Benjamin Netanyahu: Moving U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Wouldn’t Harm Peace

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, said the United States could move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem without worrying about any dings to the peace process.

U.S. Embassy to Israel

His remarks came after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hinted that Bibi might not want the embassy moved there, because it could prove an impediment to peace talks.

But Netanyahu doubled down and said his position on the embassy hasn’t changed.

From CNS News:

“‘Israel’s position has been stated many times to the American administration and to the world,’ Netanyahu said in a statement, which his office said was in response to Tillerson’s remarks.

“‘Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would not harm the peace process,’ the prime minister said. ‘On the contrary, it would advance it by correcting an historical injustice and by shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.’

“For months Israeli and regional media outlets have speculated that while Israel has long sought embassies to move from Tel Aviv and surrounding areas to its declared capital, the government worries that should President Trump make good on his campaign promise to move the U.S. mission the benefits could be outweighed by negative consequences.

“The implication has been that Netanyahu – while unable to say so publicly for fear of alienating his support base – hopes that Trump will not keep his pledge.

“Moving the embassy would be deeply controversial since Palestinians contest Israel’s right to the city and want to establish the capital of a future independent state there – a demand Palestinian Authority (P.A.) chairman Mahmoud Abbas reiterated at his March 3 Oval Office meeting with Trump.”

Islamic leaders have warned that recognizing Israel’s claim to the land in so openly a manner would put a stop to peace talks, and trigger anger in the Muslim world.

But Trump made a campaign vow to move the embassy.

Again, from CNS News:

“Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would not only keep an unequivocal campaign promise but would also be in line with U.S. law, which three successive administrations have chosen not to observe over the past 18 years, by passing six-monthly national security waivers.

“President Obama invoked the last such waiver on December 1 last year, so Trump will either have to follow suit on or before June 1, or set in motion steps towards moving the embassy from its current Tel Aviv beachfront location.

“The now-confirmed new ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is due to take up his duties from Monday. An orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Friedman made clear when nominated and since, that he hopes to be working from Jerusalem as soon as possible.”


Swedish Senior Citizen Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for Posting on Facebook She Saw Migrants Defecating in Streets, Setting Cars Ablaze

Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Muslim Migrants: “A Massive Attack on the Property Rights”

Denmark: Imam calls for murder of Jews

VIDEO: Muslim Migrant beats up helpless disabled Dutch boy on crutches

British Child Rape Victim: ‘Authorities Did Nothing’, Was Told Not to Mention Attackers Were Muslim

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

Barack Obama Wrote Becoming Donald Trump Was The American Dream

In a article  wrote:

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

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

Here’s the full excerpt:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the top 5 countries for killings in 2016:

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

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

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


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

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

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

President Trump, don’t give in to Turkey’s dangerous Iran-tied demands

Turkey has been on a steady glide path to dictatorship for well over a decade, as Islamist ruler Recep Tayyip Erdogan has consolidated power, eliminated his political foes, and bought out or shut down critical media.

But the Reichstag fire that propelled him to dictator status occurred last July, when an amateurish coup d’etat allowed him to purge 120,000 government employees and jail more than 40,000 of his political opponents.

Erdogan called the failed coup a “gift from God.” Indeed, it has given him a pretext to eliminate all opposition media and to impose strict border controls to catch would-be opponents as they attempt to leave the country, as totalitarians have done for generations.

Less known to the general public — and absolutely critical for understanding Erdogan’s reason for coming to Washington on May 16 to meet with President Trump — are his ties to the Islamic State of Iran.

A 900-page indictment compiled by Turkish state prosecutors in 2013 spelled out details of those ties, which allegedly involve billions of dollars in bribes from an Iranian government money-laundering network paid to Erdogan, his family, and cronies in government.

Americans would know little about that investigation — or indeed, Erdogan’s corrupt ties to Tehran — were it not for the missteps of the alleged money-launderer-in-chief, 33-year old Turkish-Iranian citizen Reza Zarrab, who was arrested by Customs and Border Patrol agents in March 2016 at a Florida airport while attempting to take his family to Disney World.

Zarrab is now facing prosecution in New York on money-laundering charges and has hired an impressive stable of white-shoe attorneys, including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose law firm is a registered foreign agent for Turkey.

Giuliani was outed by federal prosecutor Michael Lockard after court filings in which Giuliani explained a late February 2017 meeting with Erdogan as an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the Zarrab case that would be in America’s national security interest.

Dr. Ahmet Yayla, a highly-respected former police chief in southeastern Turkey, believes that Erdogan tasked Giuliani with proposing a deal to President Trump: drop prosecution against Zarrab in exchange for Turkish acquiescence to U.S. arming the Kurds. Even Zarrab’s chief defense lawyer admitted that Giuliani’s role in the case was unprecedented.

The original Turkish indictment, which Yayla shared with me, detailed Zarrab’s vast alleged oil-for-gold money laundering scheme that allowed Iran to circumvent international sanctions, sell upwards of $200 billion in oil and use the Turkish banking system by paying bribes to Erdogan and members of his immediate family.

Prosecutors in Turkey arrested Zarrab on December 17, 2013, for paying bribes to four members of then Prime Minister Erdogan’s cabinet, including his son-in-law, Berat Albayrak. Erdogan then fired the prosecutors, police investigators and judges involved in the probe.

Two months later, audiotapes of phone conversations between Erdogan and his son, Bilal, posted on line, revealed Erdogan instructing his son to remove $1 billion in cash from his home and the homes of family members before the police arrived. (Erdogan has not disputed the authenticity of his voice, but claims the tapes were altered).

But the real scandal is Erdogan’s deep ties to Tehran, which go way beyond the Zarrab money-laundering scheme and Erdogan’s corruption.

I first got wind of Iran’s extensive intelligence network in Turkey during a 1994 reporting trip to Istanbul for Time Magazine. The French counter-terrorism judge investigating the murder of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister of the former shah, recommended me to Istanbul police chief Nezdet Menzir, who he said had provided critical intelligence on the Iranian government hit team that had carried out the Bakhtiar assassination.

During several days of meetings, Menzir not only provided me information on the specific Iranian hit team that had used Turkey as a logistics hub for the assassination in France, but detailed a vast Iranian government intelligence network then operating in Turkey that was responsible for the murder of Turkish journalists and intellectuals.

Yayla says a second Turkish government indictment, also shut down by Erdogan in December 2013, detailed the ongoing efforts of that same Iranian government intelligence network in Turkey. Only now, it named the Iranian regime’s top operatives.

They include members of Erdogan’s cabinet and, most astonishingly, the current director of Turkish National Intelligence, Hakan Fidan, according to Yayla.

No wonder Erdogan wants to meet President Trump, get front-man Zarrab away from American prosecutors and reporters, and has paid $1.1 millionto a Washington, D.C., public relations firm for one week’s work during his visit. The Iranian skeletons in his closet would sink a ship.

Instead of giving in to his demands, the President should inform Erdogan that the United States will be arming the Kurds regardless of Turkish policies, and could make things much worse for Erdogan should the Turks again bomb our Kurdish allies in Syria. Why should we save his sinking ship?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Stop legitimizing the regime in Iran!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAKE ACTION: Email the 9th Circuit Court supporting President Trump’s travel ban

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on President Trump’s revised travel ban from early March.  The federal appeals court held a hearing on May 15, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. ET in Seattle to hear the case filed by the State of Hawaii. The court reviewed the decision issued by Hawaii U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson regarding the ban’s enforcement.

The three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals includes Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins.  All three judges were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

US District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued an order that halted enforcement of the travel ban on the erroneous basis that it likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it allegedly discriminates against Muslims.

The ACLU lawyer in the Maryland travel ban case admitted that the executive order would be constitutional if a different president had ordered it.   Fourth US Circuit Court Judge Paul V. Niemeyer questioned the plaintiffs’ attorney, Omar Jadwat, in the Maryland case about his motive for opposing the ban.  Judge Niemeyer asked “If some other candidate had won the election and issued this order, I gather you would have no problem with that.”  Then Judge Niemeyer stated and asked Jadwat “We have an order on its face. We can read this order and we have no antecedent statements by a candidate about this order. We have a candidate who won the presidency — some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency — and then chose to issue this particular order with whatever counsel he took. … He issued this executive order. Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?”  Jadwat had already twice refused to answer the question, but when the judge offered such a comprehensive hypothetical, he admitted: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.”

Judge Watson’s order:

  • Failed to recognize the president’s statutory authority to execute the ban pursuant to Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) of Title 8.
  • Failed to consider the travel ban addressed only six of forty-nine (12%) Muslim majority countries.  Pew Research reported on January 31, 2017 there are forty-nine Muslim majority countries.
  • Ignored the fact that the travel ban applied equally to all nationalities and religions from the six designated countries.
  • Failed to recognize that for the past 30 years, every President has invoked that power to protect the Nation by suspending entry of categories of aliens.
  • Is unprecedented in that it restrains an executive order by the President of the United States because of statements that he made as a private citizen before he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
  • Strongly appears to place a priority on politics instead of justice.

Judge Watson’s order perpetuates a dangerous myth that President Trump’s travel ban is a “Muslim Ban.”  What other federal laws will be unenforceable against Muslims if the U.S. Courts erroneously rule that President Trump and his administration are biased against Muslims?

Nearly 25,000 people sent emails in 2014 and 2015 through that urged the judges serving on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a three judge panel decision that banned the video titled Innocence of Muslims, a critique of Mohammad.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Judges Ronald Gould, Richard Paez and Michael Daly Hawkins to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email to urge the 9th Circuit Court judges to make national security a priority over politics and public safety a priority over political correctness in the case of Hawaii v Trump.

False Claims to U.S. Citizenship — Far from a “victimless crime”

Virtually all criminals lie.

Lying is a common tactic used by criminals to conceal their identities, their backgrounds and their crimes.  They lie to cover their tracks, to evade detection and to escape from the reach of the “long arm of the law.”

This is why suspects who are taken into custody are fingerprinted and photographed, to attempt to make certain that the name the suspect provides is truly his/her name.  Often criminals use multiple false identities whether by committing identity theft or fabricating altogether fictitious identities.

In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission found that in the aggregate, the 19 hijackers who participated in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, used more than 300 false identities or variations of false identities to conceal their identities and their movements as they went about their deadly preparations.

The 9/11 Commission also identified other terrorists who had entered the United States in the decade leading up to the attacks of 9/11 and found that the majority of all of these terrorists engaged in multiple forms of immigration fraud.  This was the starting point for my recent article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

The act of lying is, itself, a crime when it is done in furtherance of other criminal activities.  A section of federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 1001, addresses this crime.  Here is how this statute begins:

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Please notice that the statute cited above noted the potential nexus between false statements and terrorism.

Getting back to immigration, aliens who enter the United States without inspection or who enter the United States legally but then violate the term so their immigration status may lie to authorities about their names, their countries of birth and/or countries of citizenship in order to evade detection by immigration law enforcement, to create the appearance that they are entitled to various public assistance programs or to be able to be employed in the United States and to achieve other illegal goals.

Such false claims to United States citizenship is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 911.  The description of this crime and the punishment for this violation of law is contained in this brief sentence:

Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The primary goal of illegal aliens is to not be arrested and deported (removed from the United States).

It is not uncommon for illegal aliens to make false claims about being United States citizens when they are encountered by law enforcement.  Citizens of countries where Spanish is the predominant language may attempt to pass themselves off as being from Puerto Rico.  Citizens of Caribbean countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago and St Lucia may make false claims to having been born in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

They may even purchase birth certificates in false names to back up their claims.

Back when I was an INS special agent, I encountered this sort of situation almost routinely.  Some illegal aliens even managed to obtain United States passports under assumed identities.

On May 8, 2017 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement posted a news release, 15 illegal aliens arrested in East Texas for identity theft that reported on precisely this crime that was allegedly committed by 15 illegal aliens to easily enable them to defeat the E-Verify system by purchasing birth certificates in false names.

Many folks believe that simply mandating the use of E-Verify by all employers would turn off the “job magnet” that draws many illegal aliens to the United States.

In reality, while E-Verify most certainly should be mandatory, without an adequate number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel to conduct field investigations, unscrupulous employers could still hire people “off the books” and illegal aliens could defeat the system the way that the 15 aliens reported on in the ICE press release did.

Additionally, more than ever before, the public and our political leaders have developed an extreme fascination with statistics.  Almost every report about immigration includes the supposedly reliable statistic that there are 11 or 12 million illegal aliens in the United States.

Various “think tanks” periodically release reports in which they provide estimates about the size of the illegal alien population both at large and also the number of such aliens who are incarcerated.

Prior the Amnesty of 1986 that was part and parcel of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), it was estimated that roughly one million illegal alien would “emerge from the shadows” under the auspices of that “one time” amnesty program.

By the time the IRCA amnesty program ended more than 3.5 million such aliens stepped out of the “shadows.”

Some may have entered the United States after the estimate was made and then lied about their actual dates of entry into the United States, however, it is likely that for various reasons, such as the issue of aliens making false claims to United States Citizenship the efforts to estimate the true number were way off base.

What what likely blithely ignored then, as well as today, is how the number of such illegal aliens is determined.  Aliens who evade the inspections process at ports of entry do not create a record of arrival as they run the border or, perhaps, stowaway on a ship.

Furthermore, it is not unusual for criminal aliens to make false claims to being citizens of the United States, not unlike those 15 illegal aliens noted previously.

When an alien has been deported and illegally reenters the United States, it is to be expected that in running the individual’s fingerprints, his/her criminal history and immigration history will be discovered.

However, when an illegal alien who is arrested for the first time lies about his/her citizenship, falsely claiming to be a United States citizen, unless that individual is questioned by someone with an understanding as to how to break such false claims to citizenship, there is a strong possibility that the deception will not be caught.

Such a criminal alien may well do his/her sentence and then be released into the community without notification being made to ICE because of the mistaken notion that the criminal is a U.S. citizen.

For INS personnel, one of the items on our training curriculum addressed the tactics by which such false claims to United States citizenship could be uncovered- both during questioning and by other means.

I hope that this class is still being taught at the academy to all ICE personnel, but I am skeptical, considering the way that the Obama administration refused to enforce the immigration law and even turned thousands of criminal aliens loose.

The issue of the training being provided to new ICE agents is one that the current administration must address, and the sooner the better, to make certain that this vital training is mandated for all ICE enforcement personnel.

Irrespective of how ICE agents are trained, this training into breaking false claims to United States citizenship is likely not being provided to any other law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, where “Sanctuary Cities” are concerned, it is entirely possible that during the arrest and booking process, police and jail officials may simply ask the individual where he was born and dutifully record whatever he says without giving his claimed place of birth or his assertion of being a U.S. citizen a second thought.

It is, in fact, entirely possible that in such sanctuary cities any information about the number of criminal aliens in custody is not reported at all.

Consequently, not only would this result in criminal aliens not being identified and subsequently deported, but statistics concerning the actual number of criminal aliens who are incarcerated would be skewed with the number being reported being smaller, perhaps significantly smaller than the true number, downplaying the true impact of illegal immigration on the criminal justice system.

While there is no reliable way to know the actual number of illegal aliens present in the United States, (we don’t know what we don’t know) one thing is clear- that number is far greater than has been estimated and the detrimental consequences for America and Americans are far greater than most of our elected “representatives” are willing to admit.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Trump Defiles the Sanctity of Government, and it Drives the Center-Left Mad by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Has the center-left ever been more apoplectic about a presidency? It can’t have been this nuts even during the Nixon presidency. Every day, their publications fill up with articles that are breathless to the point of hysteria about the disgrace that the Trump administration is bringing to the affairs of government. His incessant tweeting, his violations of protocol, his attacks on the press, and even the very existence of this administration has them in permanent meltdown.

Here is an example. I’m leaving the over-the-top language from Charles Blow’s New York Times piece just to provide flavor:

I feel as if we are being conditioned to chaos by a “president” who abhors the stillness of stability. Every day we awake to a new outrage. We now exist in a rolling trauma — exhausting and unrelenting…. This should shock the whole of America out of its numbness. This is outrageous and without precedent… The sheer brazenness of it all is stunning…. It’s all just too much. We need an independent investigator. I don’t trust anything — anything! — coming out of this White House, and I don’t trust this feckless Congress to constrain Trump. This is not about partisanship, but patriotism. We must protect this country from moral corrosion, at best, and actual destruction, at worst. If this doesn’t stink to you, your nose is broken.

Yes, I know you have read something similar a thousand times in the last months. You have seen it on television stations, pretty much 24/7. Or you can turn on National Public Radio and listen to the same all day.

Or consider after Trump fired FBI director James Comey. The headlines by midnight all screamed: Crisis of Democracy! But I woke up the next morning and failed to see the evidence. The banks were open. People were buying chicken biscuits at the convenience store. The kids were getting dressed for school. Everything seemed normal.

It’s remarkable. This frenzy even has a name: Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is an identifying state of mind. It has particular symptoms.

To be sure, I read these pieces and don’t entirely disagree with the particulars of the analysis. In none of our lifetimes have we seen anything like this. The stodgy, serious, protocol-driven attempt to bring high dignity to this office has been a main concern of government. When it came out that Bill Clinton was using his power and office for private pleasures, it rattled the establishment, not because of his sins but because his behavior elicited ridicule from the public.

We had no idea of what was coming!

Agree, Sort Of

But there is something off about this center-left tendency. These commentators are driven to wild apoplexy by Trump, but not for the reasons I would normally cite. I don’t like his trade theories, his views on immigration, his shabby understanding of the problem with American health insurance, his ramping up of the police state, or his foreign policy. I was calling him out on all of this as early as July 2015.

They, on the other hand, seem to object to the very existence of Trump, his every utterance, his actions no matter what they are, and everything related to this new administration.Their complaints are contradictory. He is terrible because he is doing terrible things! He is terrible because he is not really doing anything! This presidency is destroying the world! This presidency is all sound and fury and nothing else!

The Why

It finally struck me why. For this crowd, all their hopes and dreams are bound up with particular political processes, outcomes, and institutions. The state is their favorite tool for all the good they aspire to do in this world. It must be protected, guarded, defended, celebrated. The illusion that the government is not a taker but a giver and the source of all good things must be maintained. The gloss of the democratic process must be constantly refurbished so that the essential sanctity of the public sector can be constantly cited as the highest calling.

The center-left has at least one hundred years of work and resources invested in the state’s health, well being, reputation, and exalted moral status. Nothing must be allowed to threaten it or take it down a peg or two. Any failures must be deemed as temporary setbacks. The slightest sign of some success must be trumpeted constantly. The population must be subjected to unrelenting homilies on the essential holiness of the public sector.Their education told them this. Their degrees and ruling-class pedigree were hard earned. This is what has inspired them. They believe so strongly that they can make the world a better place through the managerial state that it has become their religion. It’s their very core!

Above all else, the president is supposed to represent. His duty is to reflect and broadcast this sensibility.

This View Has a Name

Writing in 1944, Ludwig von Mises wrote that the debate over the future of freedom is not only about beating back socialism, communism, fascism, interventionism, and so on. There is broader discussion to be had. The core problem is the ideology of statism, a word he took from the French term etatism. It identified a view that the state should always and in everything be the central power, organizing principle, and spiritual core of any society. It must be the final judge, the final arbiter, the center of our loyalties, the one indispensable institution because it alone is deserving of our highest devotion and ideal. It must be forever built, larger and larger, taking on ever more responsibility and taking ever more money and power from the rest of us.

The president is supposed to at least pretend to be the high priest of the statist religion. That’s his job, according to this outlook.

Everything seemed to being going so well under the Obama administration, which was so earnest, so decorous, so civil. He was funny, smart, respectful of process, and sincere in his pronouncements. He ran on hope and change but governed as the person who kept hope for a new freedom and any radical change at bay.

Change in the Matrix

Trump has profoundly disturbed the balance. He overthrew the respective establishments of two parties, tore right into the legitimacy of the national press, humiliated every expert who predicted his demise, and is now stumbling around Washington like a bum in a jewelry store. He is not actually cutting back on the size of the state; he is doing something even more terrifying from the center-left point of view: he is ruining the mystery of the state, and thereby discrediting their holy institutions.

After the election, I wrote that this might be our 1989. What I meant is that major aspects of what we always thought would be true were suddenly not true any more. New possibilities have opened up. An older establishment has been discredited if not overthrown. What comes next is another matter.Trump is not a liberator in any sense. His temperament suggests the opposite. It was he who famously said in the campaign: “The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.” Moreover, and in many ways, the deep state has regrouped and bitten back to avoid losing power and influence in Washington.

Even so, he is everything that the center-left fears most, a person who works, despite himself, to discredit the thing they love the most. He has demoralized them beyond consoling. Now we are seeing talk of impeachment. This seems to be some people’s last hope for saving the old faith.


But the truth is that, with or without Trump’s reign of chaos, the 20th-century project of enlightened and comprehensive statism is not sustainable for the long run. The welfare programs are drying up and their plans have constantly proven unviable and unworkable. We live in a world in which the miracles of the private commercial sector are all around us, while the failures of statism are everywhere present as well.The old world of command and control just can’t last, not for the long run. Perhaps this is the role that Trump is inadvertently playing in this great drama of history. And this is precisely why his existence is driving the partisans of old-fashioned government planning to psychotropic drugs to control their anger and panic.

If you doubt it, I invite you to read the opinion columns of the mainstream press, tomorrow, the next day, the next day, the next day….

Jeffrey A. Tucker

jeffreytuckerJeffrey 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.


We Hear You: ‘The Objective of Communism Is Total Servitude’

Trump Advances Life-Affirming Policy in Foreign Aid

Why Conservatives Should Be Excited About New EPA Agenda

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

Reason to Build the Wall: Mexico second deadliest country in 2016

Americans are bombarded with news about protests against building a wall on the southern border. The Democrat Party is doing everything it can to stop the wall from being built. Certain judges, appointed by the previous administration, are hindering efforts to build a wall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mexican government lashed out at the report’s writers. In a statement posted to its website, the government criticizes the report’s characterization of Mexico having a non-international armed conflict, saying the military’s policing of criminal gangs does not equate to what goes on in other countries. It also disagreed with the report’s methodology.

Read more…

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

Here are the top 5 countries for killings in 2016:

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

Note that four of these “dangerous countries” are on President Trump’s travel ban, which several judges have stopped.


Mexico: Muslim stabs priest at the altar of Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral

How This Maryland Police Department Is Combating the MS-13 Gang

ICE arrests 55 people in Arizona in connection to gangs, serious crimes

ICE removes Guatemalan national wanted for murder

Mexican Town Angry About Illegal Immigrants Bringing Crime to Their Streets (VIDEO)

Honduras: Exodus After Texas Enacts Anti-Sanctuary Law | The Daily Caller

DUI Hit-and-Run Suspect Previously Deported 15 Times | LifeZette

Six Republican Senators question Trump refugee admissions, appear to want MORE refugees admitted to the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dethrone the FBI, Not Just Comey by James Bovard

President Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey provides a welcome chance to dethrone the FBI from its pinnacle in American politics and life. Last September, Comey denounced Twitter “demagoguery” for the widespread belief that the FBI was not “honest” or “competent.”

But the FBI has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that the bureau “has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” This has practically been the FBI’s motif since its creation.

Dirty Deeds

J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, built a revered agency that utterly intimidated official Washington. In 1945, President Truman wrote: “We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. … This must stop.”

But the bureau’s power soared after Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950, authorizing massive crackdowns on suspected subversives. Hoover compiled a list of more than 20,000 “potentially or actually dangerous” Americans who could be seized and locked away at the president’s command. “Congress secretly financed the creation of six of these (detention) camps in the 1950s,” noted Tim Weiner in his excellent 2012 book, Enemies: A History of the FBI.

From 1956 through 1971, the FBI’s COINTELPRO (counterintelligence programs) conducted thousands of covert operations to incite street warfare between violent groups, to get people fired, to smear innocent people by portraying them as government informants, and to cripple or destroy left-wing, black, communist, white racist and anti-war organizations.

FBI agents also busied themselves forging “poison pen” letters to wreck activists’ marriages. COINTELPRO was exposed only after a handful of activists burglarized an FBI office in a Philadelphia suburb, seized FBI files, and leaked the damning documents to journalists.

FBI haughtiness was on display on April 19, 1993, when its agents used armored vehicles to smash into the Branch Davidians’ sprawling, ramshackle home near Waco, Texas. The tanks intentionally collapsed much of the building on top of the huddled residents. After the FBI pumped the building full of CS gas (banned for use on enemy soldiers by the Chemical Weapons Convention), a fire ignited that left 80 children, women and men dead.

The FBI swore it was blameless for the conflagration, but six years later, an investigation revealed that the FBI fired incendiary cartridges into the building before the blaze erupted. No FBI agents were penalized or prosecuted for their fatal assault against American civilians.

21st Century Scandals

Before the 9/11 attacks, the FBI dismally failed to connect the dots on suspicious foreigners engaged in domestic aviation training. Though Congress had deluged the FBI with $1.7 billion to upgrade its computers, many FBI agents had old machines incapable of searching the Web or emailing photos. One FBI agent observed that the bureau ethos is that “real men don’t type. …The computer revolution just passed us by.”

The FBI’s pre-9/11 blunders “contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists,” according to a 2002 congressional investigation. (The FBI also lost track of a key informant at the heart of the cabal that detonated a truck bomb beneath the World Trade Center in 1993.)

In the late 1990s, the FBI Academy taught agents that subjects of investigations “have forfeited their right to the truth.” This doctrine helped fuel pervasive entrapment operations after 9/11.

Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimated that only about 1% of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest.

The bureau’s informant program extends far beyond Muslims. It bankrolled an extremist right-wing New Jersey blogger and radio host for five years before his 2009 arrest for threatening federal judges.

And then there are the other scandals — the perpetual false testimony from the FBI crime lab, its use of National Security Letters and other surveillance tools to illegally vacuum up Americans’ personal info, its whitewashing of every shooting by an FBI agent between 1993 and 2011, and its operation of dozens of child porn websites (another entrapment operation gone awry).

Unleashed Power

The FBI’s power has rarely been effectively curbed by either Congress or federal courts. In 1971, House Majority Leader Hale Boggs declared that the bureau’s power terrified Capitol Hill: “Our very fear of speaking out (against the FBI) has watered the roots and hastened the growth of a vine of tyranny. … Our society … cannot survive a planned and programmed fear of its own government bureaus and agencies.”

Boggs vindicated a 1924 American Civil Liberties Union report warning that the FBI had become “a secret police system of a political character” — a charge that supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would have alternatively cheered last year.

If Trump fired Comey to throttle an investigation into Trump administration criminality, that is an impeachable offense. Otherwise, Comey’s fall provides an excellent opportunity to take the FBI off its pedestal and place it where it belongs — under the law.

It is time to cease venerating a federal agency whose abuses have perennially menaced Americans’ constitutional rights.

Reprinted from USA Today.

James Bovard

James Bovard

James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. Find him on Twitter @JimBovard.

How has Delaware dodged the refugee bullet for decades? Answer: Joe Biden

There is a short news item at Delaware Public Media about how a Jewish refugee agency in Delaware is waiting for seven families (likely Muslim families based on their country of origin) they hope they will soon be settling in Delaware—the First State.  So I thought I might revisit a topic I haven’t discussed for a long time and that is the origin of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Senators Biden and Kennedy are responsible for the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program. See list below of other Senators deeply involved in 1979.

But, first here is a portion of the short piece at Delaware Public Media:

The state of Hawaii’s stay on Trump’s second travel ban suspends the FY17 cap for refugees – currently set at 50,000.

That opens the door for refugee families from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Eastern African country of Eritrea in line to come to the First State, but none of them have travel plans in place yet.

Jewish Family Services of Delaware Refugee Resettlement Coordinator Sarah Green says that currently, the families are stuck in Jordan and Ethiopia.

“It’s hard to know what’s happening,” Green said. “We just have to wait and see. We get a very limited view of what’s happening over there.”

She says her agency is taking the approach that these families could arrive any day – and working to ensure they’ll be comfortable when they reach Delaware.


There’s reason to expect they could arrive soon. According to the U.S. State Department, 900 flights for refugees to the U.S. are being scheduled every week.

As of this morning, 831 new refugees arrived in the US in the past week (5/5-5/12) according to Wrapsnet. And, that puts us at 44,072 this fiscal year.

At this rate the Trump Administration will hit 50,000 in about 7 – 8 weeks. Will they stop at 50,000 which should happen around the first week of July? That is the question!

Delaware, in some ways, is more interesting to me than some of the other very low refugee admission states (LOL! including Hawaii).  See chart below.

And that is because then Senator Joe Biden was one of the chief sponsors of the Senate-generated Refugee Act of 1979 (S.643) which became the Refugee Act of 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed it in to law the following year.  You can learn more about it here.  Pay special attention to the part about how states were NOT to be burdened with welfare costs of refugees.

Here are the co-sponsors of S.643 another of Senator Ted Kennedy’s swamp-America-with-immigrants bills:

So how is it that Delaware is in the bottom ten locations for refugee seeding when then Senator and now former Vice President Joe Biden is that state’s most prominent political figure?  Did he welcome refugees to America in 1979, but keep them from swamping Delaware with diversity for decades?

Wrapsnet data only goes back to FY2003, but that gives us enough years to see a pattern. (For researchers more diligent than I am, you can go back through all the previous annual reports and put the data together from the very beginning, but I expect the pattern is similar in the early years.)

So from FY03 through today (in FY17) we admitted 886,324 refugees to America (not including asylum seekers) and Delaware got a whopping 139 of them!

In the years Joe Biden was Vice President, Delaware got only 50 refugees.

Here are the last ten locations for refugee placement from FY03 to the present. What the heck is “Unknown State?” Does that mean 68 refugees were placed secretly somewhere? Yikes!

If Delaware Public Media really wanted to do some important work, reporters there should try to find out exactly why and how Delaware dodged a bullet for so many years when their claim to fame, Veep Joe Biden, sponsored the original law and then apparently kept diversity-seeding from the state! (It is not because of the state’s small size since Rhode Island got thousands more than Delaware).

For new readers, this post is filed in mywhere to find information’ category and in ‘Refugee statistics.’

Hungary Takes EU To Court Over Migrant Demands

The Eastern European nations that refuse to destroy their countries will be the only places of refuge and sanctuary for infidel refuseniks in the coming bloody wars.


By Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, May 10, 2017:


The EU Council has moved to distribute hundreds of thousands of refugees across Europe to lighten the burden on Italy and Greece. The Hungarian government has opposed the move from the start and proposes a new mechanism to mass deport migrants instead.

“We have complied a ten-point list of reasons we believe this decision to be illegal,” Hungary’s Justice Minister Laszlo Trocsanyi told German newspaper Die Welt. “The decision to assign quotas also sends the wrong signal to potential migrants.”

Trocsanyi said the current message from the EU is “Go ahead and come to Europe, we will handle the distribution.”

So far, less than 18 percent of the 100,000 migrants have been relocated under the quota system. A ruling in the case is expected this fall and Trocsanyi said Hungary will accept the outcome.

“Hungary abides by the law and fulfils its duties,” he told Die Welt.

Zoltan Kovacs, a spokesman for the Hungarian government, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Hungary’s disputes with the EU is rooted in the country’s refusal to give up elements of sovereignty.

“We would like to retain the elements of sovereignty, which are there by law, and we are against a stealth way of taking away elements of your sovereignty,” Kovacs told TheDCNF in a recent interview.

Hungary argues the “four freedoms” of the EU project — the free movement of goods, capital, services and people — can only be ensured if the outer borders are protected.

“You can not defend the achievements of Schengen from within. It has be done at the borders,” Kovacs said.

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

Connecting the Dots: Islamism — Socialism — Globalism

The word globalism is often used in its narrowest context to mean global trade, which obscures its broader political intention to internationalize nation states and ultimately impose one-world government.

Similarly the word Islamism is often used in its narrowest context to mean a religion like any other which obscures its broader political intention to reestablish the caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Both are supremacist, expansionist socio-political movements intent on world dominion.

Islamists like Globalists believe themselves and their supremacist tenets to be morally superior to all others. The Islamist cloaks his supremacy in religious fervor and the disingenuous conviction that Islam is a “peaceful” religion because peace to an Islamist means when all the world is Muslim.

The Globalist cloaks his supremacy in a parallel and equally disingenuous conviction that Globalism is “tolerant” because tolerance to a globalist means tolerating those who LOOK different, not those who THINK differently.

Both systems are tyrannical in their demand for absolute conformity to their proscribed rules of behavior – for Islamists it is religious sharia law and for globalists it is secular political correctness.

The Islamist and the Globalist are both soldiers in their parallel wars seeking totalitarian rule of the world. The difference between Islamists and Globalists is the difference between communism and socialism described by Ayn Rand:


Islamism and Globalism appear to exist on opposite sides of the political spectrum but they share a common enemy – the nation state. Nationalism is the single greatest obstacle to the religious caliphate of Islamism and to the secular one-world government of Globalism. The ancient proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” explains the counter-intuitive common cause and intersectional alliance between Islamists and Globalists today.

Disinformation is a deliberate tactic of war. The Islamist fiction that the annihilation of Israel will bring peace to the middle east is a unifying disinformation tactic of war designed to demonize Israel, manipulate public opinion, and garner intersectional support from left-wing liberal lemmings against Israel. Islamist disinformation has a name – TAQIYYA – lying in the service of Islam. It is a deceitful strategy that deflects attention from the Islamist end game of eliminating all infidels including the gullible left-wing liberal infidels who support them. Similarly, the disinformation campaign supporting the fiction that Socialism will bring justice to the United States also has a name – ALINSKIYYA – lying in the service of Socialism. The hippies and anarchists of the 60’s did not go quietly into the night. They have reconstituted themselves as the professors, administrators, politicians, activist judges, and policy-makers adhering to well-defined Tavistock Institute principles of social engineering and mass indoctrination designed to disinform, destabilize, and destroy America from within. Whoever controls the information controls society – and whoever controls the educational curriculum controls the future.

Islamists and Globalists follow the same expansionist playbook codified by Saul Alinsky in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Rule #12:


Israel and America have been demonized, targeted, personalized, and polarized because both are unapologetic and unwavering in their commitments to their national sovereignty. The war against Israel and America is a war against nationalism. Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state is actually being debated as is America’s right to exist as a sovereign democratic nation. The left-wing liberal narrative courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama has reformatted American education and American entertainment to reflect the dreams from his father – a Kenyan radical socialist who considered America an evil colonial power. The information war waged by the colluding mainstream media, academia, and the entertainment industry foments American self-loathing, demonizes President Donald Trump the symbol of America-first nationalism, and glorifies socialism, anti-semitism, and presents internationalism as the panacea that will bring social justice to the masses.

Socialism has never worked in the long-run in any country in the world because as Margaret Thatcher pointed out “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Socialism has only had limited success in the short-run in very small homogenous populations because socialism and pluralism are antithetical to each other. Socialism’s greatest success is in destroying a nation’s prosperity and in sacrificing individual citizen’s rights to government control. Ayn Rand explains that socialism even robs an individual of his right to exist:


The essential question is WHY the Left is promoting communist values. The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and transform it into a dependent socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy the traditional American institutions of family, religion, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – all the qualities that made America great. The entire narrative of the Left is designed to induce regression through educational indoctrination and the media – as Hillary Clinton famously remarked they need “an unaware compliant public.” Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. The sales pitch might sound good to a childish mind who is seduced by candy from a stranger but the adult mind understands the sinister end-game. Once the public is entirely dependent on the government they lose all individual rights and national sovereignty and the newly socialized state is poised to become part of an internationalized one-world government. That is the long-game of the globalist elite and the motivation for indoctrinating America toward socialism.

The problem is that the left-wing liberal lemmings are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction – they are just the useful idiots. The Left has been successfully indoctrinated to believe they are fighting for “social justice” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and absolutely no individual freedoms. There is only the master ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them. The left-wing liberal lemmings should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of their own one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves. The globalist elite’s New World Order is antithetical social justice – it is the elite’s self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth.

Tavistock Institute was exported to America after WWII with the specific purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media – particularly television – the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order – they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed. The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters anymore than Hitler had with exterminating Jews, Islamists with slaughtering infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist – there is no social justice or egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy America from within – but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist one-world government. For the globalist elite the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.

The globalist elite are playing chess while the Islamists and Leftists/Socialists are playing checkers.

VIDEO: Bibi Netanyahu to Mahmoud Abbas ‘Google Yourself’

Netanyahu is right to call this savage out on his lies. It is a shame that Trump seemed to believe him. We can only hope that someone around him set him straight.

“Netanyahu Recommends Abbas ‘Google Yourself,’” by Hana Levi Julian, Jewish Press, May 6, 2017:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recommended in a tweet to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas on Friday that he try “Googling [himself] sometime.”

The tweet – and the video that came along with it – followed the incredulous lies spoken by Abbas at the podium of the White House during his joint press briefing with U.S. President Donald Trump this past week.

Abbas said during the briefing with media that his government “educates for peace,” and affirmed the Palestinian Authority is “raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

The Palestinian Authority has named sports events, children’s summer camps, schools and public buildings, streets and squares after some of the most bloodthirsty terrorists in the world.

The PA government also funds and sponsors television programming — clips of which are translated by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) organization — encouraging small children to hate Israel and Jews, and teaches them it is their sacred duty to murder. They are also taught by these programs that the entire Land of Israel is actually “Palestine”, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and that someday it will all belong to the Arab nation “once more” – when they have eradicated the “Zionist enemy.”

These concepts are reinforced to children and teens in the classroom during the day in their textbooks and in the curricula formulated by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Education.

Adult citizens of the Palestinian Authority are reminded of the “truth” of these vicious lies via the daily media they are exposed to in government-backed newspapers, radio stations and television programs, whose incitement-filled hate is also often translated and then publicized by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) so the world can at least be aware of what is being said.

All of these lies are funded via the PA Ministry of Communications, which receives support from the European Union and the United States, among other foreign nations….

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

FBI looking at 2,000 cases of U.S. links to foreign terrorists, 300 are refugees

Just when you thought you had had it with FBI Director Comey he admits something that you would never expect a politically-correct Washington insider to reveal.

FBI Director James Comey testifying before Congress.

FBI Director James Comey testifying before Congress.

Comey grilled on the Hill:

All they ever want to hear from Comey is information about Hillary and how the Russians elected Trump. No mention that I’ve seen anywhere, except from Mark Krikorian, about the stunning news that 300 refugees are being watched.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Director Comey said in response to questioning by Senator Thom Tillis of NC about those being watched by the FBI who are in contact with foreign terrorists (from a transcript published by the WaPo):

Then we have another big group of people that we’re looking at who we see some contact with foreign terrorists. So you take that 2,000 plus cases, about 300 of them are people who came to the United States as refugees.

As far as I know no reporter has mentioned this stunning news.  Mark Krikorian, Director of the Center for Immigration Studies caught it though and published the revelation at National Review Online here yesterday.  Krikorian reminds us that Comey had testified to Congress on more than one occasion where he admitted that there is no way to thoroughly screen refugees from failed states like Syria and Somalia.


So 15 percent of the FBI’s terrorism cases are refugees – far more than their share of the immigrant population, let alone the general population. And that denominator of 2,000 presumably includes people with no immigration nexus at all – skinheads, antifa, Klan, environmental and animal rights extremists, et al. So the refugee share of immigration-related terrorism investigations is more than 15 percent, perhaps much more.

Krikorian goes on to argue that, except for a few special cases, we should help legitimate refugees where they are in the world and not risk bringing them to your town and mine.

Read all of Krikorian’s post here.


New Jersey Man Confesses to 95th Terror Plot in U.S. Since 9/11

New Strategy Needed to Confront Islamist Threats in War of Ideas

Ignoring history: 1,300 years brings us to the Islamization of Minnesota

San Francisco Chronicle Admits: Some Anti-Trump Protesters are Paid – Breitbart