trump oval office

Press Basks in Self-Pity as President Skips Media Event to Engage with America

President Trump has a busy schedule this week. On Friday, he becomes the first sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1983 to address the members of the National Rifle Association during our Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Atlanta, GA. The next day he will hold a rally at the PA Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg to mark the 100th day of his presidency.

One event he will not be attending is the 103rd Annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) Dinner in Washington, D.C.  Here, too, he shares a parallel with Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to skip the event in 1981 (albeit because he was still recovering from a recent assassination attempt). Before Reagan, both Presidents Jimmy Carter (1978 and 1980) and Richard Nixon (1972 and 1974) skipped the dinner of their own volition.

The mainstream media have made no secret of their opposition to President Trump. Articles have openly questioned the “legitimacy” of his presidency, and some within the media have even admitted they do not believe ordinary journalistic ethics or practices apply to him. As a writer for the New York Times acknowledged during the election: “[L]et’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.”

Meanwhile, the American people who voted the president into office have made no secret of their disgust with the media. During the election, an annual Gallup poll showed Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” dropped to its lowest level since the organization first began asking the question in 1972. Nearly 70% of the poll’s respondents found the media untrustworthy.

It cannot be said often or emphatically enough: the media elite just don’t get it. First, they blew the biggest political story of the 21st Century by failing to recognize the momentum of Trump’s presidential campaign. Then – rather than recognize and begin addressing their own colossal professional failure – they simply re-dedicated themselves to opposing his presidency. Even Poltico recently acknowledged that Trump’s election was “not just as an embarrassment for the press but … an indictment” and made clear “the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.”

The press’ reaction to Trump’s decision to skip the WHCA Dinner reinforces this negative view. Criticizing Trump for reaching out to the ordinary Americans who elected him, rather than the press figures who despise him, a former WHCA board member made clear in statements to The Hill that reporters really do continue to believe it’s all about themselves.

“I feel bad, because a lot of White House reporters are going to have to go and cover [Trump’s Pennsylvania rally] and not come to our own dinner,” she said. “It’s one thing for him to stay home, and that was fine. And he can just tweet about us and be mean, and that would be kind of funny, and it would feel right. But for him to stage a competing event — we just can’t even have our dinner? We just can’t even do that?”

This is a remarkable admission. They have to go to work “out there” in America, rather than gather in the Washington, D.C. Hilton with their like-minded colleagues and a bevy of like-minded Hollywood celebrities for a night of self-congratulation and mutual regard.

And as The Hill article noted, even for those who will attend, it won’t be like the good old days when Barack Obama was president and the real Tinseltown A-Listers flocked to bask in his presence. “That really mushroomed during the Obama years,” the WHCA board member told The Hill, “because celebrities love Democrats and big party-givers love celebrities.”

Most Americans probably have better things to do than to give the WHCA Dinner much thought at all.  And the press can at least look forward to the public re-emergence of Barack Obama, who a USA Today writer called “the ultimate media President” because he “made the media feel good.”

Obama reappeared on Monday to give a speech to a friendly crowd at the University of Chicago, where he used to teach in the law school.

The news also broke this week that Obama will follow in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton by accepting $400,000 to address a gathering of Wall Street investment bankers. In a shocking display of pay inequity, however, his fee will be nearly twice what Clinton charged private businesses for similar events. This follows on last month’s announcement that the former president and first lady landed a $65 million book deal – the largest ever – for the publication of their presidential memoirs.

Of course, it’s natural for people to gather with their friends and supporters. For Trump, that means the hardworking Americans who do the necessary but mostly unglamorous work of growing, building, moving, and fixing things the country relies on for our daily lives. For the media, it means each other. And for Barack Obama, it lately means “young people” and rich bankers at whom he sometimes wags his finger but from whom he always gladly accepts large sums of money.

Here at the NRA, we look forward to seeing the president in Atlanta.

As for the surly press corps that will begrudgingly covering the events while their colleagues feast in the Nation’s Capitol, consider it an opportunity to visit that part of America that you should at least know exists, even if you remain determined to misunderstand it.


Muslim plot to ‘bomb Elton John concert’ on 9/11 anniversary

The takeaway from this unprecedented war against our very way of life is “Islam is peace.”

This jihadi’s brother is serving life for plotting to behead a poppy-seller or a police community support officer on Remembrance Sunday.

Haroon Syed, 19, also planned to target crowds outside Buckingham Palace and shoppers in Oxford Street.



By John Twomey, The Express, Apr 27, 2017:

The teenager wanted to cause carnage on the scale of the 2005 London bombings which claimed the lives of 52 innocent victims.

Syed first opted for a devastating machine gun attack, the Old Bailey heard. But he switched to a homemade bomb with “lots of nails inside” when he failed to raise the cash to buy automatic weapons.

Syed also planned on targeting shoppers in Oxford Street

Searching the internet for likely targets, he singled out Elton John’s gig in London’s Hyde Park.

The brothers must make this bomb really strong. It has to be powerful

The concert, on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US, was attended by 50,000 people. Syed’s brother Nadir, 24, is serving life for plotting to behead a poppy-seller or a police community support officer on Remembrance Sunday 2014.The teenager’s evil plan was thwarted by an MI5 spy who posed as a fellow extremist who could help him get hold of weapons and bombs.

Using the alias Abu Yusuf, the undercover officer chatted to Syed via an encrypted messaging service and later met him.Syed considered martyrdom but decided to slaughter as many people as possible with a remote-controlled bomb. He handed over £150 to Yusuf at a meeting in August last year and said: “The brothers must make this bomb really strong. It has to be powerful.”The MI5 man told Syed the device would be ready to collect in a few days, the court heard.Syed claimed he was addicted to violent computer games and treated the gun or bomb attack as a fantasy.Sfirst opted for a machine gun attack but then switched to a homemade bomb.

He claimed he never had any intention to carry out a terror attack and only wanted to see “how far it would go”.He accused undercover officers of entrapping him.Judge Michael Topolski, QC, yesterday refused an application by defence lawyers to exclude evidence gathered through his conversations with Yusuf from his forthcoming trial.His ruling prompted Syed, of Hounslow, west London, to plead guilty to preparing a terrorist act.He will be sentenced next month.

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

slash taxes

Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Donald Trump’s tax plan seems to mark a new chapter in his presidency, from floundering around with strange and sometimes scary policies (bombings, border closings, saber rattling) to focusing on what actually matters and what can actually make the difference for the American people and the American economy.

Under Trump’s plan, taxes on corporate profits go from 35% to 15%. They should be zero (like the Bahamas), but this is a good start. Taxes on capital gains go from 23.8% to 20%. Again, it should be zero (as with New Zealand), but it is a start. Rates for all individuals are lowered to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for individuals is doubled (politically brilliant). The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax is gone. Popular deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest are preserved. The hare-brained idea of a “border adjustment tax” is toast.

All of this is wonderful, but the shining light of this plan is the dramatic reduction in taxes on corporate profits. The economics of this are based on a simple but profoundly true insight. Economic growth is the key to a good society. This is where good jobs come from. This is how technology improves. This is what gives everyone a brighter outlook on life. If you can imagine that your tomorrow will be more prosperous and flourishing than today, your life seems to be on track.

Tax Capital, Wreck Prosperity

Where does economic growth come from? For decades dating back perhaps a hundred-plus years, people imagined that it could come from government programs and policy manipulation. Surely there are some levers somewhere in the center of power that can cause this thing we call economic growth. We just need solid experts with power, resources, and intelligence to manage the system.

This turns out to be entirely wrong. It hasn’t worked. Since 2008, government has tried to mastermind an economic recovery. It has floundered. We are coming up on a full decade of this nonsense with economic growth barely crawling along. We are surviving, not thriving, and income growth, capital formation, and entrepreneurial opportunity restricted and punished at every turn.

The Trump tax plan is rooted in a much better idea. Economic growth must come from the private sector. It must come from investment in private capital. The owners of this capital who are doing well and earn profits should be allowed to keep them and invest them. This creates new job opportunities. It allows for more complex production strategies. It expands the division of labor.

The crucial institution here is capital. Sorry, anti-capitalists. It’s just true. Capital can be defined as the produced goods for production, not consumption. It is making things for the purpose of making other things. Think about it. Without capital, you can still have markets, creativity, hard work, enterprise. But so long as you have an absence of capital, you are forever floundering around just working to make and sell things for consumption. This is called living hand to mouth.Without capital, and the private ownership of capital, and security over your property rights, you can’t have economic growth. You can’t have complex production. You can’t raise wages. You can’t live a better life. Every tax on capital, capital formation, capital accumulation, and business profit reduces the security of property rights over capital. This is a sure way to attack economic growth at its source.

And this is precisely what American policy has done. The rest of the world has been wising up about this, reducing taxes on capital for the last 15 years. But the US has languished in the mythology of the past, regarding capital not as a font of prosperity but rather a fund of stagnant resources to be pillaged by planners in government. It is not surprising that this strategy results in slow growth and even permanent recession.

What This Can Do for Growth

I have no regression to present to you but this much I can say out of experience and intuition. If this tax plan goes through, the entire class of entrepreneurs, investors, and merchants will receiving a loud signal: this country is safe for you to realize your dreams and make the dreams of others come true.It wouldn’t surprise me to see GDP growth go from an anemic 1-2% to reach 4% and higher in one year. There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it. And think what it means for the next recession or financial crisis. It prepares the entire country to weather such an event better than we otherwise would.

The beauty of unleashing the power of private capital is that the brilliant results will always be surprising. We don’t know what kind of experimentation in investment and business expansion this will create. This is the nature of a capitalist economy rooted in the freedom of enterprise. It defies our every expectation. No model can forecast with precision the range of results here. We only know that good things will come.

Now, of course, the opponents will talk of the deficit and the national debt. What about the lost revenue? The problem is that every revenue forecast is based on a static model. But an economy rooted in capital formation is not a static one. It is entirely possible that new profits and business expansion will produce even more revenue, even if it is taxed at a lower rate.If you want to cut the deficit, there is only one way: cut spending. I see no evidence that either party wants to do this. Too bad. This should change. But it is both economically stupid and morally unsound to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. Letting people keep more of what they earn is the right thing to do, regardless of government’s fiscal problems.

In the meantime, these pious incantations of the word “deficit, deficit, deficit,” should be seen for what they are: excuses to continue to loot people of their just earnings.

The Politics of It

Already the opponents of this plan are kvetching in the predictable way. This is a tax cut for the rich! Well, yes, and that’s good. Rich capitalists  – sorry for yet another hard truth – are society’s benefactors.

But you know why this line of attack isn’t going to work this time? Take a look at the standard deduction change. It is doubled. Not a single middle-class taxpayer is unaware of what this means. This is because they are profoundly aware of how the tax system works. If you take the standard deduction from $6,200 to $15,000, that means people are going to keep far more of their own money. There is not a single taxpayer in this country who will not welcome that.

This is why it strikes me as crazy for Democrats to inveigh against this plan. Doing so only cements their reputation as the party of pillage. Do they really want the United States to be outcompeted by every other nation in the OECD? What they should do is rally behind this, forgetting all the ridiculous pieties about the deficit and the rich and so on. Do they favor the interests of the American people are not?It’s also fantastic politics to retain the deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest. These are popular for a reason. They are two of the only ways that average people can save on their tax bill. It always pained me when the GOP would propose a “flat tax” that eliminated these provisions. People are very aware: taking away an existing tax break is a terrible foreshadowing of bad things to come. So this Trump plan dispenses with all that. Good.

As for compliance costs of the current system, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do worlds of good.

What I love most about this plan is its real-world economic foundation. It embraces a truth that so many want to avoid. If you want jobs, rising wages, and economic growth, you have to stop the war on capital. You have to go the other way. You need to celebrate capital and allow rewards to flow to those who are driving forward economic progress.

It’s a simple but brilliant point. Finally, we’ve got a tax proposal that embraces it.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.


President Trump has admitted 12,218 refugees since Inauguration Day: 1,472 Syrians, 1,359 Somalis

Since we are coming up on 100 days I was anxious to see how Trump was doing with his campaign promise to (at least) put a moratorium on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days to review how refugees are vetted and look to assure “extreme vetting” was put in place.

My guess about the flip-flop: His friends in the hotel and food production industries told him they needed this steady supply of low wage refugee laborers whose wages you supplement with welfare payments. Great business model!

Ho hum! Isn’t happening! And, I don’t want to hear of one defender who says he was stymied by judges. He never had to place a refugee slowdown in an Executive Order!  The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the President enormous powers.

Here (below) is a screenshot map of where the 12,218 were placed since Inauguration Day up until this morning’s data at Wrapsnet.

This puts the number for the fiscal year, as of today, at 42,235.

Trump also said he was capping the number for the year at 50,000, but at the present rate of admission, he will surpass 60,000 (an average number since 9/11).

Top resettlement countries included:

  • Burma (1,497) 401 of these are Rohingya Muslims who, like Syrians, cannot be vetted.
  • DR Congo (1,866) We are well on our way to reach 50,000 we promised the UN we would scatter across America.
  • Iraq (1,503) Over 122,000 have been admitted since 2009.
  • Somalia (1,359) We have admitted well over 100,000 over past 20 years, will it ever end?
  • Syria (1,472) Remember Trump said he would stop them completely, even said he would send some back, ha! ha!

How many Trump refugees did you get?

Alaska got 23 while the diversity-lovers in Hawaii got a big fat zero (again!). LOL! Of course, D.C. got none. And, for new readers wondering about Wyoming, it is the only state in the nation to have never joined the program.

Biggest tests for Trump come in September. 

If he throws billions of taxpayer dollars to the refugee industry in the 2018 budget and doesn’t drastically cut refugee admissions for the upcoming year, then we will know for sure that the United Nations/US Refugee Admissions Program will never be reformed.

EndNote:  I was just reminded of the story from yesterday about Ivanka Trump’s views on Syrians, here.  Sure hope Daddy isn’t listening to Ivanka (again!).

liberal anarchists

New York Times defends Antifa thuggery on college campuses

The thrust of the argument here is that to shut down voices that the Leftist establishment considers odious — which includes mine, although I am not mentioned in this article (no, I am not Richard Spencer) — is aiding the oppressed to have a voice that they are usually denied.

This is an argument for Brownshirt thuggery and/or totalitarian control of the public discourse.

Who will be entrusted with the power to determine whether a group is sufficiently oppressed to be allowed to be heard? Whoever will have that power will be able to impose his or her views tyrannically, with all dissent suppressed.

Moreover, the idea that these oppressed groups have no voice as it is, and conservative speakers coming in would further silence and marginalize them, is sheer Leftist fantasy. In reality, the overwhelmingly dominant point of view on university and college campuses today is that of the hard-Left. Jihad is a response to U.S. imperialism, Muslims are always and in every case oppressed victims of racism and “Islamophobia” — try uttering a word of disagreement to those propositions on a university or college campus today, and see what happens. These idea have near-total dominance on campus today. Letting me speak (and I did speak at Truman State University a couple of weeks ago, and have two more university appearances coming up) or others with dissenting points of view is simply allowing a small opposing word to be uttered amid the relentless and never-ending bleat for the other side.

The New York Times, perhaps realizing that it cannot win with its ideas on a level playing field, has now published here a sly apologetic for totalitarian censorship. To its everlasting shame, although I doubt that Ulrich Baer or the Times editors will notice my indictment amid all the applause they’re receiving for this piece from their peers.

milo burning berkeley“What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech,” by Ulrich Baer, New York Times, April 24, 2017:

At one of the premieres of his landmark Holocaust documentary, “Shoah” (1985), the filmmaker Claude Lanzmann was challenged by a member of the audience, a woman who identified herself as a Holocaust survivor. Lanzmann listened politely as the woman recounted her harrowing personal account of the Holocaust to make the point that the film failed to fully represent the recollections of survivors. When she finished, Lanzmann waited a bit, and then said, “Madame, you are an experience, but not an argument.”

This exchange, conveyed to me by the Russian literature scholar Victor Erlich some years ago, has stayed with me, and it has taken on renewed significance as the struggles on American campuses to negotiate issues of free speech have intensified — most recently in protests at Auburn University against a visit by the white nationalist Richard Spencer.

Lanzmann’s blunt reply favored reasoned analysis over personal memory. In light of his painstaking research into the Holocaust, his comment must have seemed insensitive but necessary at the time. Ironically, “Shoah” eventually helped usher in an era of testimony that elevated stories of trauma to a new level of importance, especially in cultural production and universities.

During the 1980s and ’90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.

We should resist the temptation to rehash these debates. Doing so would overlook the fact that a thorough generational shift has occurred. Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.

milo yiannopoulos

Milo Yiannopoulos

The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, best known for his prescient analysis in “The Postmodern Condition” of how public discourse discards the categories of true/false and just/unjust in favor of valuing the mere fact that something is being communicated, examined the tension between experience and argument in a different way.

Instead of defining freedom of expression as guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges, Lyotard focused on the asymmetry of different positions when personal experience is challenged by abstract arguments. His extreme example was Holocaust denial, where invidious but often well-publicized cranks confronted survivors with the absurd challenge to produce incontrovertible eyewitness evidence of their experience of the killing machines set up by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Not only was such evidence unavailable, but it also challenged the Jewish survivors to produce evidence of their own legitimacy in a discourse that had systematically denied their humanity.

Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to underestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

The rights of transgender people for legal equality and protection against discrimination are a current example in a long history of such redefinitions. It is only when trans people are recognized as fully human, rather than as men and women in disguise, as Ben Carson, the current secretary of housing and urban development claims, that their rights can be fully recognized in policy decisions.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

THE STUDENT ACTIVISM that has roiled campuses — at Auburn, Missouri, Yale, Berkeley, Middlebury and elsewhere — is an opportunity to take stock of free speech issues in a changed world. It is also an opportunity to take into account the past few decades of scholarship that has honed our understanding of the rights to expression in higher education, which maintains particularly high standards of what is worthy of debate….


Italy: Muslim who threatened to “roast non-believers on skewers” arrested

After Palm Sunday jihad massacres, Pope Francis to Egypt to reach out to Muslims

marin le pen black and white

Marine Le Pen is the ‘France First’ candidate

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen is a French lawyer and politician. Ms. Le Pen stepped down as the president of the National Front to become the people’s candidate. “Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate,” she said on French public television news after winning in the first round of the election.

If elected Ms. Le Pen would become the first woman to lead the Gouvernement de la République française

Marion Anne Perrine “Marine” Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron (right)

 has described Le Pen’s opponent Emmanuel Macron as, “[T]he horrible crossbreeding of Obama and Soros and Justin Trudeau.”

Breibart’s Jack Montgomery reports:

Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate for France’s populist National Front (FN), has pledged to put France first, hitting out at “financial globalisation”, “mass immigration”, and “Islamic fundamentalism” in a landmark speech.

The 48-year-old said that “financial globalisation and Islamist globalisation are helping each other out”, and “those two ideologies aim to bring France to its knees”.

According to Le Pen, globalisation can be summed up as “manufacturing with slaves to sell to the unemployed”. She pledged that an FN-led republic would be “will be all about the local, not the global”.

So what does Le Pen stand for? According to her campaign website here are some items from her platform:

  1. To regain our freedom and mastery of our destiny by restoring to the French people its sovereignty (monetary, legislative, territorial, economic).
  2. Guarantee freedom of expression and digital freedoms through their inclusion in fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, while strengthening the fight against cyber-jihadism and pedophilia.
  3. Defending women’s rights : fighting against Islamism, which undermines their fundamental freedoms; Put in place a national plan for equal pay for women and men and fight against job and social insecurity.
  4. Ensure the freedom of schooling of children according to their choices , while at the same time strictly controlling the compatibility with the values of the Republic of the education provided in private non-contractual institutions.
  5. Massive re-armament of the security forces  : personnel (recruitment plan of 15,000 police and gendarmes), equipment (modernization of equipment, police stations and barracks, adaptation of armaments to new threats), but also morally and (Including the presumption of self-defense). Guarantee the military status of gendarmes.
  6. Fight against juvenile delinquency by empowering parents by eliminating the payment of social assistance to parents of repeat offenders in the event of manifest educational deficiencies.
  7. Restore national borders and exit the Schengen area (a special arrangement for border workers will be put in place to facilitate border crossing). Replenish the number of staff removed from customs by the recruitment of 6,000 staff during the five-year period.
  8. Reducing legal immigration to an annual balance of 10 000. To put an end to automatic automatic family reunification and reconciliation and the automatic acquisition of French nationality by marriage. Remove the suction pumps from immigration.
  9. Putting in place a plan for re-industrialization in the framework of cooperation involving industry and the state-strategist to give priority to the real economy in the face of speculative finance.
  10. Supporting French companies in the face of unfair international competition through the establishment of intelligent protectionism and the restoration of a national currency adapted to our economy, which is the lever of our competitiveness.
  11. Establish a true economic patriotism by freeing itself from European constraints and by reserving public order to French companies if the price gap is reasonable. Reserve a part of the public order to SMEs.
  12. Reducing the administrative and fiscal complexity of small and medium-sized  enterprises (SMEs): dedicated one stop-shop (social, fiscal and administrative), generalization of the “emploi emploi service entreprise” New device based on a personalized evaluation thanks to an occupational medicine that will be reconstituted. The penalty will be offset by an increase in pension annuities.

Go here to read Ms. Le Pen’s entire platform.

The media is characterizing Ms. Le Pen as the “far right candidate” and her opponent Macron as a “moderate.”  reports that Macron is anything but a moderate. Lépante writes:

Macron is an ultra-leftist who viscerally hates France and the French people. He has said many times that “there is no French culture”, that “he has never seen French art” (meaning that French art doesn’t exist), therefore he denies the very existence of the French people (because all people has his own culture)! And he has accused France of crimes against humanity in Algeria, when in fact it’s the Algerians who are guilty of crimes against humanity, because they reduced into slavery more than 1 million of our ancestors and slaughtered more than 1 million French people from 8th to 19th century!

Macron has said time and again that he supports mass immigration into France from Africa ! That millions of immigrants will continue to invade our European countries and that it’s a good thing! And he has praised the traitor to the German people Angela Merkel for letting 1 million illegal Muslim immigrants invade Germany in 2015, resulting in thousands of German women raped and numerous terrorist attacks!

Macron has said that he wants to create an “French-Algerian Youth Office” to increase the entry of Algerians into France, these Algerians being predominantly racist scums who insult and rape our wives and daughters, who attack and kill our parents and children, who rob, maim, kill, commit terror attack after terror attack. As a reminder, Muslims represent more than 70% of the prisoners in our prisons.

France has a choice on Sunday, May 7th, 2017 between Marine Le Pen, the French patriot and Emmanuel Macron, the establishment’s choice.

Choose wisely!


‘France First’ – Marine Le Pen Hits out at Islamism and Financial Globalisation

Front-runner for French presidency against arresting and deporting “radical Islamists”

The Phoney and the Fascist

Le Séisme?

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on the French Election

le pen free the french people

Le Pen vs. Macron in French Presidential Run-Off

EDITORS NOTE: Marine Le Pen delivered a rousing speech to her enthusiastic supporters last night, declaring that it is time to “free the French people” from the destructive policies of open borders, open immigration and crushing EU regulations.

The first round of the 2017 French presidential election was held on 23 April 2017. As no candidate won a majority, a run-off election between the top two candidates Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen will be held on 7 May 2017.

I am sorry to see Fillon miss his shot.

French Presidential Favorite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting

Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy.

“The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche”

“His government will invest in ecology and all that’s renewable, offer culture to the rich & poor, recycle the jobless with modern skills, solve conflict with love not hate, welcome immigration with hospitality not rejection of the Other. Cut & paste plagiarizer, Macron takes bits & pieces of Fillon’s security measures…and then claims his rival doesn’t have a program.

(Nidra Poller)

(CNN)France’s far-right leader Marine Le Pen will face a relative novice, the independent centrist Emmanuel Macron, in the final round of the country’s presidential election, early projections suggest.

According to estimates from CNN affiliate BFMTV and polling company Elabe, newcomer Macron secured 24% of the vote, with National Front leader Le Pen close behind on 21.8%.

The result, if confirmed, is a comprehensive rejection of traditional French politics. Neither candidate hails from the establishment parties that have dominated France for decades.

BFMTV and Elabe suggest scandal-hit conservative François Fillon and far-left wildcard Jean-Luc Mélenchon won 19.9% and 19.3% of the vote respectively, and have been knocked out of the closely-fought race.

Speaking to supporters in Henin-Beaumont, anti-immigration, anti-European Union candidate Le Pen hailed the result: “It is time to free French people from arrogant elites … I am the people’s candidate.”

“The French people must seize this opportunity, because the enormous challenge of this election is the wild globalization that puts our civilization at risk,” Le Pen said.

“Either we continue to disintegrate without any borders, without any controls, unfair international competition, mass immigration and the free circulation of terrorists, or you choose France with borders,” she added.

French presidential candidate for the En Marche! movement Emmanuel Macron shakes hands with supporters after casting his vote in Le Touquet.

Emmanuel Macron (center)

French presidential candidate for the En Marche! movement Emmanuel Macron shakes hands with supporters after casting his vote in Le Touquet.

A huge cheer went up at Macron’s campaign headquarters as news of the results came through. “France’s political map is tonight redrawn,” said CNN’s Melissa Bell, who was at the scene.

“It’s a political earthquake in this country and in Europe,” veteran journalist Christine Ockrent told CNN. “Macron’s is a remarkable achievement, because he represents optimism.”

Sunday’s first round contest was held under tight security after a terror attack in Paris Thursday night disrupted the final day of campaigning Friday.

By 5 p.m. local time (11 a.m. ET) 69.42% of France’s 47 million registered voters had cast their ballots, according to the Interior Ministry — a marginally lower turnout than at the same point in 2012.

With 11 names on the ballot, no one candidate had been expected to win an outright majority; instead the top two candidates will face a second and final ballot on May 7.

le pen

Marine Le Pen

Who is Marine Le Pen? 01:47

The incumbent President, socialist François Hollande, whose approval ratings have remained in the doldrums for several years, made the unusual decision not to run for a second term.

As the results became clear, French politicians and several of the defeated candidates appeared to throw their support behind Macron — or to speak out against Le Pen.

Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve tweeted an appeal to all voters to back Macron in the second round, “to combat the National Front’s disastrous project to take France backwards and to divide the French people.”

The Socialist Party’s candidate, Benoît Hamon secured just 6.3% of the vote, according to BFMTV-Elabe estimates.

Speaking at his campaign headquarters, Hamon said he took full responsibility for the poor result, and urged his supporters to vote for Macron to defeat Le Pen in the second round, “even if he is not left-wing.”

Fillon, the mainstream Republican candidate, was an early favorite for the presidency, but his campaign stumbled because of a scandal over claims he paid his wife and children for work they did not do. He denies any wrongdoing.

He told his supporters, “we have to choose what is preferable for our country, and I am not going to rejoice. Abstention is not in my genes, especially when an extremist party is close to power.”

“The party created by Jean-Marie Le Pen has a history known for its violence and intolerance,” Fillon said. “Its economic and social program will lead our country to failure … I promise you, extremism can only bring unhappiness and division to France.”

Independent centrist Macron, 39, a former banker, has never held elected office, though he served as economy minister under Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

But he attracted support from left and right with promises to boost the economy and improve security. His party, “En Marche!” which was only created in September, now has more than 200,000 members and his meetings have attracted vast crowds.

Far-right National Front leader Le Pen, 48, is best known for her anti-immigration rhetoric; she told supporters her first move as president would be to impose a temporary ban on legal immigration to France. She has also vowed to take France out of the EU.

Far-left firebrand Mélenchon has so far refused to concede defeat, insisting it is too early to accept the results.

“We do not recognize the score announced on the basis of opinion polls,” he wrote on Facebook. “The results of the larger towns and cities are not yet known,” he added, calling for “restraint” and urging commentators to “be cautious.”

Mélenchon‘s popularity surged in the final weeks of the race, following impressive performances in the candidates’ television debates.

CNN’s James Masters, Saskya Vandoorne, Laura Smith-Spark contributed to this report.


Le Pen Camp Attacks Front-Runner Macron as Oligarchs’ Candidate – Bloomberg

The trouble with Emmanuel Macron

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

Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper: Press was ‘Very Friendly’ to Obama, many drank ‘The Kool-Aid’

Tapper is simply pointing out the blazingly obvious (and despite his preening here, he was little better). The press is no longer the press. It is just a propaganda arm for the far left and the Democrat Party. No sane person should trust what CNN or the New York Times or the rest of them say. You want news? Come to the Geller Report.

“Jake Tapper: Press Was ‘Very Friendly’ to Obama, Many Drank ‘The Kool-Aid,’” by Alex Griswold, Washington Free Beacon, April 20, 2017:

CNN host Jake Tapper accused the mainstream media of being too friendly with former President Barack Obama during his administration.

In a candid interview with GQ published Tuesday, Tapper acknowledged that after his tough interviews of administration figures like Kellyanne Conway, he picked up a following from many critics of President Donald Trump.

“It’s nice to be recognized, but I also know that a lot of the people who are happy with me now are not going to be happy with me in four to eight years,” he predicted.

Tapper said that he was just as tough on Obama, and earned his share of grief for it at the time.

“A lot of people sending me nice tweets today were cursing me when I was asking questions about Benghazi in 2012,” he said.

“President Obama was not friendly to the press, but the press was very friendly to President Obama,” Tapper told GQ. “I mean, President Obama did not like me, and I understand why. I was a pain in his ass and I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid, and, you know, a lot of other people did.”

Tapper has made similar indictments before, saying that the mainstream media had a “cultural bias” that was more complicated that just liberal bias….

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

pedophilia stop it

Did you know that a 14-year-old child can legally marry in New York State?

There is a move to make sex with underage children legal across America.

Alfred Kinsey.

Dr. Judith Reisman in a March 25th, 2016 column titled They’re mainstreaming pedophilia! wrote:

Alfred Kinsey’s ongoing sexual anarchy campaign has no end in sight.

Matt Barber, associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, and I attended the “B4U-ACT” pedophile conference Aug. 17. To eliminate the “stigma” against pedophiles, this growing sexual anarchist lobby wants the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to redefine pedophilia as a normal sexual orientation of “Minor-Attracted Persons.”

Adhering to the Kinsey principle of lulling “straights” into a false sense of security, pedophile dress was largely conservative – short hair, jackets, some ties and few noticeable male ear piercings.

Matt Barber and I sat in the back of the meeting room among roughly 50 activists and their “mental health” attending female enablers. “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies,” keynoted “Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., as founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic.”

Read more…

In December 2016 Heather BarrSenior Researcher, Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch, in a December 7th, 2016 column titled Ending Child Marriage Everywhere—Including in the West: US and European Countries Allow Too Many Children to Marry wrote:

Did you know that a 14-year-old child can legally marry in New York State?

Ending child marriage is urgent, because it is deeply harmful to children, wherever they live. Married children often drop out of school, and are locked in poverty as a result. Married girls often become pregnant soon, and early pregnancy involves serious health risks for pregnant girls and their babies. Girls who marry earlier are at higher risk of domestic violence than women who marry as adults. Married girls often face extra barriers in escaping an abusive or unhappy marriage, and accessing shelter and legal assistance.

[ … ]

In New York, between 2000 and 2010, 3,853 children under 18 married, with permission from parents, judges, or both. In the vast majority of cases, it was girls marrying adult men. In 2014, 3 percent of Serbian women age 20 to 24 reported that they married before age 18.

Read more…

So who is supporting child marriages?

Organizations such as B4U-ACT, the followers of Mohammed, pedophiles, pederasts and Kinseyites. This is child abuse, plain and simple. We hope this warning is heeded by elected leaders at all levels. Child trafficking, child prostitution and using children as sex slaves by groups such as ISIS is an epidemic.

Child sex abuse must stop.


Why the MSM Is Ignoring Trump’s Sex Trafficking Busts

Illegal Immigrant Arrested for Raping, Impregnating 12-Year-Old in TX

Charges for Man Disguised as Woman in Bathroom Filming

EASY MEAT: The Muslims are ‘raping our daughters’

Pedophiles in American Public Schools and Universities

Pedophile Jared Fogle and the Untold Story of his Visit to Sarasota, FL

Boys Beware: Classic Film warns against Homosexuals, Pedophiles and Pederasts

EXPOSED: The U.S. and British “Sex Industrial Complex”

INFOGRAPHIC: Kinsey flow chart, courtesy of Dr. Judith Reisman:

kinsey flow chart

Malcolm Nance

MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance calls for ‘ISIS suicide bombing’ of Trump Tower Istanbul


Malcolm Nance

The far-Left Islamic apologist Malcolm Nance is the quintessential establishment counter-terror “expert.” (I had to laugh when I saw his self-description: he says he is a “former Arabic speaking naval intelligence counter-terrorism and intelligence officer specializing in the Middle East.” “Former Arabic speaking,” eh? How did he forget all his Arabic?) His book on the Islamic State is a prime example of fake news: poorly researched, poorly written, apologetic and whitewashed regarding the Islamic State’s motivating ideology. And so it is no surprise that he would turn out to be, like so many Leftists these days, actually in favor of Islamic State action when it is directed against those whom he hates and fears.

Nance and others readily traffic in the demonization and smearing of those who are pointing out how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and hatred; apparently Nance and his colleagues are just fine with the fact that if all those who speak out about the root causes of jihad terror are marginalized and silenced, the jihad will be able to advance unimpeded and unopposed. The Left in America today is increasingly violent, authoritarian, and intolerant of dissent.

All that said, it should also be noted that Trump’s congratulating Erdogan for becoming a dictator was absolute madness and testimony to the chaos that reigns inside the Trump administration, but unlike Malcolm Nance, my knowing that doesn’t move me to call for any Islamic State massacres.


The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots | LifeZette

Australia: Muslim who murdered six by hitting them with his car says “Muslim faith is the correct faith”

Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Muslim Screaming “Allahu Akbar” Murders Three In Fresno

cost of tax code

The Cost of the Tax Code, Understandably

Complying with the tax code costs the United States a cool trillion dollars per year. That’s the entire GDP of Mexico, wasted because of the sheer complexity of our tax code, which runs to 74,000 pages or so when taken with the IRS policies and parts of the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) that bear directly on it.

And let’s imagine that we outsourced all the work done by Americans to comply, so that we could spend our time doing more good for ourselves and each other: it would require the whole population of Paraguay to spend every working hour calculating and filing our taxes for us… with no time for anything else!

As for those penalties that the IRS collects from us, largely for making honest mistakes and not rectifying them in time – they total up to the GDP of Estonia.

Think about that – about the shear human cost and waste – all the good not done for others, all the time not spent with families, all the industrial production foregone – because our politicians can’t wrest themselves away from the special interests and campaign donors, or put the well-being of Americans before their re-election or their preferred political ideology.

Disgusted by this state of affairs, a few folks from an outfit called the Tax Revolution Institute are about to draw a little attention to the problem.

They won’t be marching in the street or writing letters to politicians to explain the need to solve this problem, knowing full well that they are utterly incapable of working out how.

Rather, their protest will be altogether more sedentary and civilized.

They are just going to read it.

… But they are going to do so outside the IRS building in DC from dawn to dusk on Tax Day, April 18th, and they’re going to livestream the whole event on their website at

Now that I’d like to see… but probably not for the full 14 hours…

They will have the entire tax code with them… along with, I hope, plenty of water.

They’re really going to do it. How many of the 74,000 pages will they get through, though…?

Robin Koerner

Robin Koerner

Robin Koerner is British-born and recently became a citizen of the USA. A decade ago, he founded, an organization of over 200 volunteers that translates and posts views about the USA from all over the world, works as a trainer and a consultant, and recently wrote the book If You Can Keep It.

marine le pen quote

Marine Le Pen: ‘Give us France back, for God’s sake’

Marine Le Pen said:

The choice on Sunday is simple: It is a choice between a France that is rising again and a France that is sinking.

She is right. Far too many Westerners are still licking old (now gangrenous) wounds from eons ago. Europeans and white people are deemed inherently or inveterately evil because of colonialism and racism, and so deserve to be punished, no matter how the global situation has changed since colonial days. This punishment, moreover, is without limitations.

Buzzwords such as “globalization,” “diversity,” and “tolerance,” which may once have had relatively benign meanings, have been warped and manipulated as part of the larger endeavor to destroy Western civilization from within. Unscrupulous Islamic supremacist warriors play the victimhood ploy with proficiency. They would have us all turn a blind eye to the history of Islamic jihad conquest prior to the era of colonialism, as well as to present-day slavery in some Muslim countries, the general Islamic intolerance and abuse of religious minorities and infidels, and the sickening treatment of women that is sanctioned by Sharia law.

Le Pen also said:

Mass immigration is not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France…Give us France back, for God’s sake.

Marine Le Pen

“Front National’s Marine Le Pen attacks the ’savage globalisation’ of rivals”, by Jon Rogers , Express, April 17, 2017:

FRONT National presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has told a rally in Paris that French voters have a choice between the “savage globalisation” promoted by her rivals and her patriotism.

She said: “The choice on Sunday is simple: It is a choice between a France that is rising again and a France that is sinking.“

In an attack on her rivals such as Francois Fillon and Jean-Luc Melenchon she said they advocated “savage globalisation” compared to her “camp of patriots”.

She added: “Give us France back, for God’s sake,” which sparked the 5,000 supporters who had filled the Zenith concert hall in the French capital to chant: “This is our home.”

Ms Le Pen also played on her familiar topics of the party being anti-European Union and anti-immigration.

She said: “I will protect you. My first measure as president will be to reinstate France’s borders.

“Mass immigration is not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France,” she said, adding that she would immediately impose a moratorium on immigration.”

She continued: ”We can’t decide who is allowed to come here any more. The French sometimes have fewer rights than foreigners – even illegal ones.”

Scuffles with police erupted outside the Zenith concert hall in north-east Paris earlier this evening with around 60-80 anti-Front National protestors taking to the streets of the French capital for the second night running.

Police fired teargas at the protesters, some of whom threw chunks of wood. The protesters then left, followed by a small group of police.

The French presidential contest is seen as being very close and none of the candidates can be assured of making it through to the second round with the polls being volatile and too close to call with certainty.

All the main candidates are making a concerted effort as the campaign enters the final week for the first round of voting which takes place on Sunday.

According to the latest poll, the centrist Emmanuel Macron is marginally in the lead and is expected to gain 23 percent in the first round of France’s presidential election.

Ms Le Pen is only just behind on 22.5 percent with Francois Fillon and Jean-Luc Melenchon on an equal footing, both on 19.5 percent.

Mr Macron would bet Ms Le Pen in the second round by 60 percent to 40 percent, according to the Fop-Fiducial poll.

A separate daily Opinionway poll showed on Monday that Macron was tied with Le Pen in the first round of voting at 22 percent, with Fillon at their heals on 21 percent followed by Melenchon on 18 percent.

Mr Macron was seen beating Ms Le Pen in the runoff by 64 percent to 36.

There are a total of 11 contenders for the presidency but only four are seen as serious contenders.

There was chaos on the streets of Paris yesterday as activists took the streets with flares as they protested about the rise of Ms Le Pen.

Protestors shouted: “This is Paris! Paris is antifascist.”

Eye witnesses said that around 400 people had taken part in a march. Most protestors were peaceful but a small group were said to have formed an angry mob, throwing flares…..


Saudi dad tells daughter hijab is her choice, Western media thrilled, Saudi women still face arrest for taking off hijab

“EU leaders terrified” Turkey will soon send three million Muslim migrants to Europe


To Canada’s Senators: Please pass Bill S- 219 — Sanctions Against the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Honorable Senators:

As Canada’s Senate will debate whether to approve or oppose Bill S-219, sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, I invite you to please watch this video by Dennis Prager that answers 5+1’s Iran Nuke deal’s biggest questions:

Was the agreement a good or bad deal? Would it make it harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal?

The White House is poised to ratchet up existing sanctions against Iran and is weighing a much stricter interpretation of the nuclear agreement between Tehran and major world powers. The administration is inclined to adopt a “more rigorous application of the tools at its disposal,” a senior White House official told Foreign Policy, referring to sanctions policy. Among the options under consideration: broadening U.S. sanctions to include much larger chunks of the Iranian economy linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). No final decision has been taken by the president or the cabinet. But officials said some decisions will need to be taken soon. On April 25, Iran and the six governments that negotiated the nuclear deal with Tehran, including the United States, are due to meet in Vienna for a quarterly review of the accord.”

In coming weeks, the Senate will be reviewing Bill S-219, and at the same time, the Iranian Canadian Congress, an Iranian regime lobby “NGO” based in Toronto, Ontario which represents a very small number of Iranians in Canada is vigorously advocating against Bill S-219 and publicly is lobbying for the Islamic Republic of Iran and it’s interests.

Former ICC board members have already sent emails about the current ICC executive to the Senate Committee in-charge of Bill S-219.

I kindly request that you please read my email and allow me to have the opportunity to discuss with you and provide insight to rectify this matter.

Iran’s leaders have made it abundantly clear they are anti-Democracy and have posed threats to the U.S. and Israel. Why would Canada allow diplomatic relations with a country with a covert terrorist agenda?

My name is Shabnam Assadollahi, and I am a concerned Canadian citizen of Iranian background having experienced torture and cruelty as a teenager at the hands of Islamic extremists. I am lucky to be alive, am thankful to live in Canada and am extremely concerned about the safety of our country.

As a teenager born and living in Iran, I did not even consider that my life would be forever changed by the world’s influences on my country. Imagine for a moment a mother in Iran living a quiet uneventful life with her children. Imagine the horror of that same woman when in the early hours of the morning she comes face to face with the notorious Revolutionary Guards, forcing their way into her home to arrest her 16 year old daughter. I am that daughter.

There are no words to describe what life in prison was like for a teenager who had never been apart from her parents, and I can tell you that there is only one experience worse than being tortured in this way; having to listen to others scream and beg, not for their lives, but for their death.

I was wrongfully imprisoned in Iran at age 16, sentenced for 18 months for exercising my free speech and for questioning Islam; the religion that I was unwillingly born into. In reality, the 18 month sentence was imputed upon me because of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Constitutional law.

To this day, I have no idea how my life was spared out of Evin prison.

I am a miracle before you today. You see, as hopeless, difficult, and deathly depressing as it was, after 18 months I was freed from my chains not having been raped and still possessing my life.

Then and today, many in Iran are still facing these horrors, imprisoned for speaking out, or attempting to live, in a manner against Iranian Islamic tyranny and ideology. They are systematically raped and murdered by those who are full of darkness and lost in a dogmatic and barbaric way of life.

Still now, even abroad, political dissidents such as myself are threatened all over the world by this Regime who, thanks to the former US President’s controversial ” Iran NUKE DEAL”, is gaining greater strength and plotting world jihad and our demise. I cannot emphasize enough that I speak to you about The State Leading Sponsor of Middle Eastern and Global Terrorism, A reality seemingly denied by the former US administration.

Last year, I translated an article written about what one of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Leaders had threatened to do to political dissidents who had escaped to other countries and to other enemies around the world. He said that Iran would place their fighters in America and other western nations and kill all political dissidents and enemies abroad.

Is Canada planning to have diplomatic ties with Iran, so their diplomats could assassinate Iranian dissidents?

This matter is of great urgency for me, my fellow dissidents, and for all citizens living in North America! The bullied today can easily become you tomorrow. You don’t want to know the immorality of their intimidation.

No amount of politicking can fool or intimidate me. I have stared down a regime of death and human rights violations, I’ve been imprisoned, and have emerged with insights to warn the West, particularly those who undeservedly hold positions of trust and power, but care mostly about the latter.

We are all at risk! In the name of religious freedom the Islamic world, including Iran, has wheedled and entrenched itself into many walks of life in the West, including the political sphere. To clarify I am not speaking against all Muslims, but Radical Islamic Jihadists who hide behind a free and open society, yet are really wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Canada should expand sanctions on the IRGC and the Supreme Leader’s financial empire, and strongly enforce those sanctions. Canada should develop a comprehensive order of sanctions against those Iranian officials who have violated the human rights of the Iranian people over the last 4 decades. Since Iran’s ballistic missile program is a threat in the region and to the whole earth, we desire Canada and the USA to form an international coalition to pressure and force the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease its pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles.

North American Coalition must confront the IRGC’s malicious behavior in the region, on all fronts, and by every means possible and available. Many of the people of Iran no longer support the Regime and we desire Canada to support the pro democracy Iranians whose goal is to replace the Khomeinist regime of Tehran with a secular and democratic government. The time is now for  Canada and  The United States to stand by the Iranian people instead of holding secret discussions with corrupt Islamic fundamentalists.

The problem right now on the issue of sanctions and economic engagement is that Canada is engaging with an incredibly corrupt regime — a regime that controls the wealth of Iran.

In the wake of Canadian politicians reaching out to the Islamic Republic of Iran, there was a worrisome meeting organized by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iran-Canada Business Council in Montreal on March 28, 2017. Mehdi Karbassian, Iran’s deputy minister and a member of IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), was invited as the Canadian group’s “honorary” guest to speak at their Iran Focused Forum in Montreal. The goal of the meeting was to promote Canadian investment in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a totalitarian dictatorship that systematically oppresses their people and commits massive human rights violations, and terrorist activities across the Middle East and region.

For me as an Iranian Canadian dissident, this was not an innocent meeting on business opportunities, but rather was part of a larger trend of Iranian infiltration into Canada that seeks to empower the Islamic Republic in North America at the expense of members of the Iranian diaspora who outspokenly oppose the regime. They seek to empower the Iran lobby by presenting the Islamic Republic merely as another country to do business with and to silence us for being opposed to giving funds to a totalitarian dictatorship.

According to a report in Canada Israel Jewish News, this development comes after Canadian Liberal MP Majid Jowhari met with Iranian parliamentarians in order to discuss advancing Iranian-Canadian relations. Canadian MP Majid Jowhari met with Iranian MP’s  Alim Yarmohammadi, Yonathan Betkolia, Mehrdad Lahooti, and Ali Bahraini. According to the report, the Iranian delegation was in Canada to meet with officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is headquartered in Montreal.

Photos on Lahooti’s Instagram account show they also visited the International Air Transport Association and CAE Inc., a Montreal company that specializes in aviation, defense and security training and flight simulation products, which is all trade that helps to empower Iranian aggression across the Middle East. The meeting came after Montreal’s mayor and former Liberal MP Denis Coderre visited Iran in order to meet with Tehran’s mayor. Tehran’s Mayor Bagher Galibaf is an infamous IRCG member and he made some secret deals with Coderre.

In recent times, Karbaschian has been traveling across the world promoting the economic interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He succeeded to get Russia, India, and Italy to invest in the Iranian mining industry, which is another type of investment that helps to encourage Iranian aggression in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Now, he possibly wants Canada to follow in their footsteps. These investments help to empower the regime by ensuring that they have the funds to stay in power and implement their terrorist agenda domestically, in the Middle East, and across the world. For this reason, I outspokenly oppose this development and stand against this meeting in Montreal.

The tragedy of indulging the current Iranian government with a Canadian relationship has nothing to do with Canada’s stance on the death penalty for criminals. No, it’s far more dire! This issue at hand is the massacre of Iran’s innocent citizens–by the very government with which the Liberal Government of Canada plans to open a dialogue–for nothing more than ideological non-compliance.

Imagine a country where its citizens are ruled not by freedoms and the equality of secular laws, but by twisted interpretations of a patriarchal theocracy. What is the benefit to Canada in trying to understand a political regime that views tolerance as weakness, and kindness as surrender?

Iran has not demonstrated respect for the UN. Curiously, they seem to look at the international community like a tormentor would look at naive children, placating their worries with their patronizing platitudes, understanding that there will be no repercussions or accountability attached to their future behavior. And, understandably so, Iran doesn’t fear Canada’s anger or shunning. They (rightfully) know that Canadians place a higher regard on “niceness” than on “justice” or “integrity”. Who can blame their high-handed approach and their eagerness to “own” us, given their Situation Analysis on our current government mindsets?

As a political figure entrusted to protect the interests of Canada, please ask these questions during the Iran related initiative on Bill S-129.

  1. Would the Islamic Republic of Iran permit Christians to build Churches in Iran, stop imprisoning of converts from Islam, allow Sunnis to build mosques in Tehran, and leave the Baha’is alone to peacefully bury their dead, to worship according to their faith, to continue their education in universities ,and to freely have their businesses running; all without political or social repercussions?
  2. Would the Islamic Republic of Iran allow women to choose to wear the hijab (or not) instead of wearing a state forced hijab, without political or social repercussions, and allow women to watch games live at the Stadiums?  

These are merely litmus-test questions to determine whether Iran is acting in good faith.  A negative answer to either question lets you know their true colors and feelings towards even the most basic of human rights, and that they are merely toying with “gullible” Canada.

The Honorable Senators,

There has not been an Iranian embassy in the US for nearly four decades and yet Americans have been able to negotiate or even free their hostages. Let’s ask why the Iran regime lobby in Canada is so eager to sweet-talk “easy mark” Canada to reopen diplomatic relations?  This should raise red flags!

The words of Khamenei and Rouhani taint the US deal, and what does that tell you?  Will Canadians or the Americans be allowed to go in and inspect their nuclear facilities? Or, will inspection permission be granted conveniently at Iran’s own choosing (if so, they may as well inspect themselves). There is a 24 day notice required which can be extended even longer.  Unacceptable! Like a puppy mill, much horror can be hidden with such an irresponsible lax timeline, and no accommodation for surprise inspections.

Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani, dubbed the deal “evident victory”.  This was no accident of speech; it’s the Islamic traditional phrase referring to Muhammad’s raids on the caravans of the pagan Arabs of Mecca. The deal, said Rouhani, was “the greatest diplomatic victory in Islamic history.” Not just Iranian history, but Islamic history.”  Why would Canada want to be publicly seen as condoning that? Canada is a country, not a religion.

It’s certainly disturbing for peaceful Canadians to learn that Iran’s terrorist leader Ali Khamenei’s followers pray for “Death to “arrogant” America and Death to Israel!”   That is extremely offensive to North Americans and to our vibrant and diverse Jewish communities.  How unsettling that the Canadian government wants to ignore this kind of racial intolerance to the Jewish religion and to the Christian religion!  They don’t support freedom of religion.  Why would Canada want to condone that?

When Khamenei jubilantly crowed about the nuclear agreement, he stated unapologetically that the U.S. and its allies had been “forced to accept and stand the spinning of thousands of centrifuges and continuation of research and development in Iran, and it has no meaning but the Iranian nation’s might.”  This should terrify you, not entice you, to want to reopen the conversation for a relationship!

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s position is offensive and oppressive to women and girls, to ethnic minorities, to Jews, to North American free society, and to our biggest allies and protectors, the US.  Please rethink this foray into a dangerous and intolerant relationship.

Shabnam Assadollahi
Award winning human rights advocate; freelance writer; former child prisoner of conscience of Iranian origin

A few references, FYI:

On Jan. 24, 2017: Pastor Ramin Parsa, former Iranian Muslim testified at US Senate Judiciary Committee against sharia law

“Radical Iran-led Axis Finally Meets US Resistance” by Yaakov Lappin

“Iran’s Spymaster Claims Pro-Regime Agents Operating in D.C., London, Canada” by Adam Kredo

“Islamic Republic of Iran’s latest terrorist plots” By Heshmat Alavi

“Military Leader: Iran Sending Elite Fighters Into U.S., Europe!

IRGC commander: ‘IRGC will be in the U.S. and Europe very soon'” By Adam Kredo

“Keep Iran at arm’s length” By Shabnam Assadollahi and David B Harris”

Rapprochement with Iran – through exchanges of ambassadors or otherwise – will bring no advantage other than to the fortunes of the mullahs’ malevolent, emboldened rule. Tehran’s fanatical, aggressively destabilizing regime, and its friends and influencers in Canada, already have enough of a presence in this country and beyond. Rather than weaken, we must limit the ayatollahs’ avenues into our nation, contain this global threat, and embrace sound international efforts to encourage constructive democratic change in Iran.

Some other informative links:

Why Canada Shut Down the Iranian Embassy

Iran Using Embassy as Recruiting Ground

Iran’s “Fifth Column” Targets Canadian Schoolchildren by David Harris

Shut Down Iran’s Embassy in Canada by Christine Williams August 9, 2012

Iran Infiltrates Canada, Calls to Attack America by Christine Williams July 11,2012

Please watch:

Stunning facts on assassination as a political tool of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Plotter of foiled ‘hit’ was allowed to return to Iran


Limit the number of Marijuana Dispensaries in Pinellas County

On Tuesday, April 25th, the Pinellas Board of County Commissioners will consider an ordinance to regulate marijuana cultivation sites and dispensaries. We have analyzed the ordinance and are concerned with the number of dispensaries it would allow.

The proposed ordinance says that it would allow each approved licensee with the state to have 2 dispensaries in unincorporated Pinellas County; this would mean 14 to 16 shops initially with more to come as additional licenses are granted by the state.

The Marijuana Policy Group research paper suggests the optimal number of dispensaries depends upon the number of patients likely to register, the local area population, and the required scale of operation for dispensaries to remain profitable. The average resident ratio among similar states (with laws similar to Amendment 2) is one dispensary per 67,222 residents (1:67,222). This ratio is found to be “optimal” by the MPG for cities an d counties in Florida.

Approximately 280,848 reside within unincorporated Pinellas County. Going by the numbers suggested by the industry, 4 dispensaries in unincorporated Pinellas would be preferred. Other counties in Florida have adopted one dispensary per 100,000 residents.

We respectfully suggest that the commission amend the ordinance to reflect language used by other Florida municipalities to reduce the number of allowed marijuana dispensaries and urge you to

Please click on the Action Alert button below and send a letter to the commissioners supporting a reduced number of dispensaries.

action alert


CONTEXT: Our Own Neville Chamberlains Led to North Korea Crisis

Appeasing a genocidal madman, allowing him access to terrifically destructive war machines, has never gone well for the world.

It’s just that the peace-desiring countries of the world never learn this difficult truth, too often cuddling up with the seductive mistress of appeasement. This is the precise dynamic we see after multiple U.S. presidents tried to stop North Korean dictator Kim Il Jung by giving him everything he wanted in return for empty promises. Now he has numerous nuclear weapons and increasingly sophisticated missiles. And appeasement may no longer be possible. The bill is coming due, as it always does.

This also happened a few generations ago when the progressive Prime Minister of Great Britain, Stanley Baldwin, spent more than a decade ignoring the rise of an obscure German corporal and his National Socialist Party and pretended everything was going great with the defeated German nation. Baldwin thought highly of himself and what he was accomplishing even while Germany spiraled into the economic abyss due to the unwise Treaty of Versailles after WWI.

The corporal gained control of not only his party, but slowly the government of Germany until, through a series of machinations, he named himself the Fuehrer, the almighty leader of a rapidly strengthening Germany — equivalent to Kim Il Jung

Baldwin deposited this growing menace in the lap of his successor, the better known for the wrong reason Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who was also arrogant, progressive in his ideals and sold out on the concept that talk and international paperwork could appease a monster.

Chamberlain met with Herr Adolph Hitler repeatedly, each time he gave Hitler more of what the Nazi leader demanded by agreement or by inaction: remilitarizing the Rhineland with what was essentially a police force; the Austrian putsch; taking the Sudetenland; overrunning the Czech Republic; and vastly rebuilding the Wehrmacht in violation of the treaty. There was not even a military response as Germany and the Soviet Union carved up Poland, even though the allies were bound by treaty.

After one meeting with Herr Hitler in Munich, Chamberlain returned to London waving a paper and declaring proudly, and now infamously, “We have peace in our time.” Keep this picture in your mind.

France also just watched, but she was shell, worn out by WWI and wracked by Communists. Britain had the power to stop Hitler again and again and again — early on at virtually no cost, and then with increasing costs but still short of world war.

Instead, they appeased over multiple prime ministers. Only Winston Churchill clearly saw the threat and faced it head on. By the time he became Prime Minister, the cost of stopping Hitler had risen to horrific.

Baldwin and Chamberlain, meet Clinton, Bush and Obama

It’s important to remember that what the Trump administration faces in North Korea today did not just appear overnight. It has been many presidents in the making. (Heaven knows the rest of the world won’t do anything. They are collectively France before WWI.)

North Korea was born of the ashes of the back-and-forth Korean War in the early 1950s. It has been under family dictatorial rule since the end of that war, backed by the Communist China regime that came to its rescue during the war. China remains the only country with any influence over the North, which is a third-world country. But it’s never clear just how much. China games it time and again for their own pursuits.

The family leadership always had eyes on South Korea, which has developed into a prosperous, thriving, free, capitalist country while its northern neighbor languishes under tyranny and some form of Communism. In the late 1980s, North Korea began trying to develop nuclear weapons. We were sure we could appease them out of it with shiny objects and pieces of paper.

We were wrong.

Bill Clinton’s appeasement

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush created agreements with North Korea early in the process, which turned out to be empty and ignored. But North Korea’s intents were not well-established at that point. By the time Bill Clinton came into office, it was clear that North Korea was determined to get nuclear weapons and thought nothing of agreements.

In 1994, Clinton sent former President Jimmy Carter to North Korea to negotiate an Agreed Framework to keep a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. This was a little like Neville Chamberlain sending Stanley Baldwin to negotiate with Hitler. Appeasement squared.

The deal Carter negotiated gave North Korea everything it wanted in return for what would turn out to be more empty promises. The North got two brand new reactors and $5 billion in “aid” in return for their promise to quit seeking nuclear weapons.

Clinton jumped on this appeasement train and with a strong whiff of Chamberlain’s infamous “peace in our time” speech, saying the agreement brought “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.” For this profound failure, in which the North admitted in 2002 they had violated from the first day, Carter was thusly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize — a once relished prize that is now a progressive political farce.

George W. Bush’s appeasement

President Bush rightly identified North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” in 2002, which included Iran, Iraq and Libya — all of whom were tyrannies pursuing nuclear weapons. Bush recognized the growing threat, but in the end 9/11 forced his eyes off North Korea and on the Jihadist threat to the United States. Not altogether wrong, perhaps, but the result was kicking the nuclear can down the road.

Bush’s policies began to look like Clinton’s previous appeasements. His administration negotiated another Agreed Framework, in hopes of stopping North Korea’s nuclear weapons pursuit by lifting some sanctions, releasing some North Korean money in return for the North stopping its uranium enrichment and allowing inspections.

In essence, real stuff in return for a piece of paper.

Just like the Munich agreement with Hitler and the future Iranian agreement on nuclear weapons, this would turn out be be a piece of paper better used as a coloring pad for the children.

Part of the reason it was worthless was because the tyranny never intended to abide by it, while the other part is that the major powers who could enforce it had no will to do so.

So the North reneged, but Bush focused on Afghanistan and Iraq and ended up releasing money to them while not requiring inspections. Total appeasement.

Barack Obama’s appeasement

The Obama administration was content to appease and look the other way on North Korea as they were focused on committing the unforced error of repeating Munich and Pyongyang with Tehran — negotiate with killer tyrants and rely on their goodwill and a piece of paper.

In an interesting denial of reality, the Obama administration said it will “never accept” a nuclear North Korea — even though the North detonated a nuclear weapon in 2006, during the last year of Bush’s presidency.

Of course, Obama said precisely the same thing about Iran, then sent John Kerry to negotiate a deal with ayatollahs guaranteeing they will become nuclear.

Obama is, if possible, a more feckless version of the Baldwin, Chamberlain, Clinton line of appeasers as he sought out an opportunity to do it with Iran right when that nation was buckling under international sanctions. They were losing, sanctions were working, and Obama plucked them out and turned them into what will inevitably be much wealthier members of the nuclear club of tyrants.

The world has had sanctions of varying degrees on North Korea for years. They have given a lifeline by China. Relieving sanctions and providing aid is always the carrot to get good behavior on nukes. There is never a stick.

As the North was starving its people, the Obama administration agreed in 2012 to bail them out with 240,000 tons of food in exchange for nuclear concessions. Well, you know by now what happened. They got enough relief to placate their people and maintain their grip, and conceded nothing — this also being a cautionary tale of how sometimes humanitarian efforts for tyrannical regimes can cause more suffering in the long run, including for the people the efforts are aimed at.

Completely predictable and the third president failing at appeasement.

The bill for appeasement is coming due

This is the context in which President Trump enters office, with all the theoretically responsible countries of the West and elsewhere hopelessly trying to ignore the growing threat of North Korea. Maybe it’ll go away. Maybe it will magically solve itself. Maybe…and here’s the reality…the United States will do something.

The North probably has dozens of nuclear weapons and increasingly sophisticated delivery systems in the form of missiles. They are making more all the time. Truly reaching the United States with missiles seems unlikely. But the North can obviously reach South Korea, and Japan is just a few miles away.

No one was willing to stop Hitler when it would have been relatively easy to do so. No one was willing to stop North Korea when it would have been relatively cheaper in cost — even with the proximity of China.

Now, maybe, someone is willing. But at what cost? And who will be willing to look back at the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas and lay the blame where it belongs, like we rightly do Baldwin and Chamberlain?

And will we ever, ever learn?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.