Who shares responsibility for the Suicide Bombing at the Manchester Arena?

The emerging profile of 22 year  Salman Abedi, the home grown  suicide bomber or shahid (martyr) who perpetrated the Manchester Arena massacre, whose family were Libyan refugees, raises questions about the political future of UK Prime Minister Theresa  May in the looming June 10, snap elections called over the Brexit impasse.  Abedi was claimed by ISIS as one of their own, “a solider of the Caliphate.”  With arrests of four suspects, following the Manchester Arena massacre, police are now saying “we may be dealing with a network.”  The Manchester Arena attack triggered UK PM May ordering the deployment of thousands of soldiers to prevent an imminent attack after raising the threat level to the highest level, “critical.”

In the wake of the dastardly Manchester Arena bombing that killed 22 people, especially young girls, injuring 59, many with life threatening wounds, questions abound about the policies May implemented as former UK Home Minister. May had been the long term Home Minister in the former Cameron Conservative governments. Her track record on lax immigration controls and surveillance of radical Muslim communities ironically may have contributed to the massive  terror explosion at 10:30 PM at the close of U.S. pop star Ariane Grande’s concert that shredded the lives of those killed and injured with  a bomb loaded with deadly shrapnel of nuts and bolts.

Here’s what we know about Abedi, the perpetrator of this heinous attack on the 20,000 attendees at Ms. Grande’s Manchester Arena concert. Police obtained a photo ID card from his remains identifying him as the suspected bomber. They stormed his residence in South Manchester seeking information about both him and possible jihadist network connections. He was born in the UK to Libyan refugee parents who lived in a tight émigré community.  He prayed at a Mosque with known Al Qaeda connections to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. A number of worshipers who left to join ISIS as foreign fighters.

Abedi had made numerous trips to Libya following the fall of the Gadaffi regime and may have received training in bomb making with powerful ingredients. His travels to and from Libya must have put him on the Mi-5 watch list. Abedi had enrolled at a local university studying business management. He appears to have enrolled for the 2016 academic year but not attended classes. More concerning was he had outward vestiges of becoming radical such as wearing a long Islamic Islamic gabilla gown, Kufi skull cap and growing a beard.

Note what this UK Telegraph article revealed, “Everything we know about Salman Abedi, named as the Manchester suicide bomber:”

Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

A school friend told The Times: “He went to Libya three weeks ago and came back recently, like days ago.”

He had become radicalized recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fundraising for jihadists.

Abedi’s older brother Ismail had been a tutor at Didsbury mosque’s Koran school. The imam last night said that Salman Abedi, who wore Islamic dress, had shown him “the face of hate” when he gave a talk warning on the dangers of so-called Islamic State.

His mother, Samia Tabbal, 50, and father, Ramadan Abedi, a security officer, were both born in Tripoli but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Whalley Range area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least a decade.

Abedi went to school locally and then on to Salford University in 2014 where he studied business management before dropping out. His trips to Libya, where it is thought his parents returned in 2011 following Gaddafi’s overthrow, are now subject to scrutiny including links to jihadists.

A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.


Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz, a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of al-Qaeda.

Azzouz, 48, an expert bomb-maker, was accused of running an al-Qaeda network in eastern Libya. The Telegraph reported in 2014 that Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making.

Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi. The mosque at the time vehemently denied the claim. “This is the first time I’ve heard of the LIFG. I do not know Salah,” a mosque spokesman said at the time.

At the Abedi family home in Elsmore Road, a non-descript red-brick terrace, neighbors told how Abedi had become increasingly devout and withdrawn.

Lina Ahmed, 21, said: “They are a Libyan family and they have been acting strangely. A couple of months ago he [Salman] was chanting the first kalma [Islamic prayer] really loudly in the street. He was chanting in Arabic.

“He was saying ‘There is only one God and the prophet Mohammed is his messenger’.’

A family friend, who described the Abedis as “very religious”, said most of the family had returned to Libya, leaving only Salman and his older brother Ismail behind.

UK PM Theresa May. Source: The Independent

As to why UK PM Theresa May is partly to blame for the lax surveillance of radicals like suicide bomber Abedi, we turn to a UK Spectator article in July 2016 by Jonathan Foreman about May’s track record as Home Secretary under former Conservative PM David Cameron, “Theresa May’s record as Home Secretary is alarming, not reassuring.”

Foreman wrote:

Despite her carefully fostered reputation for toughness, Mrs. May’s record on extremism is perhaps the least impressive aspect of her checkered tenure at the Home Office. Any public official who seriously addresses radicalization, ghettoization and extremism risks being labeled an Islamophobe or worse. It takes a brave politician, one more committed to doing the right thing than to securing a glorious political future, to take on this hornets’ nest; Mrs. May was not such a politician. This began to be clear during the Trojan Horse affair, when official reluctance to confront radicalization in Birmingham schools prompted a concerned Education Secretary to venture onto the Home Secretary’s turf. (Her characteristic fury at this trespass was damaging to both departments at the time, and may well wreak havoc into the new government. Certainly her firing of Michael Gove’s as Justice Minister, despite the fact that his incomplete prison reforms have been universally lauded, looks like a destructive act of petty vengeance and personal spite.)


It became more apparent when Mrs. May, having delivered some appropriate sound-bites, avoided potential career-inhibiting controversy by ensuring that the Home Office’s efforts to deal with tricky issues like female genital mutilation, honor killings and forced marriage remained as low key – and low impact – as possible. But it is even more obvious in the investigation Mrs. May eventually set up into whether Britain’s Sharia courts, some legal, some not, might possibly discriminate against women in matters of divorce, domestic violence and child custody, as a result of a ‘misuse’ of Sharia teaching. (In the past the Home Secretary has implicitly claimed a surprising intimacy with Islamic law and political thought, asserting in 2014 that the actions of Isis ‘have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Koran.’)


Then there was the cynical political correctness. Mrs. May talked about coming down hard on hate crimes and lambasted the police about a lack of diversity. But she abjectly failed to identify the child rape rings of Rotherham, Rochdale, Sheffield, Bradford and Oxford as the racially and ethnically motivated hate crimes that they were.  [SEE:  Peter McLoughlin, Easy Meat:  inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal,   New English Review Press, 2016.]


May has also done little to reverse various policing trends that have alienated the public from the police, including the abandonment of neighborhood policing, the substitution of decoy-like PCSOs and CCTV for beat patrols, and the massaging of crime statistics, At the same time Mrs. May has given the nod to massive, transformative budget cuts that may genuinely make Britain’s police forces unfit for purpose.


As the then shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper pointed out, three years after May took over the ministry, the number of people refused entry had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up, the number of foreign prisoners removed had gone down, and the number of illegal immigrants deported had also gone down. Tens of thousands of international students kicked out of the country by the Home Office – in a panicked response to a TV documentary about a test cheating scam – then turned out to have been wrongly deported.

UK PM Theresa May’s track record as Home Secretary may now been thrust into the public limelight as a result of the Manchester Arena massacre by  UK born  Jihadist, the late Salman Abedi.  The prior neglect by Mi-5 and UK security services monitoring jihadists in the country’s midst may impact on the looming snap election originally called to empower her to resolve the Brexit impasse. With her raising  the terror threat to its highest level in the UK following the Manchester Arena attack, perhaps Conservative backbenchers might question her policies and performance.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The New English Review.

Gen. McMaster squanders tremendous capital Trump earns in Saudi Arabia

President Trump did not shy away from calling an Islamist terrorist by his real name when he addressed the heads of state of some fifty Muslim countries over the weekend in Riyadh.

His language and his message were clear: the United States needs the leaders of Arab Islamic nations as partners. As non-Muslims, we can not eradicate the scourge of a terrorism that draws its source from authentic Islamic texts, nor can we cast out terrorist leaders who model themselves on Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.

Indeed, that is what the Manchester bomber did, blowing himself up in order to kill the children of the Unbelievers. (Quran 3:151: “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”)

ISIS proudly draws on the Quran, and the Sura – the Life of the Prophet Mohammad – to justify its actions and its manner of imposing Sharia law over territory it controls.

In its training manuals and propaganda videos, ISIS regularly calls on young Muslims to join the ranks of the jihad, because it is their duty as good Muslims. How can they say this? Because Mohammad himself told them.

Indeed, there are 164 well-known versus in the Quran where Mohammad calls on Muslims to fight the Unbelievers and carry out jihad.

“I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam – of course it has. They are not preaching Judaism,” says Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim who is the religion and ethics editor at the BBC.

“It might be wrong, but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine. They are Muslims. That is a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things,” Mr. Ahmed went on.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia knows this. Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq knows this. Egyptian president al-Sissi knows this. So does King Abdallah II of Jordan and all the other leaders President Trump met at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh.

None of them blushed when the President spoke these “very uncomfortable things” in his speech on Sunday. They know that it is up to them to lead the fight against the jihadis and “drive them out,” as the President said – not because the jihadis represent the true face of Islam, but because they are the forces of Evil in today’s Muslim world, whose first victims tend to be Muslims.

Enter Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

In a five minute interview with FoxNews host Bret Beier in Riyadh, Gen. McMaster swept away all the gains the President had just made.

He acknowledged that the President had used the term “Islamic terrorism” in his speech, then immediately tried to back away from it.

“These are not Islamic people. These are not religious people. These are people who use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their criminality. It’s a political agenda,” McMaster said of ISIS. “And you saw great agreement on that in all the speeches yesterday. King Salman used almost the same language.”

But King Salman did not use almost the same language. Instead, he acknowledged that ISIS terrorists “consider themselves as Muslims” and that they drew their inspiration from periods of Islamic history outside the “bright eras… of mercy, tolerance and coexistence.”

Gen. McMaster returned to the Obama-era white-washing of Islam and denial of Islamic doctrine, bending over backwards out of fear of offending Muslim leaders whose support we need to fight ISIS.

While one can hope that the damage he did to the budding anti-jihadi alliance will be transitory, and that wiser officials with a more sophisticated knowledge of Islamic doctrine will be put in the forefront of our cooperation with potential Muslim allies, ISIS leaders must be laughing at the foolishness of McMaster’s words.

Of course their allure draws its source from Islam’s earliest days, when Mohammad and his armies put their enemies to the sword, pillaged their cities, raped their wives, enslaved any survivors, and plundered their crops.

ISIS has already claimed responsibility for the Manchester bombing. We will learn soon enough whether Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who murdered so many innocents, acted alone or was part of a larger cell.

But what we know for sure is that the ideology motivating him to mayhem wasn’t Judaisim or Christianity or some “perverted interpretation” of them. That ideology was Islam as practiced by Mohammad and his followers.

Sugar-coating Islam’s blood-soaked history will not end terrorism. It will not convince young wannabe jihadis to put down the sword of Islam.

Instead, we need serious, effective programs that attack the causes of radicalization, programs devised by Muslims that speak to Muslims, programs that convincingly reject the jihadi doctrines on which ISIS is based.

The newly-created Center for Combating Extremism established by the Saudi government may be a step in the right direction. But as the President said, we also need the Saudis and other Arab Muslim leaders to drive the jihadis and the preachers who inspire them “out of the mosques” and out of the public square.

We cannot succeed in this monumental task when the National Security Advisor turns the President’s steely injunctions against Islamist terrorism into mush.

We are fighting an ideological enemy. We will never defeat him if we refuse to name the ideology that inspires him.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Google is a mainstream supporter of Sex Traffickers

Yesterday a coalition of consumer and anti-trafficking advocates released a report documenting that Google has financially backed the efforts of digital rights groups to defend Backpage.com—a website notorious for facilitating prostitution and sex trafficking—from numerous legal challenges. The report cited evidence that Google and the groups it financially supports have filed a series of amicus briefs on Backpage.com’s behalf, distorting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to defend the company’s actions. The report further documents that Google has deployed a band of lobbyists to stymie efforts to amend the CDA. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) applauds this report for revealing mainstream supporters of sex trafficking.

“There can be no doubt that Backpage’s entire business model is built on sexual exploitation, and that as such, Backpage’s CEO and founders represent America’s top pimps,” said Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “What will come as a shock to many is that Google—a company with the motto ‘Don’t be evil’—has aggressively buttressed the legal defense of Backpage.com in an effort to protect its own corporate interests, according to the report.

“In a series of court cases favoring Backpage.com, the courts have interpreted Section 230 of the CDA to give third-party hosting sites carte blanche immunity for everything and anything that occurs online. To help ensure Backpage’s legal defense was successful,” Hawkins added,

“Google has financed powerful digital rights groups to bolster Backpage’s legal arguments, according to the report. The report also indicates that Google has taken its campaign to Capitol Hill where it has unleashed a cadre of lobbyists to oppose efforts to amend the CDA.”

“While the law is important in protecting Internet companies from frivolous lawsuits for content posted by users of those websites, we believe that the Backpage.com case is fundamentally different as evidence suggests that the company proactively coaches sex traffickers about how to post ads for underage victims in order to avoid detection by legal authorities.”

“We believe that reasonable reforms to Section 230 are essential to ensure that companies like Backpage.com can no longer hide behind the safe harbor provisions of the law when they knowingly and with reckless disregard allow sex-trafficking ads to be posted on their site. We call on Google and all Internet companies to recognize that people are not objects to be sold online and to support reasonable reform of Section 230 of the CDA.”

Backpage.com is a member of the 2017 Dirty Dozen List due to its history of facilitating, and profiting from, sexual exploitation. Google’s Youtube is also a member of the 2017 Dirty Dozen list for its failure to address the volumes of sexually explicit videos available on its site.

My response to a Harvard professor on the ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’

The latest Energy Law Journal features my response to Harvard Law Professor (and ConocoPhillips Board member) Jody Freeman, the first high-stature intellectual to attempt a rigorous criticism of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

I think it’s worth reading in part because in the beginning I give maybe my best quick summary to date of the moral case for fossil fuels.

Synopsis: This article provides a reply to Harvard law professor Jody Freeman’s contribution to this journal, “A Critical Look at The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” a critique of my 2014 book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF). MCFF argues that the way we have been taught to think about and discuss energy issues is wrong, and that if we follow a better method of thinking, we will conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use. Unfortunately, instead of engaging the book’s method and attempting to refute its evaluations, Freeman’s article ignores the book’s method and significantly misrepresents its major arguments. This response gives a proof that Freeman’s portrayal of MCFF’s method and content is a straw man, and summarizes the actual arguments of the book. It does so primarily through repeated, side-by-side comparisons of unaltered passages by Freeman purporting to describe MCFF’s viewpoint and unaltered passages from MCFF clearly stating its actual viewpoint. In doing this, this article elucidates some of the book’s actual points that readers might benefit from and perhaps be convinced to explore in more detail—and encourages us to increase the level of intellectual precision in our debate so that we can have a constructive conversation about today’s vital energy and environmental issues.


In 2007, as a philosopher analyzing popular thinking on numerous cultural, industrial, and political issues, I concluded that popular thinking and discussion about energy and its associated environmental issues was severely flawed. For example, logic dictates that when analyzing any course of action we carefully consider both the positives and negatives of all our alternatives. Yet in popular discussion only the negatives of fossil fuels were considered, while the negatives of “green” sources of energy were all but ignored.

For example, there was a widespread focus on the dangers of coal mining but almost none on the far greater dangers of rare-earth mining required to produce vital components of wind turbines. There was a widespread focus on the alleged wonders of solar and wind but almost none on the unique positives of hydrocarbon (fossil) fuels, such as the unique energy density of liquid hydrocarbon (oil) fuels.

Just as problematically, the consideration of positives and negatives was not careful. Vague, equivocal claims, such as “climate change is real,” obscured the vital issue of magnitude; whether temperature is increasing geometrically or logarithmically, whether sea levels can be expected to rise twenty feet in several decades (Al Gore’s claim) or two feet in a century makes all the difference in our moral calculations.1

Without far clearer, more precise thinking, our energy choices were destined to be severely wrong. To make the wrong choices about energy, the technology that powers every other technology, is to make every area of life worse. I decided to undertake a study of our energy choices using critical thinking methods that were not being deployed in the existing discussions. My approach method led me to conclude that the proper energy policy for the foreseeable future requires increasing our use of fossil fuels—not dramatically and coercively restricting our fossil fuel use.

I presented my findings in my book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (MCFF), both to offer new, and I believe far more accurate, assessments of the benefits and costs of using rather than restricting fossil fuels, as well as to encourage a far greater degree of precision in the broader debate, turning acrimony into constructive conversation. Thus, even if I was wrong about the magnitudes of the benefits and costs, or those magnitudes changed, we would have a method for decision-making.

That has never been more necessary than at this political moment, when a new administration has promised to dramatically reshape energy policy and many new proposals will be on the table for discussion.

The book has been covered extensively by well-known conservative and libertarian thinkers, who tend to be skeptical of the establishment position that fossil fuels are a self-destructive addiction that we need to rapidly restrict.2

Those commentators have both praised the book and offered interesting challenges of particular assessments or policy prescriptions.

Continue reading my full response here.

President Trump’s ‘Taxpayer First’ Budget

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Agriculture Department — $855 million

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

Commerce Department — $633 million

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

Education Department — $4.976 billion

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

Energy Department — $398 million

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

Health and Human Services — $4.834 billion

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

Homeland Security — $235 million

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

Housing and Urban Development — $4.123 billion

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

Interior Department — $122 million

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

Justice Department — $210 million

  • State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

Labor Department — $527 million

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

State Department and USAID — $4.256 billion

  • Development Assistance

Earmarked Appropriations for Non-Profit Organizations

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

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

  • Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative

Transportation Department — $499 million

  • National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER)

Treasury Department — $43 million

  • Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

Environmental Protection Agency — $493 million

  • Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs
  • Geographic Programs

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million

  • Five Earth Science Missions
  • Office of Education

Other Independent Agencies — $2.683 billion

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

International Development Foundations

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

Regional Commissions

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


Finally, a Budget That Slashes Funding at Education Department

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

9 Key Takeaways From Trump’s First Budget

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

How Trump should solve the Fake News problem

The ongoing character assassination of President Trump in the American fake news media is a political massacre the likes of which we have never witnessed before in history. There is a coordinated media effort to crucify Trump on the basis of fake accusations based on non-existent evidence and spread through a network of anti-American propaganda outlets called news rooms.

Every day our headlines are full of fake news stories attacking Trump. The Harvard Kennedy School just issued a comprehensive report on overall media coverage of Trump. That report demonstrates just how fake and anti-Trump today’s news coverage really is.

NOTICE: Before you discount this report just because it was issued by known left-wing Harvard, realize that the mere fact that even Harvard arrived at these findings means the findings are inescapable. If I were quoting Fox News in this piece, people would easily claim Fox News is in the bag for Trump. No such claim can be made against Harvard.

News time spent on President Trump, his administration and the FBI – 77%

Percentage of negative coverage of Trump

The most anti-Trump fake news outlets in America

( SOURCE: Harvard Kennedy School)

In recent days, the White House has even mentioned that they may stop White House briefings altogether due to the total lack of any journalistic standard governing the unprofessional behavior of reporters assigned to the White House.

It would be a mistake for the White House to stop all briefings just because of the unprofessional behavior of current White House reporters. It would only fuel their narrative that Trump has something to hide.

A better solution

However, there is no reason for the White House to continue extending press credentials to individuals who consistently turn every briefing into a fake news circus. Trump does not need to ban certain papers (Washington Post, New York Times) or networks (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS) to solve the problem.

Don’t stop the briefings and don’t ban any news (propaganda) outlet from the briefings. Instead, the White House should simply make a statement concerning the protocol for White House briefings including a Code of Journalistic Conduct that everyone must abide by to keep their press credentials.

The minute a reporter breaks protocol, strip them of their White House press credentials and have them physically removed from the briefing and White House property by Secret Service. Let the entire world watch as the fake news agent is walked out and permanently stripped of their press credentials.

Notify their employer that they will need to clear a new reporter for the White House and will not have representation in the briefings unless and until they send a real journalist able to follow journalistic standards and White House protocol.

In a previous column, I expose the whole truth behind the WaPo propaganda machine owned by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos. Left-wing globalists control 100% of the U.S. media and that’s why they are engaged in a coordinated assault on Trump, who threatens their efforts meld America into the global commune with his make America great again agenda.

But Trump won’t have to remove too many before they all get the message loud and clear. If you agree, forward, text, post and tweet this column to @POTUS right away!

RELATED ARTICLE: Barack Obama’s team secretly disclosed years of illegal NSA searches spying on Americans

Globalism: Persuading the Individual to Stop Being an Individual

If society understood the reality of collectivism instead of the promise of collectivism then their support for collectivism would vanish.

The elite globalist leaders selling collectivism know this to be true and so they have had to rebrand collectivism as Globalism. Songs are written about globalism – John Lennon’s classic song “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. The successful marketing of collectivism requires the names to change from already rejected Communism and faltering Socialism (think Venezuela) to the promise of a New World Order renamed GLOBALISM that disingenuously pledges social justice and income equality.

Globalism is the new word for the old lie about collectivism – that surrendering individual rights and national sovereignty will deliver social justice and income equality.  

Philosopher Ayn Rand understood the sinister nature of collectivism and and wrote extensively about socialism/communism and how it persuades the individual to stop being an individual:

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” 

The Islamization of Europe and the West demonstrates how mass social indoctrination toward collectivism leads to cultural suicide and the death of the individual.

Ayn Rand writes:

“When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

Europe’s surrender of its national sovereignty began after WWII with the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the European Economic Committee (EEC) which eventually became the European Union(EU) of today. Internationalizing Europe’s sovereign nation states into the EU left the United States as the single greatest obstacle to one-world government.

Macron’s victory in France is a victory for collectivism at the expense of French sovereignty and French individualism represented by Marine Le Pen. It is a surrender to postmodern moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to destroy democracy and its incomparable individual rights and freedoms. The question is WHO benefits from Macron’s victory?? The globalist elite of course. Socialism (total government control) is the death of democracy and is the prerequisite for internationalizing nation states and the imposition of one-world government Globalism. The greatest single obstacle to one-world government is the nation state. National sovereignty is to a country what individual sovereignty is to a human being.

The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political capitalist infrastructure of America and transform it into a dependent European-style socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy American democracy by dismantling the supporting American institutions of family, religion, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – the same qualities that made America great.

Ayn Rand warns us:

“Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.” 

American education, our elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and universities, are a specific target and field of practice. The anarchists, socialists, and hippies of the 60s have become the teachers and professors now indoctrinating their students toward collectivism. The problem, of course, is that these narcissistic intellectuals have never lived under collectivist tyranny – they are armchair pundits living in subjective reality. Anyone interested in the objective reality of collectivism should be listening to those who have escaped from its tyrannical rule.

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 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 as the socialized state becomes part of the internationalized one-world government. The doors of the car lock and there is no escape – only exploitation and enslavement.

One-world government is the big lie of the 21st century. It promises redistribution of wealth and social justice. What it delivers is unapologetically described in chilling detail by globalist elite English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

The left-wing liberal lemmings are the useful idiots who are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction. They have been 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 no individual freedoms. There is only the ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them.

The left-wing liberal lemmings in Europe and in America 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 one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves.

The globalist elite’s New World Order was their 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 with the 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 any more than Hitler with exterminating Jews, Islamists with exterminating 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 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 whether in Europe or in America, the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.

Socialism will never provide social justice – it will only provide the pathway to one-world government where no individual rights or self-determination exist. Socialism strips the individual of his selfness and transforms that individual into property of the state. The individual who willingly forfeits his selfness for socialism has been successfully persuaded to stop being an individual. Socialism is not a free ride it is slavery.

Major policy shift: Trump administration declares Jerusalem part of Israel

Major, and most welcome. Jerusalem belongs to Israel by the record of history, international law, and the right of conquest that is recognized for every other state in the world, but not for Israel. This is an extremely encouraging development; we can only hope there will be more to come.

“Trump Admin Declares Jerusalem Part of Israel in Major Policy Shift,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, May 22, 2017:

The Trump administration declared the president is in “Jerusalem, Israel,” on Monday for a series of meetings with Israeli officials, a proclamation that breaks with years of American policy refraining from stating that the city of Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Senior Trump administration officials had ignited a wave of controversy over the past several weeks when discussing Jerusalem, with some top officials refusing to say that the ancient city is part of Israel.

Decades of U.S. policy has refrained from formally labeling Jerusalem as part of Israel due to concerns this could negatively impact the Middle East peace process, in which Palestinian leaders have staked a claim to the city as their future capital.

Ahead of a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House, on its official website, provided a live stream of the event. Prior to its start, the White House included a frame stating, “President Trump gives remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” The location provided was “Jerusalem, Israel.”

The statement appears to be part of an effort to normalize this language, which is widely backed by U.S. lawmakers and senior officials in the administration, sources said.

The State Department, which is disposed to address the issue with more caution, declined to comment on the latest declaration, instead referring a reporter to the White House. The White House did not provide comment on the matter by press time. Pro-Israel observers on Twitter and other social media immediately praised the declaration.

The Obama administration also faced its own controversies when dealing with the city. The former administration was caught altering official photographs to remove “Israel” as the location for several meetings. The effort roiled the pro-Israel community, but was in line with standing U.S. policy.

The Trump administration has faced its own struggles on the issue.

Candidate Trump vowed in multiple speeches on the campaign trail that he would move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the country’s capital.

While U.S. law states that the embassy should be moved, consecutive presidents have waived the requirement, claiming that it interferes with efforts to advance Middle East peace.

Trump’s administration has taken heat from the pro-Israel community for failing thus far to take concrete action on moving the embassy. While White House officials maintain that the plan is still being examined, the slow roll of the move has angered Trump’s biggest pro-Israel supporters.

Trump administration officials also have issued a range of answers when pressed to explain whether they believe Jerusalem is part of Israel.

White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster last week would not tell reporters whether Israel’s holiest site, the Western Wall, is located in Israel proper.

The latest declaration on the issue by the Trump administration appears to show that the president is committed to affirming Israel’s sovereignty over the city and turning the page from years of chilly relations between the Israeli government and the United States under former President Barack Obama.

In joint remarks with Netanyahu, Trump emphasized his opposition to the landmark Iran nuclear deal, blaming the previous administration for inking a deal that has only emboldened the Islamic Republic….


Abbas and Palestinian Authority Honor Terrorists Amid Trump Visit by IPT News

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US

The Unapologetic American — Donald Trump brings a new message to the Middle East

UK: Several killed, many injured after two explosions in arena at Ariana Grande gig

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Trump Moves U.S. Towards a Realistic Approach to Jihad Threat

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

Trump and Israel: Enemies of the System

If you want to better understand how deep and virulent the swamp in Washington, D.C. is especially in the U.S. intelligence-Security system read this article by the renowned journalist Caroline Glick.

President Trump is determined to drain the swamp and the swamp is equally determined to drown Trumps Presidency no matter how much harm they do to the US along the way. Obama left behind a virulent bureaucratic virus in the intelligence-security system.

Trump and Israel: Enemies of the System

May 22, 2017 by Caroline Glick

The United States is sailing in uncharted waters today as the intelligence-security community wages an all-but-declared rebellion against President Donald Trump.

Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein’s decision on Wednesday to appoint former FBI director Robert Mueller to serve as a special counsel charged with investigating allegations of “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” is the latest and so far most significant development in this grave saga.

Who are the people seeking to unseat Trump? This week we learned that the powers at play are deeply familiar. Trump’s nameless opponents are some of Israel’s greatest antagonists in the US security establishment.

This reality was exposed this week with intelligence leaks related to Trump’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. To understand what happened, let’s start with the facts that are undisputed about that meeting.

The main thing that is not in dispute is that during his meeting with Lavrov, Trump discussed Islamic State’s plan to blow up passenger flights with bombs hidden in laptop computers

It’s hard to find fault with Trump’s actions. First of all, the ISIS plot has been public knowledge for several weeks.

Second, the Russians are enemies of ISIS. Moreover, Russia has a specific interest in diminishing ISIS’s capacity to harm civilian air traffic. In October 2015, ISIS terrorists in Egypt downed a Moscow-bound jetliner, killing all 254 people on board with a bomb smuggled on board in a soda can.

And now on to the issues that are in dispute.

Hours after the Trump-Lavrov meeting, The Washington Post reported that in sharing information about ISIS’s plans, Trump exposed intelligence sources and methods to Russia and in so doing, he imperiled ongoing intelligence operations carried out by a foreign government.

The next day, The New York Times reported that the sources and methods involved were Israeli. In sharing information about the ISIS plot with Lavrov, the media reported, Trump endangered Israel

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: Saudis Rejoice Over ‘Death’ of Obama’s Policies – Israel Today | Israel News

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

Manchester terrorist attack survivor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last night in Manchester England we saw an example.

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

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

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

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

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

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


CBS: 800 Churches Nationwide Harbor Illegal Immigrants

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

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

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

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

Prince Charles and Islams “Sacred Spirituality” by Hugh Fitzgerald

VIDEO: Muslim Protesters in London Call for Caliphate

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

The Davis-Oliver Act sets out to enforce U.S. immigration laws

Immigration impacts virtually every challenge and threat America and Americans confront each day.

Failures of the immigration system have cost thousands of Americans and others present in the United States their lives.

The 9/11 Commission, to which I provided testimony, identified those failure of the interior enforcement program, as being at heart of the ability of terrorists, and not only the 19 hijackers who carried out the terror attacks of 9/11 but other terrorists, as well, to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

Members of pernicious transnational gangs from around the world, and not just Latin America, have easily entered the United States and set up shop in towns and cities across the United States peddling narcotics and perpetrating violent crimes.

Failures of the immigration system have not only surpassed the wages of American and lawful immigrants but have also cost millions of American workers their very jobs.

Nevertheless, for decades politicians from both sides of the political aisle have intentionally refused to effectively address these failures of the immigration system.

Donald Trump astutely understood the true impact of these multiple failures of the immigration system and the anger and frustration of millions of Americans because of them

Consequently he successfully made these failures the centerpiece of his campaign that catapulted him to the Presidency.  Unlike most politicians who make promises with no intention of keeping those promises, only to get elected, President Trump did not play that game.  He came to office determined to keep those vital campaign promises.

However, while President Trump has issued a series of Executive Orders to deal with some of these failures of the immigration system, several of which have, outrageously blocked by court decisions in what are, in my judgment, examples of massive over-reach by those judges, some of the issues can only be dealt with by appropriate legislation.

On May 16, 2017 Congressman Raul R. Labrador, a Republican Representative from Idaho, was joined by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte in introducing such a bill:

H.R.2431 – Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act

Rep. Labrador’s bill, named to honor two California law enforcement officers who were killed by an illegal alien, has the support of House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia.

Rep. Goodlatte issued a press release in which he made his support for this bill clear.

This legislation addresses multiple components of the enforcement of our immigration laws including the visa process and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

A summary of the elements of this legislation makes it clear that this proposed legislation seeks to effectively address a number of vulnerabilities within the immigration law enforcement mission of the DHS.

H.R. 2431 addresses Sanctuary Cities, would prevent future administrations from impeding the enforcement of our immigration laws as we witnessed during the Obama administration, would provide for the hiring of thousands of additional law enforcement personnel for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would tighten security for the visa issuance process.

While there are additional issues that would have to be addressed, this legislation is the best I have seen in quite some time, addressing some of the multiple failures of the interior enforcement mission and finally “connects the dots” between failures of interior enforcement and national security.

Most significantly it provides resources and solutions.

On a personal note, it is particularly gratifying for me because I have addressed these failures of interior enforcement at many of the Congressional hearings at which I have testified.  In fact, several weeks after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I accepted then Congressman Tom Tancredo’s invitation to provide testimony to the House Immigration Reform Caucus which he chaired at the time, even though the executives of the former INS refused to authorize my appearance at that hearing.

On December 10, 2001 Tom Tancredo entered my prepared testimony into the Congressional Record.  In it I spoke extensively about the need for effective enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.  I postulated the need for what I referred to as the “Immigration Enforcement Tripod” in which the Border Patrol enforces our immigration laws from between ports of entry, the Immigration (today CBP) Inspectors enforce the immigration laws at ports of entry and the Special Agents enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

On March 20, 2013 I testified at a hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the invitation of Senator Grassley on the topic: Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values.

While I was asked few, if any questions at the hearing, subsequent to the hearing Senator Grassley sent me a list of questions to which I provided extensive answers.  My responses to this questions are published on pages 23 through 49 of the published transcript of the hearing to which I provided you the link above.

I hope you will take the time to read my responses because Senator Grassley’s questions afforded me the opportunity to discuss the multiple failures of the immigration system in great detail.

Here is the  Link to Members’ statements and prepared testimony of witnesses  which also include the video of the hearing.

My 30 year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), including my 26 years as an INS Special Agent, provided me with an insider’s view about the true importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

One of the biggest challenges I found as an INS agent was that most of our immigration policies had been, for decades, driven by the U.S. Border Patrol.  In fact, when I hired on with the INS in 1971 I was sent to the Border Patrol Academy even though I was being trained as an Immigration Inspector where I spent the first four years of my career.

Back then all enforcement personnel of the INS went through training at the Border Patrol Academy located in Los Fresnos, Texas, just outside Brownsville, Texas.

For the most part, scant attention was paid to aliens who entered the United States through ports of entry but went on to violate the terms of their admission.

On May 11, 2006 I testified before a hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on International Relations on the topic, Visa Overstays: Can We Bar The Terrorist Door?

Scant attention was paid to aliens who committed fraud when they applied for visas to enter the United States or applied for immigration benefits such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship.

The nexus terrorism and immigration (including visa) fraud was recognized years before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

In fact, on May 20, 1997, more than four years prior to the attacks of 9/11 I participated in my first Congressional hearing.  It was on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in the United States by aliens from the Middle East in 1993. Those attacks involved a deadly shooting at the CIA in Virginia and the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

Clearly members of Congress and other leaders in Washington understood the clear nexus between immigration failures and terrorism but refused to take meaningful actions to address these vulnerabilities to national security.

The “Gang of Eight” or, as I refer to them, the “Eight Gangsters” cobbled together Comprehensive Reform legislation that would have provided unknown millions- likely tens of millions of illegal aliens lawful status.

The news media failed to report that there would be no capacity to interview those millions of aliens who violated our borders and our immigration laws, let alone conduct field investigations into the information that they would have provided in their applications.  This would have created an open invitation for fraud and would have done irrevocable damage to U.S. national security and public safety.  It would have devastated employment opportunities of huge numbers of American workers, crippled the U.S. economy by drastically increasing remittances wired out of the United States by these newly legalized aliens.

Finally, all of those millions of heretofore illegal aliens wold be granted the authority to petition to have all of their minor children to be immediately legally admitted into the United States.  This would overwhelm already beleaguered school districts across the U.S.

I recently wrote an article, “Any ‘Immigration Reform’ Must Put Americans First –  Political compromise must not jeopardize national security,  public safety, or the well-being of Americans.”

Congressman Labrador’s immigration legislation coincides with some of the issues I raised in my article- specifically the nexus between immigration and national security and public safety.

While it does not address all issues, it serves as a good starting point and must have the support of every American, irrespective of political affiliation.

Democracy is not a spectator sport- we the people must contact our representatives and demand that they support H.R. 2431.

RELATED ARTICLE: CBS: 800 Churches Nationwide Harbor Illegal Immigrants

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Is Canadian PM Justin Trudeau a Western World Dictator?!

According to a new report published by the World Jewish Congress (WJC), 2% of global online anti-Semitism originates in Canada where over 382,000 anti-Semitic posts were posted on social media in 2016, reaching over 29 million internet users in over 50 countries.

In April 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that ISIS supporters have the right to defend their freedom, and was reported to have referred to Evangelical Christians as the “worst part of Canadian society.” These remarks came despite some Canada’s imams regularly calling for the annihilation of Jews.

The prime minister did comment about these attacks on Jews, but Mr. Trudeau only made a statement on Facebook and not on his official Prime Minister website. The statement seems to be missing from mainstream news outlets and published only on a couple of Jewish media sites. Where is the outrage Mr Trudeau normally has for anything remotely shown for acts of hate against Islam? Mr. Trudeau has failed to mention anything about the attacks on Jews stemming from some Canadian Imams.

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, following is the statement Mr. Trudeau made on his Facebook page:

“This week, Jewish communities across the country have again been targeted by hateful threats and acts designed to make us all afraid. I want to say again–we will stand by you every day in the face of intolerance, prejudice and outright criminal acts. We understand the fear and anxiety each one of these threats creates in the Jewish community, especially when the locations targeted are places where Jewish families and children gather. The cowards who target Jewish schools, community centers and synagogues won’t shake our resolve, and we’ll work with law enforcement to bring them to justice.”

“In Canada, we stand together because we know that diversity is our strength. It built this country. Jews in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and across the country should know they have the full support of the Government of Canada as we guard against a resurgence of anti-Semitism. We’re with you, and will do everything we can to keep you safe.”

It was only because of alternative reporting from CIJ News that the imams listed were exposed, put under police investigation, and one Imam fired from teaching at a university. Mr. Trudeau has never criticized those Imams who call for the annihilation of Jews while repeatedly saying, “Canadians have understood that our differences are a source of strength, not a source of weakness.”

In March, Trudeau slammed a video posted to YouTube that offered a $1,000 reward for recordings of Muslim students at schools in a district of Ontario that were “spewing hate speech” during Friday prayer. With this action he appears more interested in guarding specific faith group even if some of its members promote hatred towards Jews, and infidels which is an ironic contradiction to Mr. Trudeau’s Facebook comment concerning anti-Semitism. Is he creating confusion, and public denial that some of our differences could be our greatest weakness?

Meanwhile, Canada is also encountering many issues with our current Liberal Government. For instance, a parliamentary committee is working on motion M-103, Anti “Islamophobia” Motion which has recently passed by Canada’s House of Commons to condemn all forms of Islamophobia and any links of radical Islam to terrorism. The committee is studying this phenomenon now and it may be made into a bill in the future, which will result in shutting down free speech and suppressing public concern and discussion about unsafe Islamic beliefs. These are the OIC compliant blasphemy laws embedded in M-103.

Considering the threats Jewish and other Canadian citizens are now facing due to the increase in refugee and immigration under Trudeau, a bill that looks like M-103 only further injures the already existing wounds those citizens and their communities have incurred. Yet, Trudeau Liberals continue to pursue this course at full speed ahead.

Even more disturbing is a technical loophole in the Canada Elections Act. The law allows foreign entities to make contributions to Canadian candidates. This means that players such as Iran or Saudi Arabia will be able to further their agendas through a particular politician, as long as they pump him with funds for six months and a day prior to his official bid for office. With the entrance into the country of thousands of illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers with criminal records– thanks to the increasingly dictatorial policies of Mr. Trudeau and his Liberal Party strongmen–this legal loophole leaves Canada wide open to extreme political change, and not for the better.

In another foreboding sign, Canadian journalist Josh Sigurdson was recently all over the media for calling Justin Trudeau a scumbag. However, the mainstream media was wrongly critical of him.

According to Sigurdson, the reason he called the Canadian Prime Minister a scumbag is because Josh had to wait for several hours to ask a question about the carbon tax and for the children to leave the room. Yet, no one called on him, for he came from the alternative, rather than, mainstream media.

Given that and other actions by the PM, Josh considered his own actions justified: “The state-run media got to ask him pre-screened questions, at that. How is it that a journalist must ask “pre-selected” questions of a politician? Restricting opposition, restricting free speech, pretending to support women while sending money to dictatorships that stone women to death for driving cars, and kill gays… this is the definition of a scumbag.”

Although many might not have used that exact word to describe Trudeau, one might sympathize with the sentiment behind it. As a Canadian citizen who was born in Iran and watched my country come under Islamist Sharia run State of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it is not hard to spot a tyrant. It is not hard for Trudeau, either, apparently. Three years ago, as head of the opposition, Mr Trudeau told a group of women in Toronto: “There is a level of admiration that I actually have for China, because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime and to say we have to go the greenest the fastest. We need to start investing in solar. There is a flexibility that Stephen Harper must dream about—having a dictatorship where he could do everything he wanted.”

When Mr. Trudeau issued a statement about the death of Fidel Castro, he called the former Cuban dictator “remarkable” and a “larger than life leader who served his people.”

Recently, there have been attempts to shut down the Canadian House of Commons on Fridays in order to limit the appearance of the Prime Minister at the Parliament to only one day per week and to limit the debates held in the Parliament before the passages of bills. Interim leader Rona Ambrose charged that apparently he has been trying to limit the ability of the opposition to debate him in Parliament prior to the passage of proposed bills.This is shameful and totally unacceptable! It will not be tolerated by anyone who is truly dedicated to the Canadian democracy, to the importance of debate in the Parliament, and to holding the Prime Minister accountable for his actions.

In my opinion, this  kind of behavior makes Mr. Trudeau into a new version of Fidel Castro.  One has to consider with all seriousness, in light of these facts, the philosophy behind him. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

As George Orwell  wrote: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.”

RELATED ARTICLE: New report alleges outside influence in Canada’s 2015 federal election

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

DHS whistleblower Philhip Haney awarded AFA ‘Heroes of Courage Award’

Phil Haney at AFA Heroes of Conscience 5-21-17.png

Phil Haney, DHS whistleblower at AFA Awards Dinner, Universal City, California, May 21, 2017

“Amigo,” Phil Haney, DHS Whistleblower extraordinaire was honored by the American Freedom Alliance, Heroes of Conscience Award last night in Universal City, California. Chaver, Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker. David Horowitz,  former  leftist,  long time conservative activist and publisher of FrontPage Magazine also received a Heroes of Conscience Award.

Haney called me last Friday, while on the road to California with stops in Dallas and Phoenix, the latter to lunch with my former colleague Lisa Benson and entourage.

We were trying to make arrangements to send both Haney and Wilders copies of an important and timely new book  published this week by the New English Review Press written by former Muslim and Islamic scholar, Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism- the importance of Beliefs, Ideas and Ideology. In view of President Trump’s  Riyadh speech we also are sending one to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the  President.

Through the auspices of a mutual  long term Connecticut friend, Jeffrey Epstein, a noted counter-Jihad warrior, we were introduced to Haney.  We reviewed his book, See Something; Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, for the New English Review and interviewed him on the former Lisa Benson Show.

The News Blaster wrote about the stellar occasion in an article published today, “DHS whistleblower honored with freedom award:”

As a Department of Homeland Security specialist on Islam and terrorism, Philip Haney understood his job was to follow the evidence where it led.

When it led to subversive organizations under the protection of a beholden, politically correct Obama administration, he didn’t back down, valuing the security of the United States above his career and personal well-being. His agency’s response was to punish him nine times, eliminate intelligence and shut down cases, including one that might have prevented the San Bernardino attack.

In sharp contrast, the American Freedom Alliance awarded Haney its American Freedom Award at its annual Heroes of Conscience Dinner here Sunday night.

Longtime conservative activist David Horowitz was awarded AFA’s Hero of Conscience Award, followed by a keynote speech by Dutch politician and Islam critic Geert Wilders, whose party finished second in the country’s most recent elections.

Before presenting the award to Haney, AFA Vice President Michael Greer said: “We’d all like to think that we’d do the right thing, but when faced with dire consequences for doing so, I wonder how many would have the courage. And it’s my honor to share a stage with such a man.”

Note what Haney said upon receiving his AFA Hero of Conscience Award:

None of the cases that I discuss in the book have been resolved to this very day,” he said to the more than 270 AFA supporters in attendance.

“But it is my intention to remedy that. Those of you who believe in prayer, do pray for us, for me and my wife, because we do intend to see this through to the end.”

Haney said it’s important to remember not only what America is fighting against, but what it’s fighting for: the U.S. Constitution.

“I would like to call for a constitutional revival, so that we really know the values that we live by, those freedoms and liberties that our Creator endowed us with,” he said.

Geert Wilders at AFA Heores of Conscience Awards dinner 5-22-17.png

Geert Wilders keynote speaker  at AFA Heroes of Conscience Awards Dinner, May 21, 2017

Wilders noted this about Haney:

“The political correctness of the left in our countries is costing lives,” he said. “If anybody deserves to get this award it it Mr. Haney.”

Wilders made the following points in his address at the AFA awards ceremony pointing out the extraordinary security:

He said the extra security is “unfortunately necessary.”

“They are our last line of defense against the consequences of Islam,” Wilders said.

“Yes, it is Islam that is causing this extraordinary situation where ordinary citizens like you and me need police protection to safely enjoy a fundamental right, which the American Founding Fathers have bestowed on us in the First Amendment. The right to free speech.”

The U.S. Constitution, he said, establishes “the right to discuss every issue in freedom, including Islam.”

Wilders cited a Ronald Reagan quote: “I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.”

The Dutch politician said that “28 years after [Reagan] left office, here in this room, his question looms larger than ever.”

“And the reason is the stronghold which Islam has gained, not only in Europe, but also here in America during the past three decades,” Wilders continued.

“Yes, my friends, listen carefully. I’m talking about Islam. Not about ‘radical Islam. Not about ‘Islamism.’”

He said it “might be uncomfortable to the left, or the politically correct elite, but it is Islam, pure and simple.”

“For the truth is that Islam is not a peace-loving religion. It’s an evil, totalitarian ideology,” Wilders declared.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

TAKE ACTION: Ask President Trump and AG Sessions to protect religious liberty [Video]

NOM has just released an important new video calling on all marriage supporters to sign our new petition to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to issue comprehensive rules to protect the religious liberty of people who support marriage, life and the truth of gender and ensure we are not targeted by the federal government because of our views. Please watch the video.

This powerful new video is part of our ongoing commitment to pressure the Trump administration to once and for all fulfill President Trump’s repeated promises to people of faith that his administration would “do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty.”

There are a number of things that we have applauded President Trump on since his election, especially the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court and the rescission of President Obama’s illegal transgender bathroom mandate in the public schools. But we are obligated to call President Trump out when he has not done what he has promised to do – and protecting the religious liberty of people of faith to continue to live out their beliefs about marriage, gender, life and human sexuality is at the top of the “unfulfilled promises” list.

There is still time for President Trump to get this right. That’s why we encourage you to watch our new video, share it with your friends and family, and then make sure that you and everyone you can reach has signed the petition to Attorney General Sessions.

NOM is a top group in the country continuing to pressure the Trump administration to fulfill the president’s promises to provide comprehensive religious liberty protections. We need to raise additional funds to expand the launch of this video and invite more people to sign the petition.

Please make a generous financial contribution to NOM today, which will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor. If you can contribute $25, NOM will receive $50. Whatever amount you can manage — $25, $50, $100, $250 or even $500 or more – will immediately be matched and NOM will receive twice the amount that you contributed.

Thank you for all your support, and for helping us continue to fight for religious liberty for everyone who believes in the truth of marriage.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President, National Organization for Marriage

Sebastian Gorka on the President’s tough anti-Jihad comments in Riyadh

Following President Trump very presidential speech at the gathering of the Saudi –led “virtual caliphate,” the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, convened by Saudi King Salman, I reached out to President Trump’s Deputy Assistant, Dr. Sebastian Gorka.

I referenced the tough talk directed at stopping Jihadists in the middle section of the President’s speech that caught the attention of a number of us. It looked very familiar.

Here’s the text exchange between us:

Jerry Gordon: Great speech by the President. Perhaps you had a hand in drafting portions of it. If so great work.

Sebastian Gorka:

After 8 years of disastrous terror-enabling Obama politics we can finally talk TRUTH again and have a true leader.

The pivotal remarks from President Donald J. Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia:

“This is battle between Good and Evil.”

“There is still much work to be done, including honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism.’’

“You must drive the terrorists and the extremists out of your places of worship, out of your communities.”

“Those strategies have not worked.”

“We are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology into OBLIVION.”

Gordon: “Looks like the strategy message from your book Defeating Jihad: the Winnable War.

Gorka: Thumbs up sign!