karl-marx

Karl Marx’s Flight from Reality by Richard M. Ebeling

Though it may seem strange, Karl Marx was not always a communist. As late as 1842, when Marx was in his mid-20s, he actually said he opposed any attempt to establish a communist system. In October 1842, he became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung [the Rhineland Times], and wrote in an editorial:

The Rheinische Zeitung … does not admit that communist ideas in their present form possess even theoretical reality, and therefore can still less desire their practical realization, or even consider it possible.

In 1843, Marx was forced to resign his editorship because of political pressure from the Prussian government and ended up moving to Paris. It was in Paris that he met his future lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels (who already was a socialist), and began his deeper study of socialism and communism, leading to his full “conversion” to the collectivist ideal.

Feuerbach and the Worship of Man Perfected

From his student days in Berlin, two German philosophers left their imprint upon Marx: George Hegel (1770-1831) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). From Hegel, Marx learned the theory of “dialectics” and the idea of historical progress to universal improvement. From Feuerbach, Marx accepted the idea of man “perfected.” Feuerbach had argued that rather than worshiping a non-existing supernatural being – God – man should worship himself.

The “true” religion of the future should, therefore, be the Worship of Mankind, and that man “perfected” would be changed from a being focused on and guided by his own self-interest to one who was totally altruistic, that is, concerned only with the betterment of and service to Mankind as a whole, rather than only himself.

Marx took Feuerbach’s notion of man “perfected” and developed what he considered to be the essential characteristics of such a developed human nature. There were three elements to such a perfected human being, Marx argued:First, the Potential for “Autonomous Action.” This is action undertaken by a man only out of desire or enjoyment, not out of necessity. If a man works at a blacksmith’s forge out of a desire to creatively exercise his faculties in molding metal into some artistic form, this is free or “autonomous action.” If a man works at the forge because he will starve unless he makes a plow to plant a crop, he is acting under a “compulsion” or a “constraint.”

Second, the Potential for “Societal Orientation.” Only man, Marx argued, can reflect on and direct his conscious actions to the improvement the “community” of which he is a part, and which nourishes his own capacity for personal development. When man associates with others only out of self-interest, he denies his true “social” self. Thus, egoism is “unworthy” of a developed human being.

And, third, the Potential for “Aesthetic Appreciation.” This is when man values things only for themselves; for example, “nature for nature’s sake,” or “art for art’s sake.” To view things, Marx claimed, only from the perspective of how something might be used to improve an individual’s personal circumstance is a debasement of the “truly” aesthetic value in things.

Capitalism Keeps Man from Perfection

Feuerbach believed man was “alienated” from himself when he was not “other-oriented.” To change from self-interest to altruism was mostly a state of mind that man could change within himself, Feuerbach argued. Marx insisted that the problem of “alienation” was not due to a person’s “state of mind,” but was conditioned by the “objective” institutional circumstances under which men lived. That is, the political, social, and economic institutions made man what he is. Change the social order, and man would be changed. “Capitalism,” Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

How did this “alienation” manifest itself?

Capitalism, Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

First, there is the Stifling of Autonomous Action. In the marketplace, forces “outside” the control of the individual determine what is produced and how it is produced. The individual “reacts” to the market, he does not control it. Thus, market forces are external constraints on man. He responds to the market out of “necessity,” not out of free desire.Furthermore, to enhance production and productivity, man is “forced” to participate in a division of labor to earn a living that makes him an “appendage” to a machine, a “slave” to the machines owned by the “capitalists” for whom he is “compelled” to work.

Second, there is Diminished Other-Orientedness. In the market, the individual sees others only as a means to his material ends; he trades with others to get what he wants from others, merely in pursuit of his own self-interest. Work is not considered a communal “cooperative” process, but an antagonistic relationship between what the individual wants and what is wanted by the one with whom he trades.

Third, there is Limited Aesthetic Appreciation. In the market, people see nature, resources, and the creations of man not as things to be intrinsically valued in themselves, but as marketable objects – as means – to personal ends. Acquisition of things – possessiveness – becomes the primary goal of economic activity for making a living.

Communism’s Liberation of Constrained Man

Communism, through collective planning, would make work an “autonomous” act, rather than “constrained action.” When democratically regulated by the workers as a whole, Marx asserted, collective planning would emerge from the desires of all the members of society as their communal choice and consent. It would be consciously planned and directed through the participation of all the members of society, thus generating an “other-oriented” sense of a “common good” for which all worked.

No one would be forced and constrained to do what another made them do in the division of labor anymore. Indeed, communism would free men from the “tyranny” of specialization. In Marx’s words, from The German Ideology (1845),

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.

In this new communist world, no one will have to work at anything he did not like or want to do. In addition, under communal planning, production would rise to such a height of productivity that the work day would be shortened to the point that each person’s time would be free to do only the things he enjoyed doing.

Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait, and altruism would become the dominant trait.

Communism would also enhance social consciousness and other-orientedness. All that was communally produced would be distributed on the basis of “need” or “want.” No longer would scarcity impose constraints on man’s desires. As a result, the urge for “possessiveness” and acquisition of “things” would diminish and finally disappear. Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait.Others would no longer be viewed as “competitors” for scarce things, but as social collaborators for attaining “higher” ends of social importance. Altruism would become the dominant trait in man.

In addition, communism would result in the flowering of aesthetic appreciation.

Man would not create so he could earn a living, but for the pleasure of the activity itself. Work would not be a source of “alienation” but an activity reflecting the free – the “autonomous” – desires of man for the “beautiful.”

Communism would liberate man in all ways and all things, said Marx:

With a communist organization of society, there disappears the subordination … of the individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, a sculptor, etc. … In a communist society, there are no longer painters, but only people who engage in painting among other activities.

With the end of capitalism and the arrival of communism, there would come a heaven on earth. There would be enough of everything for all. Man would be freed from working for survival, he would be unchained from the division of labor, he would be liberated to follow whatever gave his heart pleasure. With Communism, man becomes like God – free and powerful to do whatever he wants.

Marx’s Denial of Self-Oriented Human Nature

Let me suggest that what Marx was objecting to – revolting against – was human nature and the existence of scarcity. Man can never escape from or get outside of being an individual “ego.” We exist as individual human beings; we think, remember, imagine, choose, and act as distinct and unique individual men and women.

Our experiences are our experiences; our thoughts and beliefs are our reflections and ideas; our judgments and valuations are our estimates and rankings of things of importance to us. Even when we try to put ourselves in another person’s shoes, to try to sympathize, empathize, and understand the meanings, experiences, and actions of others, it is from our perspective and state of mind that we do so.It is the individuality of the person in these and other facets of our distinct nature and character as conscious, conceptualizing creatures that make for the unique differences and diversities of our minds as self-oriented human beings. This is the source of the creativity and plethora of possibilities that can and have emerged from seeing the world in the distinct and different ways of self-oriented and self-experiencing people when pursuing their own improvement. As they consider what is most advantageous for themselves and others they “selfishly” care about, they support and encourage an institutional setting of peaceful and voluntary market association.

Marx’s Denial of the Reality of Scarcity

Marx also objects to the reality of the necessity to have to produce in order to consume and to have to view one’s own labor as a means to various ends, rather than simply being somehow provided with all that we want and our labor being “free” to be used as a pleasurable end in itself.

Likewise, he revolts against men viewing each other as a means to their respective desired ends rather than as purely human relationships, a “club” in which all get together and freely associate for “good times” with no concern for how or who provides the things without which good times cannot occur.

Nor can he abide men looking upon nature and man-made objects as the means or tools of producing the necessities, amenities, and luxuries of life, with the assignment of a “money value” to a house, a work of art, a waterfall, or a sculpture being “dehumanizing” for Marx.

However, the only reason such things are given values by people in society is that they are wanted but also scarce and because the means to achieve them are scarce as well. As a consequence, we must decide what we consider to be more or less valuable and important to us since all that we would like to have cannot be simultaneously fulfilled at the same time.

Marx’s hatred for the division of labor is an outgrowth of this worldview. Man is seen as somehow less than whole by specializing in a task and selling both his labor and his fraction of the total output to achieve the ends and goals he considers more important than what he has to give up in return.

Marx’s Misconception of Action and Choice

The entire Marxian conception of man, society, and happiness can be conceived, therefore, as a flight from reality. It can be seen in Marx’s distinction between “autonomous action” and capitalist “choices.”

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested: we undertake courses of action only after we have decided what it is we wish to do. That is, we decide which among the alternatives available to us we shall try to bring about, and which shall be set aside for a day or forever because not everything we desire can be had, due to the constraints of nature and the existence of other human beings.

Marx talks of people fishing in the morning and hunting in the afternoon – does that not mean that the person’s time is scarce? Is he not “frustrated” that he cannot do both at the same time, or be in two places at once?

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested.

If every man is to be “autonomously free” to hunt and fish whenever and to whatever extent he desires, what happens when the various members of the community wish to kill the forest animals or catch the fish at such a rate that they are threatened with extinction? Or what if several people all want to fish from the same place along the river or lake bank at the same time, or from the same “cover” position while out hunting?Marx might say that a “societal orientation” on the part of everyone would result in some form of “comradely” compromise. But is that not just other language for “mutual agreements,” “trade-offs,” and “exchanges” concerning the use and disposal of scarce resources – the disposition of the communal property rights among the members of society?

There is no certainty that all of the members of such a society will always like the communally agreed-upon outcomes, with some of them considering themselves “exploited” for the benefit of others who have out-voted them. And, therefore, they may be “alienated” from their fellow men and from nature even in the communist paradise to come.

Nor can there simply be the idea of art for art’s sake or nature for nature’s sake.

Resources for art and gifts of nature (unless cultivated to expand them) are always limited. The use of forests for primitive contemplation versus industrial use versus residential housing would still have to be made in Marx’s magical communist society. And, certainly, not everyone in the bright, beautiful communist society may agree or like the decisions that a majority of others in the blissful societal commune make about such things.

The paint for the artist’s pallet is not in infinite supply, so some art would have to be forgone so other art might be pursued; similarly with the ingredients going into the manufacture of paints versus being used for other things. To assume that men would never conflict over how to dispose of these things is to escape into a complete fantasyland.

Also, it is a physical and psychological fact that men differ in their relative capacities and inclinations in terms of various tasks needing to be performed. It is a physical and psychological fact that men tend to be more productive when they specialize in a small range of tasks as opposed to trying to be a “jack-of-all-trades.”

The Reality of Communism Versus the Reality of Capitalism

As a result, the division of labor raises both the productivity and the total production of a community of men, standards of living rise, leisure time can be expanded, and more variety and quality of goods can be produced.

Indeed, it has been free market capitalism that has provided humanity over the last 200 years with that actual relative horn-of-plenty wherever a fairly free rein has existed for self-interested individual action in pursuit of profit in associative relationships of specialization based on the peaceful use of private property.

Capitalism has been the great liberator of ever more of mankind from poverty, want, and worry. It has freed people from the hardship and drudgery of often life-threatening forms of work. The free market has shortened the hours of work needed to generate levels of material and cultural comfort for a growing number of people and provided the longer, healthier lives and increased leisure time for people to enjoy the wealth that economic freedom has made possible.The “de-alienation” of man from his everyday existence, in the sense that Marx talked about it, has also, in fact, been brought about through the achievements of capitalism. It has relieved more and more of mankind from the concerns of mere survival and subsistence through the capital accumulation and profit-oriented production that has raised the productivity of all those who work and expanded the available supply of useful goods and services. The free market has enabled people to have the means to fulfill more of the enjoyments and meanings of life as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, as Austrian economist F. A. Hayek and others have pointed out, the advantage of the free market system is precisely that it does not require all of the members of the society to agree upon and share the same hierarchy of goals, ends, and values. Each individual, under competitive capitalism, is at liberty to select and follow their own purposes and pursue happiness in their own way. Using each other as the voluntary means to their respective ends in the arena of peaceful market exchange allows a much larger diversity of outcomes reflecting differences among people than if one central plan needs to imposed on all in the name of the interests of a collectivist community as a whole.

Marx’s flight from reality, on the other hand, was the wish to have everything capitalism, the division of labor, and competitive exchange can produce, but without the cost of work, discipline, specialization, and selecting among alternatives. It is like the cry of the child who refuses to accept the fact that he cannot have everything he wants, right there and then and, instead, expects someone or something to provide it to him and everyone else in a blissful fairyland of material plentitude.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

export import bank logo

The Ex-Im Bank Is the Heart of the Swamp by Daniel J. Mitchell

I’ve written many times that Washington is both a corrupt city and a corrupting city. My point is that decent people go into government and all too often wind up losing their ethical values as they learn to “play the game.”

I often joke that these are people who start out thinking Washington is a cesspool but eventually decide it’s a hot tub.

During the presidential campaign, Trump said he wanted to “drain the swamp,” which is similar to my cesspool example. My concern is that El Presidente may not understand (or perhaps not even care) that shrinking the size and scope of government is the only effective way to reduce Washington corruption.

In any event, we’re soon going to get a very strong sign about whether Trump was serious. With Republicans on Capitol Hill divided on how to deal with this cronyist institution, Trump basically has the tie-breaking vote on the issue.

In other words, he has the power to shut down this geyser of corporate welfare. But will he?

According the Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner, Trump may choose to wallow in the swamp rather than drain it.

President Trump now may be in favor of the Export-Import Bank, according to Republican lawmakers who met with him privately Thursday, even though Trump once condemned the bank as corporate welfare.

Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center is one on the Ex-Im Bank’s most tenacious opponents, and she’s very worried.

…if the reports are true that Trump has decided to support the restoration of the crony Export-Import Bank’s full lending authority, it would be akin to the president deciding to instead happily bathe in the swamp and gargle the muck. …If true, the news is only “great” for Boeing, GE, and the other major recipients of Ex-Im’s corporate welfare. It is also at odds with his campaign promises since much of the way the program works is that it gives cheap loans — backed by Americans all over the country — to foreign companies in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Restoring Ex-Im’s full lending-authority powers is renewing the policy to give cheap loans backed by workers in the Rust Belt to companies like Ryanair ($4 billion in guarantee loans over ten years) and Emirates Airlines ($3.9 billion over ten years) so they can have a large competitive advantage over U.S. domestic airlines like Delta and United. It continued to subsidize the large and prosperous state-owned Mexican oil company PEMEX ($9.7 billion over ten years). Seriously? That’s president Trump’s vision of draining the swamp?

Ugh. It will be very disappointing if Trump chooses corporate welfare over taxpayers.

What presumably matters most, though, is whether a bad decision on the Ex-Im Bank is a deviation or a harbinger of four years of cronyism.

In other words, when the dust settles, will the net effect of Trump’s policies be a bigger swamp or smaller swamp?

The New York Times opined that Trump is basically replacing one set of insiders with another set of insiders, which implies a bigger swamp.

Mr. Trump may be out to challenge one establishment — the liberal elite — but he is installing one of his own, filled with tycoons, Wall Street heavyweights, cronies and a new rank of shadowy wealthy “advisers” unaccountable to anyone but him. …Take first the Goldman Sachs crowd. The Trump campaign lambasted global financiers, led by Goldman, as having “robbed our working class,” but here come two of the alleged miscreants: Gary Cohn, Goldman’s president, named to lead the National Economic Council, and Steven Mnuchin, named as Treasury secretary. …Standing in the rain during Mr. Trump’s inaugural speech, farmers and factory workers, truckers, nurses and housekeepers greeted his anti-establishment words by cheering “Drain the Swamp!” even as the new president was standing knee-deep in a swamp of his own.

I’m skeptical of Trump, and I’m waiting to see whether Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin will be friends for taxpayers, so I’m far from a cheerleader for the current administration.

But I also think the New York Times is jumping the gun.

Maybe Trump will be a swamp-wallowing cronyist, but we don’t yet have enough evidence (though a bad decision on Ex-Im certainly would be a very bad omen).

Here’s another potential indicator of what may happen to the swamp under Trump’s reign.

Bloomberg reports that two former Trump campaign officials, Corey Lewandowski and Barry Bennett have cashed in by setting up a lobbying firm to take advantage of their connections.

The arrival of a new president typically means a gold rush for Washington lobbyists as companies, foreign governments, and interest groups scramble for access and influence in the administration. Trump’s arrival promises to be different—at least according to Trump. Throughout the campaign, he lambasted the capital as a den of insider corruption and repeatedly vowed to “drain the swamp,” a phrase second only in the Trump lexicon to “make America great again.” …Trump’s well-advertised disdain for lobbying might seem to augur poorly for a firm seeking to peddle influence. …“Business,” Lewandowski says, “has been very, very good.”

This rubs me the wrong way. I don’t want lobbyists to get rich.

But, to be fair, not all lobbying is bad. Many industries hire “representation” because they want to protect themselves from taxes and regulation. And they have a constitutional right to “petition” the government and contribute money, so I definitely don’t want to criminalize lobbying.

But as I’ve said over and over again, I’d like a much smaller government so that interest groups don’t have an incentive to do either the right kind of lobbying (self-protection) or the wrong kind of lobbying (seeking to obtain unearned wealth via the coercive power of government).

Here’s one final story about the oleaginous nature of Washington.

Wells Fargo is giving a big payout to Elaine Chao, the new Secretary of Transportation.

Chao, who joined Wells Fargo as a board member in 2011, has collected deferred stock options —  a compensation perk generally designed as a long-term retention strategy — that she would not be able to cash out if she left the firm to work for a competitor. Her financial disclosure notes that she will receive a “cash payout for my deferred stock compensation” upon confirmation as Secretary of Transportation. The document discloses that the payments will continue throughout her time in government, if she is confirmed. The payouts will begin in July 2017 and continue yearly through 2021. But Wells Fargo, like several banks and defense contractors, provides a special clause in its standard executive employment contract that offers flexibility for awarding compensation if executives leave the bank to enter “government service.” Such clauses, critics say, are structured to incentivize the so-called “reverse revolving door” of private sector officials burrowing into government. …Golden parachutes for executives leaving firms to enter government dogged several Obama administration officials. Jack Lew, upon leaving Citigroup to join the Obama administration in 2009, was given a cash payout as part of his incentive and retention awards that wouldn’t have been paid if he had left the firm to join a competitor or under ordinary circumstances. But Lew’s Citigroup contract stipulated that there was an exception for leaving to work in a “full time high level position with the U.S. government or regulatory body.” Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Northrop Grumman are among the other firms that have offered special financial rewards to executives who leave to enter government.

This rubs me the wrong way, just as it rubbed me the wrong way when one of Obama’s cabinet appointees got a similar payout.

But the more I think about it, the real question isn’t whether government officials get to keep stock options and other forms of deferred compensation when they jump to government.

What bothers me much more is why companies feel that it’s in their interest to hire people closely connected to government. What value did Jacob Lew bring to Citigroup? What value did Chao bring to Wells Fargo?

I suspect that the answer has a lot to do with financial institutions wanting people who can can pick up the phone and extract favors and information from senior officials in government.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of Lew because he pushed for statism while at Treasury. By contrast, I am a fan of Chao because she was one of the few bright spots during the generally statist Bush years.

But I don’t want a system where private companies feel like they should hire either one of them simply because they have connections in Washington.

I hope that Trump will change this perverse set of incentives by “draining the swamp.” But unless he reduces the size and scope of government, the problem will get worse rather than better.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

enemedia

VIDEO: ‘Enemedia’ Lies yet again about the Threat of Radical Islam

It is important to expose the establishment media, both large outlets and small, until it is universally known that these are not news outlets, but lying propagandists with an agenda. I was sent this article several weeks ago and was struck by this: “Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.”

The implication was that I was relying on some emotional appeal, a rabble-rouser stirring up trouble: “The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where [sic] to be feared” said Norm Dyck.

I am a twentieth-century speaker. Anyone who peruses YouTube videos of my various talks around the U.S. (and in Europe, Israel and Australia, for that matter) will see that I never use PowerPoint, or film, or any audio-visual aids; I just speak. Usually I read a few things from the Qur’an. That’s it. So I was puzzled by this claim that when I spoke in Grand Prairie, Alberta, that I opened with video of the World Trade Center collapsing. I emailed the event organizer and asked him if he had shown such video before I arrived. He said he hadn’t, and would write a Letter to the Editor of the Daily Herald-Tribune, asking for a correction.

He did so. His letter is below. Not surprisingly, the Daily Herald-Tribune did not publish it or make any correction. Meanwhile, here is video of my talk in Grand Prairie last year. It begins with the introduction, while I am standing by (with my late great security man, Floyd Resnick, visible in the first few seconds of the video). Then I come up. No sign of any World Trade Center footage in either the introduction or the beginning of my speech.

“The first casualty is the truth,” eh, Mr. Dyck?

Of course, Svjetlana Mlinarevic of the Daily Herald-Tribune made no effort to contact me or the event organizer, or even to search out the YouTube video of the event, to see whether Norm Dyck was telling the truth. Why bother, when he confirmed the establishment propaganda line?

“A meeting of the faiths,” by Svjetlana Mlinarevic, Daily Herald-Tribune, February 2, 2017:

It was a meeting of two religions that wished to share their beliefs and open their minds to each other.

St. Paul’s United Church invited members of the Islamic Association of Grande Prairie and District (IAGPD) into their sanctuary on Wednesday to pray together, to share their experiences and fears, and to sing in unity….

Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.

“The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where to be feared. This gentleman (another parishioner) talked about confronting falsity. That is extremely difficult. With a media predisposed to play on our fears (for) us and the others out there who are our enemy. The first casualty is the truth,” he said.

Dyck called on people searching for the truth to pursue it courageously regardless of where it takes them saying, “Truth denied, closes us from the light.”…

Here is the Grand Prairie event organizer’s letter to the Daily Herald Tribune, which the paper of course ignored. I present it unedited:

I think dialogue is important and as Norm Dyck emphasized that truth should be pursued. To clarify regarding the speaking engagement of Robert Spencer, there was no footage of world trade center’s crumbling, you can view the whole talk on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X36LSw7X5Bs. Robert has written many books on Islam and presents facts. As far as the suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace, that is a myth. It was said that radicalism, racism, terrorism and violence are not virtues of the Islamic faith, that is also a myth. There are peaceful Muslims to be sure, as there are in Grande Prairie, but when you are talking about the Ideology of Islam or it may be better described as Mohammadism, then questions should and must be asked. To understand the Ideology of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith’s and Sira of Mohammad are the norm. The leader of Islam was Mohammad. The Quran speaks of Mohammad as the great example 33:21, 68;4 and being that, Muslims must follow him. If Mohammad did it, said it, they are to emulate him. A historical summary of Mohammad shows him as a warlord, who killed, raped, terrorized, subjugated anyone who got in his way. He prescribed to what is called pedophilia. He married a girl Aisha at 6 years old and had sex with her when she was nine. Hadith and Sira 8:3309, 58;234,8:3311. That may have been common in the seventh century but not in the 21st century at least in Canada, US and other free nations. There have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11 www.thereligionofpeace.com. 270,000,000 killed in 1400 years of Jihad htpps://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad. Reliance of the Traveller is on Islamic Sacred Law, I would encourage everyone including politicians, judges to read this book.
Truthful and frank dialogue is needed before Canada finds itself like Europe, possibly living under Sharia Law. Unfortunately, we are 40 years behind in our conversation. As Norm said “Truth denied, closes us from the light”.

This letter could have stood a little editing and clarification of the citations, but its points are generally correct. They’re just not issues that the establishment propaganda media wants brought to light.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More faked hate: Ohio Muslim charged with painting anti-Arab graffiti on garage door of Muslim family

Daniel Greenfield once again (humorously) explains how the SPLC lies about ‘groups’

Muslim from UK blows himself up outside Mosul for the Islamic State

Maryland: Mosque hosts celebration to honor jihad murderer of foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

sweden violence

Trump is right about Sweden; it has long been my pick for the first EU country to fall

“[A]nyone who wants to find out how not to handle a migration crisis is welcome to pay us [Sweden] a visit.” – Tove Lifvendahl

Invasion of Europe news…..

Everyone talks about France and Germany, but, for years, my money has been on Sweden as the first country to fall to the tide of overwhelming Muslim migration.

If you don’t know what Trump said at his rally in Florida on Saturday, look it up. He did not say Sweden had a terrorist attack.  In fact, what is happening to Sweden is worse than a one-off Islamic terror incident. Mass Muslim migration is taking down the whole taxpayer-supported safety net, and ultimately (I don’t see how they get out of it) Sweden, as we know it, will not exist.

We have an extensive archive on Sweden, go here and see what I mean.  And, as you look through those posts from over the years, remember that we—America—cannot copy Sweden’s disastrous model!

When the Muslim population reaches a critical level, their supremacism kicks in! (Hijra!)

This is one of several articles we will likely see in the coming days that confirms the grievous error made by the politically correct majority of Swedes.

From Tove Lifvendahl at The Spectator (from last fall):

For a British boy to be killed by a grenade attack anywhere is appalling, but for it to happen in a suburb of Gothenburg should shatter a few illusions about Sweden. Last week’s murder of eight-year-old Yuusuf Warsame fits a pattern that Swedes have come slowly to recognise over the years. He was from Birmingham, visiting relatives, and was caught up in what Swedish police believe is a gang war within the Somali community. Last year, a four-year-old girl was killed by a car bomb outside Gothenburg, another apparent victim of gang violence.

For years, Sweden has regarded itself as a ‘humanitarian superpower’ — making its mark on the world not by fighting wars but by offering shelter to war’s victims. Refugees have arrived here in extraordinary numbers. Over the past 15 years, some 650,000 asylum-seekers made their way to Sweden. Of the 163,000 who arrived last year, 32,000 were granted asylum. Sweden accepts more refugees in proportion to size of population than any other nation in the developed world — when it comes to offering shelter, no one does it better. But when it comes to integrating those we take in (or finding the extra housing, schools and healthcare needed for them), we don’t do so well.
It may be news to the rest of the world, but gang warfare has been a feature of our country for years now.

[….]

‘If you are not prepared, you are unprepared.’ These are the words of Fredrik Reinfeldt, our former prime minister, and perfectly sum up Sweden’s migration crisis. We still hear politicians defiantly claim that our country is a humanitarian superpower — but they don’t do so as often, and they sound distinctly less smug when they do. The Swedish Way might not shine quite as brightly as a beacon to the world. But anyone who wants to find out how not to handle a migration crisis is welcome to pay us a visit.

Continue reading here.

I disagree with one point here, “politicians” do not deserve all the blame, it was the naive Swedes themselves, after all, who voted these ‘leaders’ in to office!

Go here for my complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

“It Looks Like A War Zone”: Trump Vindicated After Violent Riot Erupts In Swedish Suburb

Trump Targets Criminals, Late Arrivals in Immigration Enforcement

Malta takes ‘refugees’ from Greece and Italy and passes others on to U.S.

Government demographic studies all wrong on Somali numbers in U.S.

Will new EO slow the Syrian migration to the US?

Nebraska Republican Governor supports security screening, BUT wants refugee admissions to resume ASAP

WSJ explains (sort of) what that March 3rd date means for slowing U.S. refugee admissions

UNHCR attempts to push another 1,000 Rohingya Muslims from Bangladesh on the west

University of Texas, Arlington logo

Rampant Antisemitism found among students at University of Texas, Arlington

Arlington, TX – “Stuff Jews in the oven” and “Kill some Jews” are among scores of offensive comments flooding the social media pages of current and former students at the University of Texas, Arlington (UTA), a dossier recently released by a national campus watchdog group revealed.

The report first published in the Algemeiner and compiled by Canary Mission – which anonymously monitors anti-American, anti-Israel and antisemitic activity on US college campuses — reveals 24 UTA students and graduates who have repeatedly cursed Jews, called for violence against Jews and both denied and championed the Holocaust in multiple Facebook and Twitter posts. Some post examples include:

  • UTA student and pre-school teacher, Nancy Salem told her friend to go “kill some Jews!”
  • UTA student and PANDORA Jewelry employee, Mariam Ghanem wrote “let’s stuff some Jews in the oven.”
  • UTA student Tareq Abdallah tweeted: “I swear if 1 Jew gets within 5 feet from me at the protest and says a word, straight murder.”

19 of the 24 UTA students investigated were found to be members of the UTA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a pro-Palestinian campus organization. An October 2016 study released at Brandeis — called  “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses” — showed that the presence of an active SJP group on campus is, “one of the strongest predictors of perceiving a hostile climate towards Israel and Jews.”

The UTA report follows on the heels of a dossier on the University of Houston (UH) published in the Algemeiner on January 26th, which drew the attention of the university administration, Houston police, legal agencies and numerous Jewish community groups.

make america great again sign child

Band of Mothers ‘Make America Great Again’ Rallies Nationwide on March 25th

This is wonderful!.

A March in Support of our President, our Military/Veterans, and All Our First Responders!

And participants are encouraged to bring items to be donated to our homeless Veterans!

Their goal is $8000 (pretty conservative amount), they raised over $7000 in 23 days!

Click here to support Make America Great Again by Linda Danger

Please consider a donation and a plan to participate.

Please forward and please join this effort. I don’t know if many folks watched the “nasty” women rally in DC after the Inauguration but the things said, with children there, were vulgar, repulsive and dangerous!  Madonna, an old bag, talking about blowing up the White House, in front of children.

Let’s all gather in love and respect for this country, our President, our Military, our Police/First Responders on March 25th, all across this country.  Let’s show the children of America just how proud we are to be Americans!  We are their future, we are their role models, let’s model behavior they will be proud to be a part of!

God Bless the U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood

I’m so proud of America and all her defenders and I know you are too.  Let’s take a stand for her!!!  Get involved!

Beverly Perlson

The Band of Mothers
http://www.thebandofmothers.com/
“Warriors Come From Warriors”

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

USSR ISLAM RIP

Relegating Radical Islam to the ‘Ash Heap of History’

On June 8th, 1982 in a speech before the British Parliament President Ronald Reagan blazed forth with his belief that ”[T]he march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxist Leninism on the ash heap of history.” Nine years later, on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet flag flew over the Kremlin in Moscow for the last time.

Fast forward to February 15th, 2017 and the meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.

During a press conference Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Trump,

“Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam, and in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you. Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity because for the first time in my lifetime and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but increasingly as an ally.”

Breitbart’s Edwin Mora reports:

President Donald Trump’s deputies intend to overhaul President Barack Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program to focus only on Islamist extremism, says Reuters.

The shift is not finalized, but is expected to reduce federal focus on non-Islamic extremism, reports Reuters, citing five unnamed people briefed on the matter. The shift may also cut off pending federal funding for Islamic groups.

The pending reorganization comes after widespread reports that Obama’s program has already failed, largely because of opposition by resident Muslim activists and groups, say some Republican lawmakers and news outlets.

Reuters notes:

The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

The news outlet cites Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who said she learned of the push to refocus the CVE program “from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism” from unnamed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials last week.

MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has previously advocated for the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. State Department list of designated terrorist groups.

Read more…

President Trump has now named the evil empire bent on stopping the march of freedom and democracy in the world. That neo-evil empire is lead by radical Islamic supremacists. It is called “the Caliphate.” The restoring of the caliphate has been and remains the ultimate goal of radical Islamists.

Marxism, Leninism and radical Islam share a common ideal, the replacement of freedom with subjugation and replacing democracy with a totalitarian ideology based upon a fanatical world view.

President Trump understands this, others do not. The others are the followers of Marx, Lenin and Mohammed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

New Hamas Leader, a Vicious Killer, Portends New Rounds of Violence by Yaakov Lappin

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

Canadian flad isis

Dear Conservative Members of Parliament: Is Canada Planning to make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

Honorable Conservative MPs:

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada already has laws to protect ALL Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. It is shocking that The Parliament of Canada is endorsing a petition to “condemn all forms of Islamophobia” (Petition e-411) and will hold a vote on a motion (Motion M-103) by portraying “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination” based on that petition.

Isn’t “Phobia” a type of mental disorder? Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion which was ‘unanimously’ passed by the Canadian Government which calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I have a Rational Fear of Radical Islam.

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

What exactly has the Parliament of Canada petitioned against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muhammad? Criticism and condemning the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who Condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered an “Islamophobe” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams continue to spew openly radical Ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The petition the Parliament of Canada recently passed a motion was initiated on June 8, 2016 by Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum condemning Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details in the petition which was sponsored by the Liberal MP are extremely sketchy to say the least- e-411 for the parliamentary petition:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Again I say, please keep in mind Islamophobia’s definition.

canadian flag islamIs Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

It seems that many Western politicians, the “Mainstream Media”, and our political elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot to be rationally  “phobic”, or simply fearful, about.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe”.

It is far more probable that they are none of those things; rather that it is the accusers who are racist (Quran: 2;65; 2.89 (Allah transforms Jews into apes); 3:110-112; 4;160, and on and on); Xenophobic really does not apply to Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus, Kurds, Baha’is , Zoroastrians, and a few different sects of Islam; it is truly the other way around.

These people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Sharia law and radical Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islamic Sharia law. I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian Regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies. They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard every day in that dark place.

The memories of that season still haunt me today. And, their threats still follow me today, to this great land of Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the same present danger living close to me once again. I am on their hit list. It was reported that the highest commander of the IRGC very recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad.

People who are jittery about radical Islam and Sharia law are this way for many a reason: They look at how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by The Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and are concerned quite justifiably.

As a professional and Women’s Rights Advocate working for over twenty five years in the settlement sector in Canada, I have told many stories by Muslims who have been victimized and harassed by their Muslim neighbors and peers in schools for not wearing the hijab, for not fasting during the fasting month, for not eating halal, for owning a dog, or simply for wearing a pendant of Muslim Shiite Imam Ali while going to the restroom. I also met a Syrian refugee who was physically attacked for buying vegetables and fruits from a Shiite vendor in Ottawa; moderate Muslims being harassed for not forcing their daughters to wear the hijab, or even for writing with their left hand, to name a few, as I mentioned above. Also of concern is the hatred rising between mosques demonstrated in the recent mosque shooting in Quebec City.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are predicated on Islamic Sharia Law. Therefore, according to this view, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations, and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights. Is that what we want for Canada, or in Canada? Or, in and for any country?

All that these purported critics are doing is pointing out what is in Islam’s Sharia law if anyone cared to look. And, when it comes to concern with quality of life, people should care to look. What is it that these extremists are so eager to cover up?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

Interesting to note, there are no such terms as Christianophobia, or Judeophobia, that define a dislike or prejudice against a Judeo Christian worldview and Jews and Christians, especially as a political force. And, when Googling anti Zionism, a photo appears of Islamist Muslims condemning Jews and a State of Israel. What if Christians and Jews petitioned for anti Christianophobia and anti Judeophobia motions condemning “all” forms of these? Would we all put duct tape on our mouths? And, it is true that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to petition for this in any Middle Eastern country on the face of the planet.

Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada , the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones. That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology. Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

It is also important to know who sponsors such articles in the media and why politicians lack information to make accurate assessments and informed conclusions.

For more information, please read about Politics of ‘Islamophobia’ – source of, and purpose of the term.

In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. For this reason, apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason. A notable expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” The Penal Code of The Islamic Republic of Iran Mandates Death for Converts. Article 225-1 of this code reads, “Any Muslim who clearly announces that he/she has left Islam and declares blasphemy is an Apostate.” In the Qur’an, Bukhari (52:260) repeats this view clearly: “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” According to Ayatollah Khorasani, a prominent Shiite leader in Iran, “The promotion of Christianity in Iran must be stopped and stated that The Bible (The Gospel) is distorted and the Bible is not the Word of God.” (Farsi)

The Ayatollah’s views are directly of a mind with statements found in the Quran. Verses supporting death for apostates in the Qur’an are: 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Article 19: Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Canadians must have the right to critique any ideology or religion. Preventing Canadians from speaking about Islam, is about denying Canadians the right to warn about a potential threat to their nation. A warning is not treason, but preventing a warning is. Isn’t this government sponsored Petition against the laws of the Constitution of Canada? CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

If the government prevents us the right to criticize any ideology, our government overrides our most basic freedom—the freedom of speech—and at the same time will undermine diversity, the “value” the Trudeau Liberals take pride the most in.

“Islamophobia” is used as a tool by political Islam to shut down criticism of Islam. At what point does western civilization demand that as a free society, all ideological matters conform to some common ground?

Can Canada simply ignore what is happening particularly in Europe, no-go-zones? Many places in Europe have become a breeding ground for radical Islam where they enforced their own sharia law.

Again, Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada, the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones.

That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology.

Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

In reference to the above, I urge you to take the time and read the following article by Canadian investigative journalist, Christine Williams – “Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion!”

M-103 does NOT define Islamophobia and is Not inclusive but will only endanger and silence Canada’s freedom of speech. I urge you and all Parliamentarians to vote against Motion M-103 and to rescind Petition e-411.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi, Ottawa, ON.
Award-winning Human Rights Advocate; Former Child prisoner of Evin imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran

REPLY FROM MP PETER KENT

Shabnam:

I will be voting against Motion M-103 for the following reasons:

1)      Abundant protection against discrimination and hate already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada and The Human Rights Act
2)      The word “Islamaphobia” is a confected term that has a wide range of meanings and interpretations.
3)      A “phobia” is a medical term that relates to an anxiety disorder.  It is inappropriate to apply in Parliamentary debate.
4)      Finally, I don’t believe the study proposed in Motion M-103 is worthy of a standing committee’s time or budget.

When I participated as a founding-member of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, MPs agreed that it’s study would be conducted as a special, all-party committee, responsible for its own funding but reporting to Parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write me expressing your genuine concerns for Motion-103.  E-411 is an electronic petition and closed for signatures October 6, 2016.

Sincerely

CANADIAN MP PETER KENTHon. Peter Kent, P.C., MP
Thornhill, ON

House of Commons
Chambre des communes

Critic, Foreign Affairs                               
                    Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs

MY REPLY TO MP PETER KENT

Dear MP Peter Kent,

Thank you for taking the time, reading my open letter and responding to it.

Did you know that the Quebec, and Ontario imams say apostates are to be executed by The Islamic State? I am an apostate—I left Islam when I was in my early teens in Iran and I am a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is my terrifying story.

The article “Quebec, Ontario imams say apostates to be executed by The Islamic State” published by CIJNews documents that Since 2015 Sheharyar Shaikh serves as the Imam of the Islamic Society of Kingston, Ontario and he also served as the President of the North American Muslim Foundation and the Imam of Masjid Qurtabah in Scarborough, Ont. In recent years, he also took part in Dawah (introducing Islam to disbelievers) with activists affiliated with the Islamic booth at Toronto’s Dundas Square.

Supporter of the establishment of a Caliphate, or (The Islamic State), Sheharyar Shaikh believes that the Islamic Law (Sharia Law) is essential to maintain a healthy and moral society which can be achieved by using the Islamic punishments (execution, amputation, hanging , flogging etc.) as effective deterrents against potential criminals. In this regard he emphasized that punishment for apostates, Muslims who left Islam, is execution. The following are excerpts from a sermon entitled “There Is No Compulsion In Islam” which was delivered in English in 2013 (29:47-31:46):”

Please read the article and watch the Imams statements:  http://en.cijnews.com/?p=199556

I have never heard in modern times of a Jew or Christian being killed for leaving their faith! It certainly is NOT common like it is in the Islamic world or the western world where there are enough “honor” killings to prove the barbarity of the sharia law.

Calling for the execution, or killing of anyone in Canada or abroad based on religion or faith should be a crime against humanity and included in our laws. Any and all Canadian imams caught saying or promoting this must be charged and deported if they hold dual citizenship.

Where are Prime Minister Trudeau, The Parliament of Canada, RCMP,  Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Police, the Premieres, and those who are enforcing M-103 on all the “hate speech” coming from these quarters lately?

Why can’t we have a motion in parliament to remove this excrement from the country rather than punishing those who criticize this ideology?

Ms. Iqra Khalid should have tabled a motion requesting a study on why some Muslims insist on breaking our Canadian laws, promoting violence and demand preferential treatment. One illegal migrant crossing into Manitoba told CBC, “We need more sanctuary cities to protect us.” The US illegals just arrived here illegally and are demanding governments to change and accommodate more for the Islamic faith!

Shouldn’t everyone share equal rights? In Iran, under the Islamic laws women are denigrated as second class citizens. I openly share my personal story, along with comprehensive and troubling examples of the reality that all Iranian women face in my article published by Mackenzie Institute:  “Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy”. I stated: “As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law, which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.” This article will leave one asking if enough is being done in the fight for the rights and freedoms of Iranian women compared to women in the West.

To read my article, please click here.

“Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy” A comprehensive look at Islamic shariah law may surprise you. It could be closer to home than you think.

All cultures are NOT equal and anyone who respects a culture who bases their entire ideology and laws on “Honor Killings”, female genital mutilation, child brides as young as 8 years old, rape, marital rape, molestation, pedophilia and torture is to say that you respect the atrocities that it perpetrates. They can call themselves, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabob, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, devout, extremist, etc. The common denominators are always Islam, the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia, which violates our Canadian Constitution and should not be practiced on Canadian soil and Islam’s sharia and ideology cannot coexist with our culture or constitution.

Please read my Op-ed: “Trudeau’s Multiculturalism

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion. Islam is in the guise of a religion is actually a militant political ideology intended for conquering the world for the imaginary, Allah… It is indeed an open ended war against Jews and Christians until we convert to Islam, or are murdered, or enslaved. Historical record shows what happened to Persia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, to name a few.

  • There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslims, apostates or infidels).
  • Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
  •  Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
  • The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
  • The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Quran in a Muslim’s daily life….

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada has laws to protect Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. Motion M-103 does NOT define “Islamophobia”, is Not inclusive, and will endanger Canada’s freedom of speech. Motion M-103  is undemocratic, immoral and unacceptable. This biased motion is a trait of totalitarian governments and not Canadian democracy!

I urge you and all Conservative Parliamentarians to please defeat Motion M-103 without ANY amendments and rescind Petition e-411 and sincerely I hope and trust that this biased Motion will be voted down and put to rest, permanently. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi

supreme court

Legislative Override of the Judiciary: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Florida Representative Julio Gonzalez (R-District 74) has taken a bold position on judicial overreach. In an email Representative Gonzales writes:

With great regularity, we are witnessing the increasingly aggressive and activist posture of our nation’s judiciary.  This month, the issue came to a head with Judge James Robart’s extra-constitutional act of staying a significant portion of the President of the United States’ foreign policy initiative and the subsequent affirmation of that stay by the unabashedly activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those of us who value the restrictions placed upon government by the Constitution cannot help but worry over the implications of these unprecedented confrontational actions and the effects they will have upon our Republic.  Indeed, we are left with the troubling question of whether there is any solution to this latest assault upon the fabric of our Constitution.

But perhaps there is.

Last month, I filed a bill in the Florida House of Representatives [HR 121] that proposes a legislative override provision to Florida’s Constitution.  I also filed an accompanying memorial suggesting that Congress consider a similar addition to the United States Constitution.

To see why such a provision would be necessary, a review of our nation’s constitutional history regarding the judiciary is warranted.

Article III of the United Sates Constitution gave the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the Laws of the United States and the Constitution, but it did not assign to the Supreme Court plenary authority regarding the constitutionality of laws.  This power was actually seized by the Supreme Court in its sentinel Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803.  In it, John Marshall singlehandedly declared,

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.

Although the Congress of the day did not react to this action, by 1820, the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson who warned in a letter to Jarvis Williams,

“to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [would be] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

The Civil War and its associated amendments set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that would be subsequently employed by federal judges to force their will and power upon the states.  With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.

With their new powers, the Supreme Court applied the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the states, provisions that were initially conceived to apply only to the federal government.  In so doing the federal Supreme Court was able to remove prayer from schools, remove religious symbols from public places, and restrict the manner in which adults prayed in public meetings.  Through its divined interpretation of privacy protections, the Court then imposed new abortion laws upon the states, removing what was traditionally a state-based body of law and placing it at the feet of the federal courts.  It also imposed requirements on the state’s death penalty laws, and removed the power of the states to enact term limits upon its congressional delegates and senators, among countless other power-hoarding engagements.

Each of these actions was the result of decisions made by unelected officials permanently sitting upon the nation’s benches that would forever change the fabric of the Constitution and of the nation.

And what recourse did the people possess to check the Supreme Court as it interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with their will?

Operationally, the answer, of course, is none. There is no amendment that will ever be passed to specifically overturn a Supreme Court opinion ruling that a crèche may not sit in a public building during Christmas; nor does Congress possess the authority to pass a law that would overrule the Court when the latter speaks on issues of constitutionality, even if the matter were so obvious to Congress that it would have unanimously voted against the ruling of the Court.

Clearly, the ability of the Court to craft a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is wholly inconsistent with the system of checks and balances the Framers crafted.  In fact, in the same 1820 letter to Jarvis, Jefferson observed, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”  Yet this is the situation in which we find ourselves today with the Supreme Court, both in the various states and within the federal government.

So how do we rectify this unchecked runaway judiciary?

Recognizing a similar threat to its democracy, Canada instituted Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 to allow for a legislative override.  Under this provision, if a Canadian legislative body should find the opinion of the court inconsistent with the views of the electorate, the legislature could override or nullify the court’s ruling.  And Canada is not alone in its possession of such a provision.  Australia, Israel, and England, among other great democracies, allow their respective legislatures to override even the highest rulings of their courts.  The reason for this is self-explanatory: no one in a republic ought to have plenary authority on practically any policy matter affecting the country, much less on ones defining the nature its foundational document.  Doing so would not only mean subjecting that society to the despotic rule of one branch of government, but even more importantly, it would mean relinquishing control of the very fabric and ownership of its constitution to that group.

Recognizing this flaw in our national Constitution, I have crafted a proposed amendment that would permanently address this problem.  It reads:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any District Court of Appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by Congress pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a sixty percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final.  Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

It is my concerted view that a legislative override provision, if enacted, would curtail activist judges.  Of equal importance, it would allow the people of the United States to take back control of their Constitution.  It would also force the people to engage the legislature in enacting rectifications to current laws that they see as objectionable or flawed, rather than run to the courts to impose their unconvincing will upon Americans.  In short, a legislative override provision to our Constitution would represent the clearest and most effective correction to the unchecked actions of an overzealous activist court.  Indeed, a legislative override provision would place our nation closest to the vision shared by President Washington in his Farewell Address when he said:

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

A legislative override provision would prevent such usurpations from taking place and would, ultimately, save our free government.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Case for the Legislative Override by Nicholas Stephanopoulos University of Chicago Law School

Legislation would allow lawmakers to override judges’ rulings

representative julio gonzalezABOUT FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE DR. JULIO GONZALEZ:

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives in District 74.  Dr. Gonzalez may be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. Representative Gonzales is former member of the United States Navy Reserve, as part of the United States Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program. He has made two deployments: Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf during conflicts in Yugoslavia, Gulf Storm, and Somalia. He attended the University of Miami School of Medicine, M.D., 1990; Navy’s Flight Surgery School in Pensacola, Florida, Aviation Medicine, earned wings, 1992; University of Florida’s University Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, 1995-2000; Stetson University College of Law, J.D., 2013.

election-map-3d-by-county

Election Results in the Third Dimension

County-level results from the 2016 U.S. presidential election

Color = winner and margin of victory
Height = total number of votes (all candidates)

Full screen version / See how this map was made

Election maps are telling you big lies about small things

The typical red/blue election map is in some ways deceiving. The one below shows the county-level results for the 2016 election. To look at all the red it would appear Republicans dominated the race. In reality, Democrats received a larger share of the popular vote.

Election 2016 county map

As with most maps that represent information using color, red/blue election maps are great for communicating categorical data (in this case, which candidate won county X?). But they don’t do a very good job conveying magnitude (how important is county X compared to other counties?).

For example, L.A. County alone has a population of over 10 million. That’s more than the combined population of 10 entire states. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming together have a total population of just over 9 million.

Election cartograms

One alternative that has become popular this year is to map the election results using a cartogram, something Professor Mark Newman at the University of Michigan has been advocating for a long time. His maps deform the shape of each state/county so that each area is sized proportional to its population. The one below also uses a spectrum of colors, rather than just red and blue, to show how close the vote was in each county.

election 2016 cartogram purple
Credit: Mark Newman, University of Michigan

I like cartograms and use them often myself, but they do have shortcomings. Namely, the shapes can become unfamiliar, making it difficult to recognize what the different areas are. Some people also find the deformations weird and uncomfortable to look at.

538 hexagon election cartogram
Credit: FiveThirtyEight

Another possibility is to use a tiled cartogram, like this one by FiveThirtyEight. It’s less weird-looking than a continuous-area cartogram (whether that is a good or bad thing) and the locations are more recognizable. Tiled cartograms work great for quickly summarizing state-level results, as they are used on FiveThirtyEight.

However, it gets increasingly difficult to build maps like this as you move to finer levels of granularity. At the county level, the hexagons would have to be extremely small to get the sizes and shapes right. For all intents and purposes, it would become a continuous-area cartogram like the map above it.

Prism map

A 3D map like the one at the top, sometimes called a prism map is another possibility. By extending each region into the 3rd dimension, it’s possible to show the relative importance of each region while retaining the map’s shape, keeping the areas recognizable. In this case, the height of each county corresponds to its total number of votes, though it could just as easily show population or share of the electoral vote.

election map 3d by county
For a closer look, see the full screen interactive version.

Credit:

blueshift mapping tool

My latest project is launching soon: Blueshift, a platform for designing and publishing dynamic maps for the web. If you’d like to give it a try, request a pre-launch invitation.

TruthfeedFeaturePage

PROMISES TO KEEP: The ‘Law and Order’ President hits the ground running

During his campaign for the presidency Donald Trump frequently disdainfully scowled when he spoke about how most politicians were “All talk and no action.”

Candidate Trump promised that immigration would be a primary focus of his administration.

President Trump has indeed focused on multiple aspects of the immigration crisis that go well beyond building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

His selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General was the best possible choice for this important position.

Sessions had chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Consider that on February 25, 2016 that subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Impact of High-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Workers.”

When the Obama administration conducted meetings for “Stakeholders” on the immigration issue corporate leaders were invited to attend as were immigration lawyers representing illegal aliens and special interest groups that advocate for illegal aliens.

However, no one in attendance represented the “average American.”

Even the union leaders representing the Border Patrol, ICE agents and the adjudications officers were barred from participating in those meetings.

On February 9, 2017 President Trump held a news conference in the Oval Office to conduct a public swearing in ceremony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Immediately after Vice President Pence swore in Jeff Sessions, President Trump signed three executive orders:

  1. Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
  2. Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
  3. Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

President Trump promised to be the “Law and Order” President and he has certainly hit the ground running.

His executive order to prevent violence against law enforcement officers is tangible evidence of his keeping his promise to look out for law enforcement officers.

Let’s next consider how he articulated the purpose for his executive order on enforcing federal laws to attack transnational criminal organizations:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens.  These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life.  They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.

These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.  In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs.  Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis.  These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.

A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.

That statement underscores his understanding of how important immigration law enforcement and border security are to combatting transnational criminals.

What is unfathomable is how many politicians who have to understand this issue have opposed Trump at every opportunity.  Only they can explain their conduct.  However, I have to conclude that those who would oppose President Trump’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders and effectively enforce our immigration laws are siding with the cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This certainly apply to mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors who want to create “Sanctuary States.”

Sanctuary Cities should be called “Magnet Cities” because they attract criminal aliens including members of transnational gangs, fugitives and international terrorists.

The politicians’ claims that by shielding vulnerable illegal aliens from immigration law enforcement they would be willing to come forward when they fall victim to criminals is a blatant lie that ignores that Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Sanctuary policies attract more violent criminals who are likely victimize members of the ethnic immigration communities.  However the false narrative serves to vilify valiant ICE agents who go in harms way every day they report for duty, seeking to protect national security and innocent lives.

Statutorily, U Visas are available for victims of human trafficking and other crimes if they come forward and assist with law enforcement efforts to apprehend the criminals.  Similar visa programs are available for illegal aliens who provide assistance to criminal investigations.

If those duplicitous politicians really wanted to assist illegal alien victims of crimes they would bring them to immigration offices and urge them to cooperate with the investigations of their criminal assailants.

That way everyone would win.

But then the politicians would not get their campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of special interest groups, and who know who else, who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by exploiting the immigration system.

In continuing to consider Trump’s executive order on trafficking I call your attention to two of the key elements of this executive order are proverbial “music to my ears.”

(e)  develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies — such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center — to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and

(f)  pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

I speak from extensive experience when I say that this task force approach to identifying, investigating and dismantling international drug trafficking organizations is extremely effective.  I spent the final ten years of my career with the INS as a Senior Special Agent assigned to the OCDETF program in New York City.

As for immigration fraud and visa fraud, these two issues are elements of “Extreme vetting” that Trump promised when he campaigned for the presidency.

On May 18, 2004 I testified at a hearing by the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives that addressed the issues of visa fraud and also the strategy of providing visas for illegal alien informants.

On May 20, 1997 I testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in 1993 at the CIA and first World Trade Center Bombing.

In one way or another, all of those involved with those attacks had gamed the visa system and/or the immigration benefits program.

The Clinton administration’s failures to address these vulnerabilities of visa fraud and immigration fraud that enabled these two deadly attacks to be conducted on American soil literally and figuratively, left the door open to the deadly terror attacks of 9/11.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” included this excerpt found on pages 46 and 47:

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

In the years since the terror attacks of 9/11 more terror attacks were carried out in the United States while other attacks, for one reason or another, failed.  Most of those attacks involved aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Trump’s executive orders address our immigration vulnerabilities and Attorney General Sessions will provide the legal horsepower.

All Americans should be thrilled that this President is keeping his promises.

RELATED ARTICLE: Federally-funded refugee resettlement contractor, HIAS, organized NY rally against Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

David Miliband

NYT allows wealthy British subject to lecture U.S. about ‘fundamental American values’

david-miliband-and-hillar-001

David Miliband with Hillary Clinton.

I want to scream!  I missed this op-ed from January 27th, but the International Rescue Committee is re-tweeting it this morning and it caught my eye.

Here we have David Miliband, the former Labour Party British Foreign Secretary lecturing Donald Trump about “fundamental American values” after Trump announced his Executive Order to keep America safe by temporarily halting immigration from known terrorist hotspots.

And, to make matters worse Miliband’s organization pulls in over $450 million in government grants every year (click here). Some of that money is used to quietly place refugees in American towns and cities and give George Soros Freedom Awards!

Miliband’s annual salary as CEO of the IRC is a whopping $591,846!  But, Leftist media like the NYT never reports any of this!

Here is Miliband’s NYT Op-ed:

President Trump’s executive order suspending the entire resettlement program for 120 days and banning indefinitely the arrival of Syrian refugees is a repudiation of fundamental American values, an abandonment of the United States’ role as a humanitarian leader and, far from protecting the country from extremism, a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to America.

The next paragraph of Miliband’s Op-ed is a prime example of the selective information people like Miliband put out in their propaganda.

Yes, he is right that most of the refugees entering the U.S. from Iran are non-Muslims (I say most because we do admit some Muslims, why from Iran?). However, he doesn’t tell you that almost 100% of the Syrians admitted to the US are Muslims of both Islamic sects, and only a tiny handful of the persecuted Christians are admitted.

In my data report, here yesterday, I told you that of a recent group of 402 Syrians admitted only 2 are Christians! 

Miliband continues…

The order also suggests that the resettlement program should make persecuted religious minorities a higher priority, implying that they have been neglected in the past. This is incorrect; existing law already places strong emphasis on religious persecution among the criteria for resettlement. For example, most of the refugees from Iran — a Muslim-majority country — who are resettled by my organization are not Muslim.

And, here we go again with this 36 month c***!  18-24 months was the number they previously used and now they are talking about 36 months for refugees waiting (not being screened for 18, 24, or 36 months).  And, in fact, in April 2016, the Obama Administration reduced the Syrian screening down to 3 months, see here.

They never mention that in October 2015 FBI Director Comey said here that there is no way to thoroughly screen the Syrians (and I maintain the Somalis either!) because they come from a failed state with NO RECORDS!

And, here, in September 2016, Senator Sessions and Cruz pulled testimony out of the Obama USCIS head that they must often RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF PERSONAL STORIES because they have no data on the refugee.

Nevertheless, Miliband continues to spin his propaganda!

Compared with other types of immigrants, refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the United States. The resettlement process can take up to 36 months and involves screenings by the Department of Homeland Security, the F.B.I., the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center and United States intelligence community.

There is more, continue reading here if you want to get fired up for the day!

See our growing archive on Miliband here.

trump lincoln

Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies

President Abraham Lincoln knew what to do with an intransigent bureaucracy bent on sabotage.

Can the Presidency of the United States be sabotaged? The answer is a resounding yes!

The Democrats have without a doubt embarked upon a road to delay Presidential appointments and sabotage him and his agenda whenever and where ever it can. They sponsor mass hostile rallies, disinformation, misrepresentation and vilification in their arsenal and will and are using the Courts to derail the President’s agenda notwithstanding the damage it will do to the Country.

However the Federal bureaucracy is the most dangerous of all because it is is their financial interest to damage Trumps presidency. They fear Trump will reduce the size of government and its bureaucracy.

Politically the bureaucracy is overwhelming hostile to the President.


Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies

By Newt Gingrich and Allen Guelzo

Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the BureaucraciesPresident Trump will soon discover that federal bureaucrats are far more hostile, destructive, and obstructionist than federal judges.

Ninety-five percent of federal bureaucrats’ donations were for Clinton (99 percent at the State Department, 97 percent at the Department of Justice), so it is clear there will be continuing resistance to President Trump’s policies.

And the intense hostility of the Left will encourage these pro-Clinton bureaucrats to feel noble about undermining and betraying the president.

Eventually, President Trump will be faced with a choice: either dramatically shrink his goals and accommodate the Left or learn from Abraham Lincoln and force bold, deep change on the bureaucracy.

Once he took office, Lincoln fired almost 80 percent of federal employees. This aggressiveness enabled him to replace pro-secession bureaucrats, who would have ensured the North lost the war, with pro-Union enthusiasts who helped him win.

Allen Guelzo, a Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and the director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College, has written on Lincoln’s experience. The Trump team should meet with Guelzo. He writes:

“Until the 1883 Pendleton Act every federal office-holder – from cabinet secretaries to postmasters – could be removed without cause or explanation by the president. And since federal appointments generally paid better than their private-sector equivalents, competition for these jobs was intense, and tended to be handed out as compensation for political services. In the 19th century, political parties did not command huge campaign chests of their own; political operatives worked largely in the expectation that their time and services would be paid-for by appointment to political office. That, in turn, meant that presidents guarded their appointment powers jealously, since dangling the prospect of federal jobs was the surest way of guaranteeing the loyalty of a political party’s ground-game.

“Lincoln was fully as willing to work the patronage lever when he became president. Lincoln’s White House staffer, William O. Stoddard, remembered that Lincoln hired and fired federal office-holders with dizzying energy. ‘I doubt if ever before there was so general displacement as at the beginning of Mr. Lincoln’s term.’ Partly, this was because patronage appointments remained the principal means of securing political loyalty. But it was also a matter of ‘draining the swamp.’ Lincoln, as the first Republican – and first anti-slavery – president, came to Washington after six decades of almost-uninterrupted Democratic dominance of the executive branch. Successive Democratic presidents, from Thomas Jefferson to James Buchanan, had stocked federal offices with pro-slavery Southern appointees who would not shrink from sabotaging the presidency of Lincoln, ‘the Black Republican.’

“As Stoddard explained, ‘the departments fairly swarmed with the family dependents and connections of the Southern political magnates who then, for so long a time, had controlled the dominant party.’ John Floyd, a Virginian who had been Secretary of War under Lincoln’s predecessor, had actually arranged to ship artillery and munitions to Southern arsenals before leaving office in the expectation that these could then be seized by Southern secessionists. But the possibility of betrayal from within was not limited to Southern Democratic appointees. ‘Many of the men from the North were strong Southern sympathizers,’ Stoddard explained, ‘and so accustomed were they to consider their offices their property that even avowed secessionists considered themselves bitterly injured when required to make way for more loyal men.’

“So, once in office in 1861, Lincoln did not hesitate to purge the executive branch of anything which hinted at disloyalty. Of the 1,520 executive branch positions immediately under Lincoln’s oversight, Lincoln fired 1,195 of their occupants, which amounted to ‘the most sweeping removal of federal officeholders in the country’s history up to that time.’ Lincoln especially ‘liked to provide for his friends, who were often remembered gratefully for services given him in his early struggles in life,’ wrote Noah Brooks, who was himself in line to receive a White House appointment at the time of Lincoln’s death. ‘Sometimes he would ‘break the slate,’ as he called it, of those who were making up a list of appointments, that he might insert the name of some old acquaintance who had befriended him in days when friends were few.’

“Lincoln also cast a keen eye on patronage appointments which were technically under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General. In August, 1861, Lincoln notified James Pollock, the director of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, to find a job for an Illinois political operative at the mint. When Pollock hesitated, Lincoln tartly wrote to him:

My dear Sir, You must make a job of it, and provide a place for the bearer of this, Elias Wampole. Make a job of it with the Collector, and have it done. You can do it for me, and you must. Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN

“As Emanuel Hertz wrote in The Wizardry of Lincoln’s Political Appointments and Party Management, ‘Lincoln never abdicated his power of appointing and filing the appointive position in his administration. He had no general almoner or dispenser of patronage. He looked into every appointment himself and no matter how low were the fortunes of war he was always read to consider the strengthening of the party in one place or another by judicious distribution of patronage.’”

Within a month or two it will be clear that large elements of the federal bureaucracy are dedicated leftists who believe it is their duty to stop the Trump Administration and destroy it if possible.

The challenge to President Trump and his team is going to be real and unavoidable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP senator: Don’t box Trump in on Russia

Battle over Trump nominee switches to new target

GOP shifting on immigration

RELATED VIDEO: How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of VOX.

travel+ban+countries2

Trump Admin Releases List of 24 Terrorist Cases from Travel Ban Countries

The Trump administration is working on a “brand new order” on immigration, but in the meantime, his first one was entirely within the bounds of the law and much needed. In its ruling against Trump, the leftist appeals court didn’t even mention the law that clearly gives the President the right and responsibility to place restrictions upon immigration. Shameful.

“Trump Admin Releases List of Terrorist Suspect Cases From Travel Ban Countries,” by Cameron Cawthorne, Washington Free Beacon, February 9, 2017:

President Trump responded to his critics who claim his travel ban goes too far by releasing a list of terror cases that involve suspects who traveled to the U.S. from the seven countries listed in his executive order.

Trump signed an executive order two weeks ago imposing a 90-day travel ban on the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, outraging many Americans. A federal judge blocked the order, arguing that there hadn’t been any terrorist-related arrests from the seven target countries since September 11, 2001, Washington Free Beacon reported.

Judge James Robart, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state, said in court Friday that no foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen–have been arrested in the U.S. for terrorist activity.

Robart asked Justice Department attorney Michelle Bennett to tell him how many such arrests have been made. When the government lawyer did not have an answer, Robart said the number is zero.

Robart’s claim is false. The White House circulated a list providing 24 examples of refugees and other immigrants from Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya who have been arrested on terror-related charges, Fox News reported.

The White House document itself names 10 individuals from Somalia, six from Iraq, one from Yemen, two from Sudan, two from Iran, two from Libya and one from Syria. The cases span the last eight years, and include most recently a case in June in which two Somali refugees were jailed for conspiring to commit murder in Syria on behalf of ISIS.

It also includes a case from March of last year, where a Yemeni native who became a U.S. citizen was sentenced to 22 years in prison for attempting to provide “material support” to ISIS and planning to shoot and kill members of the U.S. military who had returned from Iraq.

The dossier also sheds light on a case in January 2016 involving a Palestinian, born in Iraq, who came to the U.S. as a refugee and allegedly tried to provide materials to terror groups abroad. The dossier cited multiple media reports that the suspect told his wife, “I want to blow myself up … I am against America.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugees entering U.S. doubled in rate since ruling on Trump travel ban – Washington Times

‘The real bad guys’ are coming from Canada, not Mexico, Daily Beast report alleges

10 Disturbing Facts You Should Understand About the Travel Ban and Dramatic Court Cases [Judicial Activism]

Virginia: Immigrant Ex-National Guardsman Gets 11 Years for ISIS Support

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

Trump-Bannon2

The End of Countering Violent Extremism, the Start of Countering Radical Islamic Extremism

A few days ago, I correctly pointed out that by far the most important paragraph of the President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration was being widely overlooked by the media. While they carried on their endless discussion of the completely tangential list of exactly which countries citizens had their nonexistent “right” to enter the United States curtailed, the administration continued to pursue its clearly defined purpose. That purpose is to focus the full resources of the federal government on the only ideology that threatens the republic at this time.

From Reuters:

Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, would be changed to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,” the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

Such a change would reflect Trump’s election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islam” in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.

The Reuters piece goes on to say that the Trump administration is now looking carefully at all grant allocations, the precise nature of the recipients of taxpayer money, and resource usage. The implication is that only Islam will be considered a threat, and whatever resources are currently directed at other forms of “extremism,” such as “Life After Hate which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists,” will be removed. No doubt there are threats (even deadly, murderous ones) from non-Islamic terrorists, but they are for criminal agencies to work on; they don’t represent a credible threat to overturn the entire US Constitution. That is what makes Islam and jihad unique.

None of this will come as a surprise to those of you who read the guiding paragraph of the executive order, which I wrote about. The entire thrust of this administration is to tackle Islam as an political ideology incompatible with the Constitution.

At the same time, CNN has dug up an interview Steve Bannon gave in 2010 on the late Avi Davis’s podcast, in which:

Bannon mocked Bush for proclaiming “Islam is a religion of peace.”

“Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission.”

One small step for Jihad Watch readers, one giant leap for mankind, when the direction of the new administration is to replace the lie of “Islam is a religion of peace” with a more realistic assessment of jihadi goals and methods. Especially those methods such as indoctrination and infiltration, which the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organisations have been employing so successfully for years.

This Bannon quote on Islam came up in a White House Press briefing.

Sean Spicer deflected the question; importantly, he did not counter, criticise or address what the journalist reported that Bannon had said; nor did he say that Trump would distance himself from it.

Once again, the new administration is going in a very interesting direction, and the old media is unable to understand what has changed. They’re not ready to come to terms with the complete removal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine and its replacement with treating Islam and jihad in the West as a hostile political movement.

One final piece to bring back. At times on the campaign trail, before he switched almost exclusively to teleprompter speeches, Donald Trump recited a poem about a snake. He made it very clear in the introduction that he was talking about Islam. Not just immigration. Again, that was largely overlooked by the media.

The press is attacking Bannon and Trump for holding these views. They’re going to try to coerce either of them back to the politically correct “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine. As you Americans are fond of saying, good luck with that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Venezuela selling passports to Iraqis, may have sold them to jihadis

“Aren’t You Tired of Writing Your Stupid Articles?” Georgetown Prof Jonathan Brown Expels Critic From Lecture