republic agents and infiltrators from Canada and do not promote or defend the Islamic Republic’s policy or ideology. My loyalty is to Canada not to an antiquated regime governed under seventh century Islamic laws. I stand on guard for Canada while speaking out against human rights violations and terrorism by the Islamic Republic.

I take pride in the fact that I never participated in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s sham elections and never voted for any of their ‘PRE’ selected presidential candidates.

In my opinion those who supports this criminal regime and participate in their s/elections, by legitimizing this criminal regime, inadvertently have their hands in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who have been executed, murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and raped.

It should never be taken lightly that the so called ‘reformist’ advocate’ agenda wholeheartedly supports the Islamic Republic’s constitution, and practices of Sharia law where they are heavily funded by the regime in Iran. They preach reform but the very nature of these reforms have never been clarified. Will there be political prisoners, torture, stoning, and amputations under reform?

It is worth noting that the 1988 mass executions occurred while Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi, one the two leaders of the Green Movement, was Prime Minister of Iran. Karroubi and Moussavi were both founding members of the Islamic Republic who committed plenty of atrocities during their time in power.

A list with picture of martyrs killed by Islamic Republic in Iran after the election coup d’etat !

The infamous Chain Murders of Iran (the assassinations of opposition leaders both inside Iran and abroad) and the Buenos Aires bombing of the largest Jewish center also occurred during the Rafsanjani “reformist” era. Our very own Canadian photojournalist, Zahra Kazemi, whose son still wakes up hearing the screams of his mother, died under vile torture in 2003 under the presidency of Mr. Khatami, the most “moderate” of all of reformists. Miss. Maryam Ayubi, 31, was slowly stoned to death in 2001 (Amnesty International July 11, 2001 report); one of 38 unfortunate souls stoned during so called reform (Boroumand Foundation). Mr. Feyzollah Mekhubad, 77, had his face whipped and eyes gouged out in 1995 for making phone calls to relatives in Israel and the USA (Amnesty International Report May 1995, and Boroumand Memorial). Who is to speak for them if only the voices of reformists are being heard? Can a regime with such atrocities be truly reformed?

Due to a weak immigration vetting system, the Islamic Republic has been so successful in infiltrating Canada and advocating for its survival from our Canadian soil. In the years to come, the Government of Canada can NEVER say they were not warned about anti-Canadian activities funded by the Islamic Republic in Iran through the so called ‘reformists’ apologists. How appeasing these Iranian pro-nuclear and pro-terror mouthpieces benefits Canadians remains a puzzle to us.

Participating in the Islamic Republic’s Sham Elections only legitimizes the regime. I hope that Canada returns to her previously tough position against the regime in Iran, will not give in to pressures created by the Islamic Republic mouthpiece and agents in Canada, and stop giving a voice to them, which is not only is a slap in the face and an insult to human rights advocates, but insidiously dangerous for Canada.

Please sign this petition and tell The White House not to allow the Islamic Republic in Iran to have ballot boxes for their sham elections in the United States.

“The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose and it will defend itself.” St. Augustine.

RELATED ARTICLE: What does Canada get out of restoring diplomatic ties with Iran?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Times of Israel.

VIDEO: Prime Minister of Israel Denounces New York Times for ‘Fake News’

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, called out the New York Times in a recent public remark for putting forward reports along the standard of fake news.

His scathing assessment came via a YouTube video.

Bibi was speaking of an Algemeiner report that faulted the New York Times for its coverage of Hamas. In a May 2 headline, Algemeiner wrote: “new York Times Touts Hamas ‘Moderation,’ Ignores ‘Truly Disgusting’ Video in Which Group Taunts Bereaved Israeli Parents.”

Netanyahy scolded the New York Times — to say the least.

From Algemeiner:

“Netanyahu’s video, published May 7, features the prime minister asking, ‘Ever wonder what fake news is?’

“Netanyahu took the Times to task for its headline touting purported “moderation” by the Hamas terrorist group.

“‘This is a complete distortion of the truth,’ the prime minister says in the video.

“‘Is moving from calling for genocide of all Jews everywhere to calling just for the annihilation of Israel, is that progress, or moderation?’ Netanyahu asks rhetorically. Then he answers his own question: ‘Only if you have no standards whatsoever.’

“‘It’s bad enough that Hamas lies to the world, we don’t also have to lie to ourselves,’ he says.

“The Times, which hyped the so-called Hamas moderation at the top of its front page, buried the news of the Netanyahu video in a single sentence in the 16th paragraph of an article complaining about a reorganization of Israel’s public broadcasting. The article itself appeared inside the newspaper, not on the front page.”

On top of that, the New York Times failed to provide a hyperlink so that readers could view the video themselves, Algemeiner reported.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

U.S. Catholic bishops complicit in Muslim persecution of Christians

Recently I was interviewed about the persecution by Catholic bishops of Catholic priests who enunciate unpopular truths about Islam.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Islamic Expert: US Bishops Complicit in Muslim Persecution of Christians,” by Anita Carey, ChurchMilitant.com, May 8, 2017:

DETROIT (ChurchMiltant.com) – A prominent Islamic expert is comparing the bishops’ silence on terrorism to sex abuse cover-up. Robert Spencer, an Islamic terror expert and author of 16 books on Islam, released an editorial Sunday excoriating the U.S. bishops’ actions to punish clergy and schoolteachers who speak out against Islam, including Spencer himself.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops moves actively and swiftly to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about the Muslim persecution of Christians,” Spencer noted, naming various bishops who’ve refused him, as well as other Muslim critics, a platform in their dioceses.

“You can reject every element of the Nicene Creed and everything the Church teaches, and still the U.S. Catholic Bishops will consider you a Catholic in good standing,” he continued. “But if you believe that Islam is not a religion of peace, you have no place in the U.S. Catholic Church.”

Church Militant spoke with Spencer on his thoughts regarding the reasons why the U.S. bishops are so reluctant to speak out against the evil of Islam.

CM: At what point do you think the bishops started to pander to a politically correct agenda?

RS: This is an outgrowth of the confusion that overtook the Church in the wake of Vatican II, and the popular but erroneous idea among liberal Catholics that the Church had discarded its tradition and dogmas and essentially embraced the leftist agenda. This idea took root in earnest in the 1960s, but began germinating long before that.

CM: Knowing the historical conflicts between Islam and Christianity, why would the bishops be so quick and severe toward those who are informing the laity? Why would they want the laity ignorant?

RS: This mystifies me, but my best assessment is that this is an outgrowth of the spirit of Vatican II, which called upon Muslims and Christians to set aside ancient antagonisms and find common ground. There is a general assumption among the bishops that just as Christianity has changed since the time of the Crusades, so also has Islam, and dialog will iron out any remaining differences.

In reality, this is an unfounded assumption, as Islamic teaching has not changed, and still contains an imperative to wage war against Christians and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. I would expect that most bishops, however, would dismiss the idea that Islamic teaching contains such an imperative as an “Orientalist” and “Islamophobic” false claim. They, however, are the ones who are ignorant.

CM: What do you think the bishops’ problem is with your talks and position on Islam?

RS: I’m told that Bp. Nicholas Samra believes that I am “spreading hate,” and since I was a member of his diocese, he himself told me that many bishops had approached him at the USCCB conference telling him that he had to “do something” about me. They apparently believe that I am harming the dialog they are conducting with Muslims, and they apparently also think that this dialog is producing results, even though Muslim persecution of Christians has increased exponentially since it began.

For my part, I reject the charge that I am spreading hate, and challenge Samra or any other bishop to quote a single hateful statement from my work. I am exposing facts that many would prefer to keep concealed; the “hate” charge is simply an attempt to make people of good will turn against my work.

CM: If the bishops do start to speak out against Islam, will it make Christian persecution worse or start an all-out war? 

RS: In Islamic law, Christians must live in subservience and submission to Islamic law. If they speak out about their plight, it will get even worse for them, and their lives could be forfeit. Thus they generally adopt an attitude of publicly praising and siding with those who persecute them, so that it won’t get even worse for them. This is the attitude that the bishops now appear to have adopted as well: Samra himself told me that I shouldn’t speak out against Muslim persecution of Christians, as doing so would only make matters worse for Middle-Eastern Christians.

While I am aware of that possibility, at the same time to dissimulate about the nature and magnitude of that persecution only misleads Christians outside the Middle East into complacency. It also just validates and reinforces violent intimidation. It is incumbent upon the bishops as messengers of the truth to tell the whole truth about what is happening to the Christians of the Middle East, and to reject a submission to Islamic intimidation that would condemn our children and our children’s children to slavery. To accept that intimidation and lie or remain silent because of it is only to encourage more such intimidation. They could speak out while working to ensure that the United States and other powers do everything they can to protect the remaining Christians in the Middle East from further persecution.

CM: What can the faithful do to influence the bishops or fight back against the liberal media?

RS: Call them to tell the truth. When they issue statements about Islam that are dishonest and misleading, challenge them. I have been severely criticized for criticizing bishops. Many Catholics seem to think that to do so is disloyal to the Church. On the contrary, I believe that not to call out bishops when they are sinful and wrong is even more disloyal to the Church. It is the kind of thinking that led to the pedophilia scandals.

RELATED ARTICLE: Video: The globalist agenda and President Trump’s immigration ban

RELATED VIDEO: Vice President Pence — ISIS Guilty Of Genocide Against Christians.