ACA-Health-Care-Reform

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

The healthcare debate in D.C. is following predictable form: Miles off track with the media hyperfocused on the politics, rather than the substance. The coverage focuses heavily on the daily ins and outs of the political struggle, the D.C. winners and losers.

Will Republicans be able to placate the Freedom Caucus and still keep moderates? Will they put together something that can get through the House and have any life in the Senate? Is Ryan back-peddling? Is Trump? Will McConnell detonate the nuclear option? Is it Trumpcare or Ryancare?

The thing is, most Americans outside of political junkies don’t really care about that.

They do care about whether they will be able to afford health insurance. They do care about whether our country will drowned itself in unsustainable debt. They do care about their children’s future. But those are rarely the story. Because the truth is that in Washington, D.C., Americans are basically pawns to be played in the furtherance of personal agendas.

On the rare occasions when the substance of the proposal is actually explored, it is mostly along the lines of how many people are covered, will be covered, won’t be covered, how much it will cost, how the changes will play out politically for each party, etc. Those are fine in their place, and should be regularly reported on. They are not.

What Washington and the media never, ever talk about is the principle of American freedoms, which is at the heart of this. Virtually no one wants to talk about it.

So, status quo in the swamp. And for Americans.

The Old Liberties for Security Trade

But here is the whittled down nub of the issue: How much personal freedom are we willing to give away to get a little healthcare security? Because the reality of the human condition always and forever is that some people will be irresponsible with their life decisions — from relationships to finances to health.

So there will always be a percentage of Americans who do not want to purchase, or simply will not purchase, health insurance. Here’s the thing: They should be free to not and that point of freedom should be argued strenuously.

Because the only way to stop that dynamic is to give government total authority to force every single person to have health insurance. That was what Obamacare attempted to do, require every American to either buy a product — health insurance — or be fined increasing amounts by the government to financially force them to to buy it.

In an enormously tragic precedence, the Supreme Court made a political calculation and approved the forcible purchase requirements under Obamacare by calling it what it was not, what is authors including President Obama argued it was not, so as the court could rule it “constitutional.” Truly, a constitutional travesty.

Among the many things wrong with Obamacare, this was perhaps the most egregious because it went to undermining fundamental freedoms. It wasn’t just bad policy, or inefficient, or expensive — which are all true. It was a denial of basic liberty, the concept upon which our nation was founded and thrived to be what she is today.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin was looking at the real physical and economic threat of a distant tyrant.

And so are we, though not so distant.

The Real Cost

Obamacare undoubtedly reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans, or more accurately, uncovered Americans. This was accomplished by expanding Medicaid — direct welfare — subsidizing plans in the state exchanges — indirect welfare — and forcing every American to participate — coercion. Even then, the total number of Americans not covered in some fashion, only declined a few percentage points.

Trillions of dollars, catastrophic rises in premiums and deductibles, loss of health care insurance options — often down to one in an entire state — all to pick up a few percentage points. About 9 percent of Americans remain without health insurance.

If Republicans did nothing more than simply repeal the Obamacare mandate, at least 10 million people would no longer have coverage, according to the Office of Management and Budget estimate of the repeal measure. The media reports this as Americans who will “lose” their coverage, but this particular 10 million will actually choose not to have coverage.

Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. What is not debatable is what it represents: Freedom.

Because unless the government forces people by law to have health insurance, some will not. Freedom calls us to allow them to not and accept the consequences. Otherwise, with this precedent in place, the government could also make the case for regulating what we eat (because eating healthy is good for us) and forcing us to exercise (because exercising is good for us.) It could also require us to buy, say, solar panels and electric cars, because it deems those to be a good thing like health care insurance is a good thing.

You see the problem here. There is really no end to it, which is why it was a line that should never have been crossed.

So yes, Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and would continue to until its complete failure. But it’s real cost is the loss of American liberty. And precious few seem to care.

Alas, Republicans fighting on Democrat ground

Republicans however, will not fight this on the grounds of freedom, the high ground and the right ground. They allow Democrats and the media to define the terms and put Republicans on the defensive on bad ground.

Republicans are doing what they always do, and part of it is the swampy D.C. mentality. Republicans end up abandoning conservative principles and going with Democrat-lite. They are willing to expand government, just less so. They are willing to raise taxes, just not as high. They are willing to trade rights for securities, just not as fast. But inexorably this moves in the same direction: More government control, more “free” giveaways, fewer American freedoms.

The health care coverage debate is a perfect example.

Democrats built it on the Democrat ground of heavy-handed government control and giveaways, and dared Republicans to come after it. To boil it down, in Obamacare, Democrats gave more Americans more free stuff that was not their’s and that we cannot afford — at the cost of lost freedoms — and Republicans now want to take some of that free stuff and restore those freedoms.

Meanies.

This of course is rough politics for Republicans, as so many Americans have lost the sense of liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Too many are willing to trade a lot of liberties for a little security. But part of the reason for that is that no one is making the case for this and other issues on the grounds of freedom.

But in reality, Republicans aren’t even making the freedom case — or do so rarely. They want to make sure enough Americans get enough free stuff so they can be re-elected.

Taking away an entitlement once in place is just never done, and Democrats knew that in 2010. A big part of Obamacare is the entitlement portion. But that is only a problem if Republicans fight this on the grounds of coverage and giveaways, and not on the grounds of essential liberties.

Republicans hold every nationally elected office of power and there is one window for fixing the Obamacare debacle. If it does not happen now, Obamacare will be a permanent fixture of our health care system until it totally fails, and sucks the healthcare system into its death swirl.

The final step will be nationalized healthcare.

And the result will be an even greater loss of freedoms, and precious little in the way of securities. The worst of trade-offs.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP leaders unveil changes to healthcare bill

Nearly 200 State Lawmakers Are Pushing for Changes to GOP Obamacare Repeal Plan

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

M-103

Canadian poll: Only 14% like anti-Islamophobia motion M-103

Very good news is coming out of Canada, despite the forcefulness of the “anti-Islamophobia agenda” and the slackness of Liberal immigration policy, which has led to unvetted asylum seekers streaming into Canada from the U.S.

A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Another poll has shown that 74 percent of Canadians want to see a “Canadian values” screening test for immigrants.

Any truly reformist Muslim should reject “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives, which are an element of the stealth Islamization of the West. Canada’s anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 is a follow-up to another motion, e-411, which was passed in parliament in October. E-411 “suggests that attributing terrorism to Islam is Islamophobia.” It stated:

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

No one should be making declarations in the Canadian parliament about who represents Islam. Motion e-411 omits discussion of Muslim Brotherhood strategies for the Islamization of the West via peaceful means. For instance, Dr. Ewis El Nagar’s preaching that the Islamic ruling on slave girls was not abrogated would not appear to place him into the category of “extremist individuals” as defined by e-411, yet preaching such Sharia doctrines clearly is calling for violation of Western laws.

Liberal MP Raj Grewal revealed an ominous intention of the “anti-Islamophobia” motion during the M-103 parliamentary debate of February 15, 2017:

“One of the most important things about the motion that Canadians should understand is that it encourages a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws.”

“Propose laws.” Part of the argument in support of M-103 was that it was not in the form of a bill, but Grewal has now clearly stated that it is intended to guide attitudes and help in formulating policies that lead to legislation.

Western nations should not be allowing the imposition of religious edicts upon its citizens. The “Islamophobia” scheme of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to silence the freedom of speech in the West and impose Sharia blasphemy laws is no secret.

“Nobody likes M-103, new data reveals”, by Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, March 13, 2017:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is crying “Islamophobia” after his government ministers weren’t allowed to campaign in the Netherlands over the weekend in support of his bid to expand his presidential powers.

It’s just another reminder of why this vaguely defined buzzword should never be officially recognized by Western governments.

Thankfully, the vast majority of Canadians also see it this way. A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Most respondents want to see some sort of change to the wording that brings it in line with suggestions made by Conservative MPs to either mention all religions or none. When broken down by political support, even 71% of Liberals are against the motion’s wording.

Nobody seems to like M-103. And you can’t blame them.

The main argument I’ve made against it is that the term is ripe for abuse. In many countries, “Islamophobia” is criminalized, used to punish apostates or critics of Islam.

Every year, Canada welcomes tens of thousands of people from these countries. While many are coming to escape such nonsense, others will be acclimatized to a broadly-defined “Islamophobia” and support its aggressive application here.

Erdogan’s use of the term is nowhere near as robust as how some Middle Eastern countries employ it.

But it’s still troubling given the context. Turkey has become increasingly Islamist in recent years. Since Erdogan first became prime minister over a decade ago, the federal religious affairs directorate has greatly expanded its budget and overseen the construction of 10,000 new mosques.

While the headscarf was once banned in the public service, it’s now encouraged and even worn by women for career advancement. The Economist notes the governing party has a “subtle but relentless Islamising influence”.

Last summer’s coup, if it had been successful, would have likely put an end to this religious encroachment. Previous coups, like the most recent in 1997, had similar goals.

Instead, Erdogan is now consolidating and expanding his powers. Government ministers are flying around Europe to cities with significant dual national populations, who are eligible to vote in next month’s constitutional referendum, to hold pro-Erdogan rallies. This understandably makes European politicians a tad bit nervous.

The Netherlands incident is far from the first time Erdogan has cried the “I” word. Last year he told CNN he supported “an official declaration that Islamophobia is a crime against humanity”. And right after Brexit he said it was Islamophobia that was keeping Turkey out of the EU.

A couple of weeks ago, German police conducted raids on the homes of four Muslim clerics who were accused of spying on behalf of the government. Religion was only a peripheral component in the police action, yet that didn’t stop the head of Turkey’s religious affairs directorate from denouncing it as “Islamophobia-based hatred.”

Make no mistake about it: There is a correlation between Erdogan’s stance against alleged Islamophobia and his power play to expand Turkey’s Islamist agenda. And it’s not a pleasant one.

Islamophobia is weaponized language and, whether this was Khalid’s intention or not, Canada’s legislators are being asking to give it a stamp of approval.

One of the biggest arguments the motion’s enablers push forward is that M-103 is no big deal because it’s just a motion. Yes and no. It does call for a committee study that creates a pathway to legislation……

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I shot the police’: Text message sent by ‘Radicalised Muslim’ who shot at cops before grabbing an officer’s gun at Paris Orly airport and being killed

Paris: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” slits throats of father and son, cops search for motive

Quebec imam says Islamic ruling allowing slave girls is still in force

“You are the future of Europe”: Erdogan urges Turks in EU to have at least 5 kids

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

moral case for fossil fuels

Free ‘Fossil Fuel Energy Stakeholder Strategy Tool’ I Encourage Everyone to Try

For the last several years we have worked on creating the most effective messaging strategies, content, and training to:

  1. Neutralize attackers
  2. Turn non-supporters into supporters
  3. Turn supporters into champions.

After working with dozens of companies and other organizations and studying many more, and testing/refining our approach in every medium imaginable with the general public, I am confident that we have developed a system that, if widely adopted in the industry, would transform it from a national thought follower to a national thought leader in the energy debate.

After spending just a few weeks meeting with top executives in Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that I have not done nearly enough to share our system and how well it works.

Thus, I have decided to do two things.

First I am explaining our system to a degree I have never done publicly.

Second, I am making a standalone version our system available, for free, to every organization—so that they can use it to create better communications strategies, persuasive messages, employee training, and executive advocacy.

Today, I want to share our methodology for communications strategy.

Fundamentals of Communications Strategy

At CIP, we are known for our pro-human, big-picture messaging, which we believe is unmatched in neutralizing attackers, turning non-supporters into supporters, and supporters into champions. But for that message or any message to be used effectively, it must be part of a broader strategy—a results-based communications strategy based on clear metrics and proven methods of persuasion.

Too often, organizations use hope-based communications strategies with little/no ROI-related measurement using traditional, ineffectual messages and methods of persuasion. For example, it is common practice to delegate the task of persuasive energy messaging to agencies who are not even themselves convinced of fossil fuels’ goodness. It is also common practice to default to television ads instead of looking at far more cost-effective options.

I have found that every strategy must carefully consider a set of questions I call “the 10 Ms.”

I ask these questions in our Stakeholder Strategy Sessions to elicit all the relevant goals and facts needed to make a results-based communications strategy.

Now I want to encourage teams throughout the industry to use these questions themselves on any project at any time with what I call the Stakeholder Strategizer tool.

You can download it here in Word format so that it’s easy to fill in.

If you’re not in energy communications you still might find it interesting. And if you know anyone in energy communications, please forward it to them.

If you fill one in and want my feedback, just email me.

To get the tool immediately, just click here.

children raised hands classroom

School ‘Accountability’ Gone Wild

Children should not be measured like products of “factory style” schools, where we sort out the “defective” student products and throw them away. They should be educated based on their individual, God given spark of genius, to be the best they can be. When you test a monkey, a fish, and an elephant on their ability to climb a tree, the elephant and the fish will be left behind, but they, too, have unique talents.

“Holding teachers accountable” is a popular phrase. I am not supporting unions, but the design of incentives based on student scores is the major flaw in this plan. You get what you reward. Teachers (and administrators) will only teach to the test and game the system any way they can. Curriculum is narrowed, and cheating is rampant.

Teachers no longer control of what they teach and how they teach it. Administrators are openly calling them “facilitators” and not teachers. They are unfairly measured on elements out of their control.

Learning is clearly in decline, so well-meaning legislators want a means of escape from failing public schools, strangled in bloated bureaucracy, by creating vouchers or charter schools.

But unless we remove Common Core and the federal monopoly, the focus on charter schools and vouchers is meaningless, as all education is the same, with the same tests, the same curriculum, and the same counterproductive incentive system. When federal and state dollars are used to bludgeon schools to conform or lose funding, there will be no real education.

The move toward home schooling shows that parents are awakening to the fact that the legislature has sold our children down the river for the age old motives, MONEY and POWER. Tallahassee and DC are the swamps of education lobbyists selling their new testing and conformity toys to ignorant and/or greedy legislators who don’t understand or don’t care why our children are learning less every year.

We must break that mold and end Common Core and high stakes testing. We can use nationally normed testing on sample groups or even infrequently to determine progress without wasting SO much money and time that we have no time to learn. Teachers used to give tests, correct the tests and give a grade at the end. They were trained and certified to do that. They were managed, promoted and fired by locals who could observe their skills.

Unions and bad education schools made this difficult and the legislature responded by taking away their control. To get at this problem, other countries are good examples. Finland, with the best education results, trains their teachers better and longer. They are paid more and are well respected. Children do not waste their time on standardized testing until they are 16. They don’t even start school until they are 7. There are 15 minute breaks between classes in high school so that students can stretch and be prepared for learning. There is more recess in lower grades. All this and their results are outstanding!

Then there is the “annoying” US Constitution which is violated daily by the very people who have taken an oath to protect and defend it at all levels, from school boards to the President of the United States. The Constitution is crystal clear about the duties of the federal government in Article 1 section 8. They are “clear and defined.” There is NO mention of any duty whatsoever in the area of education. Then the “capper” is the 10th Amendment, which simply states that anything NOT identified in Article 1, section 8 belongs to the States or to the People. Our founding fathers had good reason for designing our federal government to be the servant and not the master of the sovereign states.

People who solve their problems and define their own success are more likely to achieve great things. Our country grew great because individuals were free to determine their own destiny. We must unleash that human potential once again by freeing our children from the slavish conformity now demanded through illegal and unconstitutional federal control of education.

Our state legislators were supposed to guard us against an intrusive federal government. They need to stand against unlawful overreach. They need to nullify laws that violate our Constitution such as the ESSA, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Instead, they crumble under the fear of “loss of federal money.” Their knees buckle when the USDOE coerces them with dollars and then they end up with unintended consequences and unfunded federal mandates like Common Core.

News Flash! Federal money comes out of my left pocket and State money comes out of the right. The federal government is taking money from my right pocket to the left and then keeping their cut like a mob protection racket.

Where is our Eliot Ness? Who in our state legislature will stand up to the “mob” in Washington D.C.?

man machine

Le Science est mort, vive le Science!: Science is dead. Long live Science!

According to Wikipedia:

The original phrase was translated from the French Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!, which was first declared upon the coronation of Charles VII following the death of his father Charles VI in 1422.

[ … ]

The phrase arose from the law of le mort saisit le vif—that the transfer of sovereignty occurs instantaneously upon the moment of death of the previous monarch. “The King is dead” is the announcement of a monarch who has just died. “Long live the King!” refers to the heir who immediately succeeds to a throne upon the death of the preceding monarch.

Science under the previous monarch Barack Obama, is now officially dead. Science under President Trump has instantaneously succeeded the death of the old science.

So what does this mean for ordinary Americans?

In the film Jurassic Park, the character Ian Malcolm, a mathematician who specializes in a branch of mathematics known as “Chaos Theory,” states,

[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn’t stop to think whether they should.

According to the Fractal Foundation Chaos Theory is defined as follows:

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

Read more…

Policy Science Kills: The Case of Eugenics by Jeffrey A. Tucker notes this about nonlinear science:

The climate-change [weather] debate has many people wondering whether we should really turn over public policy — which deals with fundamental matters of human freedom — to a state-appointed scientific establishment. Must moral imperatives give way to the judgment of technical experts in the natural sciences? Should we trust their authority? Their power?

There is a real history here to consult. The integration of government policy and scientific establishments has reinforced bad science and yielded ghastly policies.

An entire generation of academics, politicians, and philanthropists used bad science to plot the extermination of undesirables [Eugenics].

Read more…

Crichton in his novel Jurassic Park wrote,

“God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.”

When man plays God, bad things happen. When scientists play God to further a political agenda, really bad things happen.

A column titled How States Got Away with Sterilizing 60,000 Americans by Trevor Burrus reports:

On the morning of October 19, 1927, the Commonwealth of Virginia sterilized Carrie Buck.

Dr. John Bell — whose name would forever be linked with Carrie’s in the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell — cut her open and removed a section from each of her Fallopian tubes. In his notes, Dr. Bell noted that “this was the first case operated on under the sterilization law.”

[ … ]

We know Carrie’s story because her case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. But to the Commonwealth of Virginia in the 1920s, Carrie was just another congenitally “feeble-minded” woman who, in the parlance of the times, had a tainted “germ plasm” that would create generations of “socially inadequate defectives” if she were allowed to procreate freely. Carrie is the most famous of the (at least) 60,000 Americans who were forcibly sterilized in order to “cleanse the race” of undesirable genes.

The United States forcibly sterilized people through the 1970s. Many victims are still living. Virginia has apologized for its sterilization program, and, like North Carolina before it, voted to compensate still-living victims.

Science created Eugenics, which is now called genetics.

Science must have a moral basis for what it does, a moral basis that tells it what it should not do.

Science is, “[T]he intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Science is not being God, rather science is about observing God in all of His glory. Le Science est mort, vive le Science!

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Reverend Trump? What the church can learn from the President

wilderspvv

Media spins Dutch election as loss for Geert Wilders, who is actually stronger than ever

“Geert Wilders and the Real Story of the Election: The patriotic revolution continues,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage, March 16, 2017:

The Dutch Labor Party used to dominate Maastricht. The ancient city gave its name to the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union. In this election, the Labor Party fell from a quarter of the vote to a twentieth.

Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, which advocates withdrawing from the EU, is now the largest party in the birthplace of the European Union.

And the growing strength of the Freedom Party can be felt not only on the banks of the Maas River, but across the waterways of the Netherlands. A new wind of change has blown off the North Sea and ruffled feathers in Belgisch Park.

In The Hague, where Carnegie’s Peace Palace hosts the World Court while the humbler Noordeinde Palace houses King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima, the internationalist institutions colliding with the nationalist ones, the United Nations rubbing up against the Dutch parliament and Supreme Court, the Freedom Party has become the second largest party despite the 15% Muslim population.

In Rotterdam, where Muslim rioters shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and anti-Semitic slurs and where Hamas front groups are organizing a conference, the Freedom Party is now the second largest political party. In that ancient city on the Rotte that had the first Muslim mayor of a major European city, Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb of the Labor Party who was being groomed for Prime Minister, estimates are that Labor fell from 32 percent to just 6 percent. That is strikingly similar to what took place in Maastricht.

But nearly half of Rotterdam is made up of immigrants. Muslims make up 13% of the population. But turnout hit 72% and after the Muslim riots, the Freedom Party only narrowly trails the ruling VVD.

The Freedom Party has become the largest party in Venlo while the Labor Party has all but vanished.

And that is the real story of the Dutch election.

The truly final results will only be known next week. But the current numbers show that the Freedom Party has become the second largest political party in Parliament having gained five seats while the Labor Party has disastrously lost 29 seats.

Labor hit a post-war low. The media is spinning this as Prime Minister Rutte’s defeat of Geert Wilders, but the Labor half of the Second Rutte Cabinet just went up in flames. VVD lost quite a few seats, but remains the largest party only because so much of the overall vote had dissipated. Rutte will now have to awkwardly build an unstable coalition out of four parties just to avoid dealing with Wilders.

It is quite possible though that Rutte will be trading the somewhat moderate Labor for GroenLinks which was formed out of, among others, the Communist Party of the Netherlands. When the media cheers that the “moderates” have defeated that terrible extremist, Geert Wilders, what they aren’t mentioning is that the alternative “moderate” coalitions may include the daughter party of the Communist Party.

The election was, in a sense, always rigged. The political system of the Netherlands fragments the vote and then puts it back together in government coalitions. The demonization of Wilders and the PVV was meant to ensure that even if his political party had won a majority, it would not have been allowed to form a government. And so Wilders won more by being in the second spot than by achieving the majority that some polls had predicted, while leaving the PVV unable to form a government.

Despite the attempts to kill it, smear it and destroy it, the Freedom Party continues to rise. And its enemies are being forced to respond to its ideas. The dangerous campaign by Turkey’s Islamist butcher, complete with threats and intimidation, helped Rutte salvage his government. But not his coalition.

The centrist politics that made Rutte’s government possible are imploding. The decline of Rutte’s VVD and Labor is an unmistakable rejection of the status quo. The gains in this election flowed to parties further out on the spectrum on the right and the left. The traditionally moderate Dutch are losing their patience. The polarization is eliminating the center and replacing it with some hard choices.

Geert Wilders and the PVV remain the embodiment of that choice.

Wilders had spoken of a “Patriotic Spring” sweeping the West. After the election, he said that the election results were a thing to be proud of. “The Patriotic Spring continues onward. And it has only begun.”

The media’s celebrations may also be badly misguided for another reason. In the wake of Brexit, the media largely forgot how it had mocked UKIP and Farage as failures. But a political party doesn’t always have to win elections to have an impact. Rigging the system against UKIP didn’t keep the UK in the EU. Instead it ultimately had the opposite effect. Keeping Wilders and the PVV down may backfire.

Geert Wilders has fundamentally changed the conversation about Islam and immigration. And the political parties of the Netherlands are increasingly reacting to him. Wilders took an election in a country whose political shifts are generally of little interest to those living outside it and made it a matter of international interest. His courage and common sense have made him into a world leader.

Wilders had the courage to defy the assassins and murderers, the politically correct scolds and the bleeding hearts, the pallid men and women who counsel moderation in all things and at all times, to tell the truth about Islam and Islamic migration. That is what he will go on doing even as he lives under threat. And his courage inspires opponents of the Jihad in the Netherlands and around the world.

This election was an erosion of faith in the establishment and a show of support for Wilders. To become Prime Minister Wilders, the PVV will either need a truly massive victory or a fundamental change in the political environment. Wilders understands this. He knows that the role of his party is to fight a failing establishment. Everything he does builds support and momentum for either of the two roads.

The media is cheering a defeat that never happened. And just as with Brexit, it may find that it had overlooked the seeds of its own destruction in the dirty politics of its own making.

“This patriotic revolution,” Geert Wilders said, “whether today or tomorrow, will take place anyway.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi Columnist: The Future of Arabs and Muslims Will Remain Dark Unless They Subject Their Values And Heritage to a Critical Assessment – MEMRI

Geert Wilders’ Post-election Statement: ‘The Genie cannot be put back in the bottle’

Iran deal architect is now running Tehran policy at the State Department

Turkish Foreign Minister: “Religion wars will soon begin in Europe”

geert wilders black and white

Geert Wilders’ Post-election Statement: ‘The Genie cannot be put back in the bottle’

geert wilders party logoDear friends,

Yesterday, the Party for Freedom (PVV) gained 33% and rose from 15 to 20 seats. That is a result to be proud of. However, Prime Minister Rutte won the elections, despite losing 8 seats.

We were the third biggest party, but now we are the second biggest party in the Dutch Parliament and a major political force. I promise you: Next time we will be first! The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

I assure you: We will not stop trying to save our beautiful country, the Netherlands, our European civilization and our Western freedoms.

We are grateful for the interest and sympathy of freedom loving people all over the free world. And we will continue to inform you about our efforts and progress in the years ahead.

As ever,

Geert Wilders

dutch parties seats

merkle

Germany spent more than $21 BILLION on refugees in 2016 — crisis outstrips state budgets

Yet still Merkel refuses to change course, and wants to bring in still more Muslim migrants. She seems to be hell-bent on the destruction of Germany. She must be voted out, or she will achieve her goal.

“Germany ‘spent more than €20bn on refugees in 2016’ as crisis outstrips state budgets”, by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, March 10, 2017:

German states spent more than €20bn (£17.5bn) on refugees in 2016, government figures have indicated as Angela Merkel continues to come under pressure for her policy on migration.

Statistics seen by The Independent for the states of Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Hesse and Berlin show that the cost of housing and integrating asylum seekers has far outstripped official predictions.

The Bundestag’s statistics service has listed a total spend of over €7bn (£6bn) for those four states alone in 2016, meaning the nationwide figure is likely to be far higher.

Johannes Singhammer, Vice President of the German parliament, told Die Welt: “[The figures] show that if the costs are added up for all federal states, around €23bn (£20bn) has probably been spent on migrants and refugees in 2016.”

The four states recorded have taken around a third of asylum seekers currently living in Germany, where more than a million have arrived since the start of the refugee crisis in 2015.

Berlin set aside €685m (£600m) for accommodation, unaccompanied minors, integration programmes, healthcare, language lessons and other projects but spent around €1.3bn (£1.1bn) in total – almost double the budget.

The state of Bavaria spent €3.3bn (£2.9bn), Hesse €1.6bn (£1.4bn) and Schleswig-Holstein €783.7m (£685.9m).

A spokesperson for the Bundestag’s statistics authority said a complete report would be made public when other states had calculated their spending.

An official survey conducted in December 2015 predicted that federal states would spend €17bn (£15bn) on dealing with the refugee crisis in the following year but with a huge backlog of asylum claims and difficulties with deportation, costs have spiralled beyond expectations.

Germany’s government has drawn up a new package of refugee funding for state authorities, as well as plunging money into new housing construction to prevent migrants sleeping in emergency accommodation like school gymnasiums and military barracks.

Despite the huge financial cost of the ongoing crisis, Germany’s federal government announced a budget surplus of €6.2bn (£5.4bn) last year.

The unprecedented number of refugees arriving in 2015 generated a huge backlog of claims that civil servants are still working to clear, with more than 430,000 cases outstanding at the start of 2017.

Thomas de Maizière, the German interior minister, said about 55,000 migrants returned home voluntarily, compared with 35,000 in 2015, while another 25,000 were forcibly deported….

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

muslim woman french flag

Trump is right: France is no longer France

“Paris is no longer Paris,” U.S. President Donald Trump recently said. A few days later, the New York Times ran a story entitled “As France’s Towns Wither, Fears of a Decline in ‘Frenchness.’” But the liberal newspaper refused to testify about the real metamorphosis of the French landscape. That is perfectly summarized by a book entitled Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, in which Philippe de Villiers writes that France, the “eldest daughter” of the Catholic Church, is turning into the “eldest daughter of Islam.”

Trump was right. A 2,200-page report, entitled “Suburbs of the Republic,” commissioned by the French think tank Institut Montaigne, explained that suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies,” where sharia has overcome French secular rule. The French Interior Ministry called these “Priority Security Zones,” and they include heavily Muslim parts of Amiens, Aubervilliers, Avignon, Béziers, Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Nantes, Nice, Paris, Perpignan, Strasbourg, Toulouse and many other towns. French mayor Robert Menard has been dragged into court for saying that Muslim classrooms are “a problem.” The more the problems get bigger in France, the more the system punishes those who point out what is happening.

muslims praying france

Muslims praying in streets of Paris.

France has ceased to be “la lumiere du monde,” a light unto the world, as it was called a long time ago. And it is indeed also no longer the eldest daughter of the Church; it is caught between two fires: a phony secularism and Islam.

Avignon is no longer “the city of Popes,” but “the republic of the Salafis,” as it has been called in a recent Paris Match article. In many parts of the city, women who do not wear the veil cannot leave the house, alcohol is forbidden, men go around in djellabas, and some imams support the Islamic State. “The farther I walked between the buildings, the more I was stunned,” a Paris Match reporter wrote. “A courtyard of Islamist miracles, a Salafist pocket, an enclave that wants to live as people did during the times of Muhammad. A bakery, a hairdresser, building managers, teenagers. All (or almost all) overcome with the Koran. Well, their Koran. It is a mini Islamic Republic.” That is the real change that the New York Times should have denounced.

In Creteil, in the heart of a middle-class neighborhood of Paris, there is the “mosque of convertì.” Every year, 150 ceremonies of Muslim conversion are performed under an 81-meter-high minaret, a symbol of the strong presence of Islam in France. Vesoul, in the Midi, is nicknamed the “French Raqqa,” since a group of high school friends left to fight in Syria, and during the day, in some neighborhoods, one can hear the Islamic muezzin instead of Christian bells.

In the Breton village of Hédé-Bazouges, you hear what de Villiers calls “the clergy in the djellaba,” the muezzin’s call to prayer. Roubaix is not only famous for the Paris-Roubaix cycling race, but also as one of the Salafists’ centers, as denounced by Gilles Kepel. In Trappes, Muslims make up around 60% of the population; this is the electoral bastion of Benoît Hamon, the Socialist candidate in the French presidential elections. Catholics and Jews are hiding their identities for fear of reprisals from Islamic supremacists. “In Trappes, the French Republic no longer exists; this is a town ruled by Islamists, jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists,” said Alain Marsaud, a former anti-terrorist investigating magistrate. 50 Muslims left Trappes for Syria.

Saint-Denis, the cradle of French Catholicism, where the kings of France rest, has been called “Molenbeek-sur-Seine,” after the name of Brussels’ terror hub. Le Figaro Magazine published a story by the journalist Rachida Samouri, who infiltrated in Saint-Denis to talk with the French Muslims who support ISIS. “In Raqqa, the French are at home: the second most spoken language after Arabic is French. In the streets, ISIS spreads terror, and the French are the worst, they threaten and beat women if their face is not hidden by the niqab, or if they make any noise with their shoes. The noise of the heels of a woman is considered a sin.” In Châteauneuf-sur-Cher, a town of 1,500 inhabitants in the heart of the Loire, a group of Muslims live in accord with the sermons of an imam who invited all the faithful to abandon the cities to move to the French countryside and create pure “Muslim villages.” It is happening everywhere. In Saint-Uze, a town of 2,000 inhabitants in the south of France, the parents of a Muslim family of six children refuse to send their children to the “infidels’ schools.”

But there are not only the Salafists. Tariq Ramadan and other Islamic preachers daily appeal to the French Muslim masses through mosques and schools, conquering minds and hearts through televisions, books and rallies. The magazine Valeurs Actuelles called it “the quiet conquest”: “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely.”

Comparing the weekly frequency of attending a mosque on Friday and a church on Sunday, the scenario is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics are over the age of 50. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under 50. The trend indicates that in France, there are three young practicing Muslims for every young practicing Catholic. There are nearly 2,400 mosques today in France, compared to 1,500 in 2003: “This is the most visible sign of the rapid growth of Islam in France,” according to Valeurs Actuelles. In the last 30 years, more mosques and centers for Muslims have been built in France than all the churches built in the last century. Observant Catholics, the famous “Catholiques pratiquants,” have become an eccentricity.

After Father Jacques Hamel was murdered inside his church in Normandy, Prime Minister Manuel Valls spoke about the need to build new mosques to train imams, while Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve suggested a new pact between the state and Islam. The French authorities have up to now refused to wake up.

French philosopher Pierre Manent, not Donald Trump, wrote in his book La situation de France that “we are witnessing the extension and the consolidation of the domain of Muslim practices, rather than its shrinking or relaxation.” This will be the central issue of the next French presidential campaign. Islam looms not only in the French elections, but also in Europe’s future.

ABOUT GIULIO MEOTTI

Giulio Meotti, cultural editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author. He is the author of three books: A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism (Encounter Books); J’Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel (Mantua Books), and La fine dell’Europa, about the Christian and demographic decline in Europe. He is a columnist at Arutz Sheva and his writings have appeared in publications including the Wall Street Journal, FrontPage, Commentary, and The Geller Report.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I shot the police’: Text message sent by ‘Radicalised Muslim’ who shot at cops before grabbing an officer’s gun at Paris Orly airport and being killed

Paris: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” slits throats of father and son, cops search for motive

Quebec imam says Islamic ruling allowing slave girls is still in force

“You are the future of Europe”: Erdogan urges Turks in EU to have at least 5 kids

Refugee resettlement contractors “whipsawed” says New York Times

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.
donald-trump-budget-cuts

Trump’s Budget Defunds Leftist Bastions NEA, NEH, NPR

These are all propaganda arms for the far-left. They don’t deserve a penny of taxpayer money. Why should American citizens have to pay for globalist, anti-American, socialist propaganda? This budget is urgently needed.

“Trump’s Budget Would Finally Fire Big Bird, Defund NPR,” by Thomas Phippen, Daily Caller, March 16, 2017:

The new White House budget proposal, a wish list of President Donald Trump’s policies, would cut funding to several arts and grants programs that Republicans have decried for decades.

Trump’s 2018 budget, called “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again,” requests increases in defense spending and reduction of domestic programs.

Specifically, the budget “proposes to eliminate funding for other independent agencies,” including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which sends some amount of funding to PBS and National Public Radio.

Though Big Bird only re-airs on PBS (“Sesame Street” is now on HBO), eliminating funding to things like the NEA Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not a new idea. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney suggested cutting the CPB during the 2012 presidential campaign, and was quickly criticized. Former President Barack Obama even accused Romney of trying to kill Big Bird in a campaign ad.

Congress has the final say over all discretionary budgets, so Trump faces a tough fight to get rid of agencies like the NEA and the NEH, even though many Republicans don’t believe the federal government needs to fund arts projects, especially those seen as subversive or frivolous.

Former President Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate the NEA in his first year in office, but ultimately failed when a council of his his friends convinced him government funding of the arts was important and beneficial….

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s ‘Skinny’ Budget Paves Way for a Leaner Government

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

Sebastian Gorka

Democrat Witch-hunt: Target Dr. Sebastian Gorka Deputy Assistant to President Trump

The Forward and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) endeavored to impugn the reputation of Deputy Assistant to President Trump Sebastian Gorka over the matter of his wearing a Hungarian medal issued by the regime of Hungarian Regent Admiral Miklos Horthy, a known anti-Semite. Instead their comeuppance by a critic of the Administration in a Tablet Magazine rebuttal and by this writer.

Here were The Forward allegations

The Forward reported the allegations of Perperdine Law School professor Bruce Einhorn, a former Immigration Law Judge and Office of Special investigations:

“The elite order, known as the Vitézi Rend, was established as a loyalist group by Admiral Miklos Horthy, who ruled Hungary as a staunch nationalist from 1920 to October 1944. A self-confessed anti-Semite, Horthy imposed restrictive Jewish laws prior to World War II and collaborated with Hitler during the conflict. His cooperation with the Nazi regime included the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Nazi hands.

Gorka’s membership in the organization — if these Vitézi Rend leaders are correct, and if Gorka did not disclose this when he entered the United States as an immigrant — could have implications for his immigration status. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual specifies that members of the Vitézi Rend “are presumed to be inadmissible” to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Gorka — who Vitézi Rend leaders say took a lifelong oath of loyalty to their group — did not respond to multiple emails sent to his work and personal accounts, asking whether he is a member of the Vitézi Rend and, if so, whether he disclosed this on his immigration application and on his application to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2012. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment.

But Bruce Einhorn, a retired immigration judge who now teaches nationality law at Pepperdine University, said of this, “His silence speaks volumes.”

The group to which Gorka reportedly belongs is a reconstitution of the original group on the State Department list, which was banned in Hungary until the fall of Communism in 1989.

There are now two organizations in Hungary that claim to be the heirs of the original Vitézi Rend, with Gorka, according to fellow members, belonging to the so-called “Historical Vitézi Rend.” Though it is not known to engage in violence, the Historical Vitézi Rend upholds all the nationalist and oftentimes racial principles of the original group as established by Horthy.

Einhorn said these nuances did not relieve Gorka of the obligation, if he’s a member, to disclose his affiliation when applying for his visa or his citizenship.

“This is a group that advocates racialist nativism,” said Einhorn. If Gorka did not disclose his affiliation with it, he said, this would constitute “failure to disclose a material fact,” which could undermine the validity of both his immigration status and claim to citizenship.

The Tablet rebuttal and Gorka Statement

Liel Leibowitz in a Tablet Magazine article rebutted these salacious arguments by Forward and Professor Einhorn. See: “Tale of Trump Advisor’s Alleged Nazi Ties Unravels”:

Gorka himself told me that the allegations are flat-out false.

“I have never been a member of the Vitez Rend. I have never taken an oath of loyalty to the Vitez Rend. Since childhood, I have occasionally worn my father’s medal and used the ‘v.’ initial to honor his struggle against totalitarianism.” It’s a perfectly plausible explanation, and you’d have to be of a very specific mindset to still pursue allegations of Nazi affiliation.

Why didn’t Gorka simply tell this to The Forward? A source close to the White House, who was briefed on how the administration treated this story, explained things a little more to me.

“These guys genuinely believed that the allegations were so blatantly false and so aggressively poorly-sourced, that no responsible journalist would ever publish them,” the source told me on the phone. “Is Seb Gorka, whose family literally bears the scars of anti-fascist fights, a secret Nazi cultist? Come on now.”

If you’ve been following the Gorka story—the Forward’s accusation is hardly the first attempt to portray the aide as a bona fide Nazi—here’s what you know. Gorka’s father, Paul, was a dedicated member of the anti-Communist underground, and had risked his life to organize the Hungarian resistance and deliver vital information about the Soviets to western intelligence agencies, including the MI6. He was eventually arrested, badly tortured, spent two years in solitary confinement and some more in forced labor in the coal mines before eventually escaping to England.

Understandably, Gorka Jr. was deeply moved by his father’s dedication. It’s why, for example, he wore his father’s Vitézi Rend medal to President Trump’s inauguration. You may find this kind of devotion to be overly doting or even creepy, but if you’re being honest, the story here is simple and in some ways touching.

Sadly, that seems lost on my friends and colleagues at the Forward. Such unreason isn’t just bad for journalism—the Forward’s piece leaps from intimations of Nazism to suggestions that Gorka may be at risk of having his citizenship revoked—but also bad for democracy. I’ve been, and remain, a critic of the Trump Administration, but all criticism is meaningless unless it adheres to reason, refuses rank rumors, and focuses on substance rather than on slinging mud. Let’s all take a deep breath. The White House is no more overrun with Nazis as with secret Russian spies. To suggest otherwise is to further flame the kind of hysteria that, traditionally, has led to social unrest and delivered no good news to the Jews.”

Our rebuttal to the Forward

Having interviewed Dr. Gorka both during the former Lisa Benson Show and recently on 1330 AM WEBY Your Turn with colleague Mike Bates, published in the New English Review, we got to know about his parents’ courageous resistance to the Hungarian Communist Regime, and in his late father Paul’s case imprisonment, torture and release by resistance fighters during the 1956 Hungarian Revolt, before escaping to Britain as refugees.

They were too young during World War II to be involved with any Hungarian fascist movements especially, the notorious Arrow Cross.

Moreover, the hereditary medal that Dr. Gorka wears was given to his father by a Hungarian exile group for his resistance efforts against the Hungarian Communist regime.

We did some research about the medal he wears and at least one published source said that it may also have been awarded to Hungarian Jews for noteworthy service to Hungary.

Dr. Gorka to our direct knowledge is a supporter of Israel. In response to a question this writer posed to him during our interview on the importance of Israel as an ally in support of U.S. National Security interests in the Middle East, he responded: “There is no greater partner of the United States in the Middle East..Israel, as a beacon of democracy and stability in the Middle East is our closest friend in the region and the President has been explicit in that again and again. So it would be difficult to overestimate just how important Israel is not only to America’s interest in the region but also to the broader stability of the Middle East.” See: “The Trump Administration Views on Radical Islamic Jihadism: an interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President.”

We trust that like such previous false accusation against this valued immigrant and Trump Advisor that it will wither away with the disinfectant of truth.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals Are So Desperate To Take Down Trump They’re Paying Thousands For Fake Docs

saudi-deputy-crown-prince-and-Trump

Saudi prince hails Trump as ‘strong President’ in fight against ‘dangerous’ Iran

“Saudi Arabia had viewed with unease the administration of US President Barack Obama, whom they felt considered Riyadh’s alliance with Washington less important than negotiating the Iran nuclear deal….The deputy crown prince viewed the nuclear deal as “very dangerous,” the senior adviser said, adding that both leaders had identical views on “the danger of Iran’s regional expansionist activities.”

Obama’s close and highly suspicious dealings with Iran include, in addition to the Iranian deal, as much as $33.6 billion in secret payments facilitated by the Obama administration, according to testimony provided before Congress. The Free Beacon also reported that the Obama Administration surrendered over $10 billion in gold, cash and other assets to Iran since 2013.

A senior adviser to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman praised the meeting in a statement:

the meeting today restored issues to their right path and form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues.

That glowing optimism may need to be toned down. Iran has earned its reputation as a rogue state, but Saudi Arabia is problematic too. Reports of a Saudi Arabia/Islamic State alliance have been ongoing, despite the so-called Saudi “friendship” with the West.

In 2010, Saudi Arabia was identified as “the single biggest contributor to the funding of Islamic extremism” and was said to be “unwilling to cut off the money supply.” Even Hillary Clinton, who — according to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange — has accepted Saudi donations, said “in a secret memorandum that donors in the kingdom still ‘constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide’ and that ‘it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.’”

“SAUDI PRINCE: TRUMP A ‘STRONG PRESIDENT’ IN FIGHT AGAINST DANGEROUS IRAN”, Reuters, March 15, 2017:

WASHINGTON – Saudi Arabia hailed a “historical turning point” in US-Saudi relations after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman highlighted the two leaders’ shared view that Iran posed a regional security threat.

The meeting on Tuesday appeared to signal a meeting of the minds on many issues between Trump and Prince Mohammed, in a marked difference from Riyadh’s often fraught relationship with the Obama administration, especially in the wake of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“This meeting is considered a historical turning point in relations between both countries and which had passed through a period of divergence of views on many issues,” a senior adviser to Prince Mohammed said in a statement.

“But the meeting today restored issues to their right path and form a big change in relations between both countries in political, military, security and economic issues,” the adviser said.

Saudi Arabia had viewed with unease the administration of US President Barack Obama, whom they felt considered Riyadh’s alliance with Washington less important than negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.

Riyadh and other Gulf allies see in Trump a strong president who will shore up Washington’s role as their main strategic partner and help contain Riyadh’s adversary Iran in a region central to US security and energy interests, regional analysts said.

The deputy crown prince viewed the nuclear deal as “very dangerous,” the senior adviser said, adding that both leaders had identical views on “the danger of Iran’s regional expansionist activities.” The White House has said the deal was not in the best interest of the United States.

Iran denies interference in Arab countries.

PRAISE FOR TRUMP

The meeting was the first since Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration with the prince, who is leading the kingdom’s efforts to revive state finances by diversifying the economy away from a reliance on falling crude oil revenues.

Under the plan, which seeks to promote the private sector and make state-owned companies more efficient, Riyadh plans to sell up to 5 percent of state oil giant Saudi Aramco in what is expected to be the world’s biggest initial public offering.

The two leaders, who discussed opportunities for US companies to invest in Saudi Arabia, kicked off their talks in the Oval Office posing for a picture in front of journalists.

US Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, chief of staff Reince Priebus and strategist Steve Bannon were also present at the Oval Office meeting with Prince Mohammed.

The meeting also appeared to illustrate support for some of the most contentious issues that Trump has faced since taking office on Jan. 20.

On a travel ban against six Muslim-majority countries, the adviser said Prince Mohammed did not regard it as one that was aimed at “Muslim countries or Islam.”

Earlier this month Trump signed a revised executive order on banning citizens from Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Libya from traveling to the United States but removed Iraq from the list, after his controversial first attempt was blocked in the court

Trump’s travel ban has come under criticism for targeting citizens of several mainly Muslim countries. The senior adviser said Prince Mohammed “expressed his satisfaction after the meeting on the positive position and clarifications he heard from President Trump on his views on Islam.”

The senior adviser said the leaders discussed the “successful Saudi experience of setting up a border protection system” on the Saudi-Iraq border which has prevented smuggling.

Trump has vowed to start work quickly on the barrier along the nearly 2,000-mile US-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing to the north….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

Federal judge blocks new Trump travel ban

Former jihadist turned Christian evangelist warns of educational jihad against West

islam wife beating

VIDEO: Using Islam to Vet Muslims

To vet Muslims, don’t talk about Islam; instead talk about the fruit of the Islam. Here is an example: wife beating. No apologist can support wife beating, but wife beating is found in the Koran and the Hadith:

Koran 4:34 Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and … send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.

Dawood #2142 Umar reported the prophet as saying: “A man will not be asked as to why he beats his wife”.

I object to any wife beating doctrine. I don’t want immigrants/Muslims who believe in wife beating to be my neighbor.

The Islamic doctrine supports: slavery, torture, Kafirs must submit to Sharia, wife beating, inferiority of women, political assassin. I reject Sharia, wife beating, torture, killing of Kafirs. Notice that I do not say I reject Muslims.

So ask an apologist: Do you support wife beating? Assassination? Killing apostates?

You say you don’t know enough to quote Koran and Hadith. Then go ask Imam Google. The hadith and Koran verse I used came from web searching: “wife beating Koran”. Finding this kind of information used to be hard, now it is simple.
Why do we want to bring in anybody who buys into wife beating, the inferiority of Kafirs, assassinations?

So, deal with the fruit of Islam, not Islam. Ask the apologist to agree with this evil fruit of the doctrine, for instance, wife beating. Notice the method: Talk about the source doctrine and its fruit.

Is it fair to ask if a Muslim follows the doctrine? If not, will they condemn it?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Raymond Ibrahim: Christianity and Judaism Breed Terrorism Just Like Islam?

Saudi prince hails Trump as “strong President” in fight against “dangerous” Iran

BEYOND THE CALIPHATE: Islamic State Activity – Inspired or Linked – Outside of the Group’s defined Wilayat

Judge Derrick Watson

Hawaii Judge Places Restraining Order on President’s Refugee Pause EO

Unless I find a definitive article about what exactly the judge in Hawaii ruled on the Trump Executive Order in the next couple of hours (I have a doc appt.), here is one news story from the AP (thanks to reader Theodore).

Judge Derrick Watson.

Also, according to several news sources discussing other pending cases, including Fox Newsone argument in the Maryland case is absolutely nuts.  I worry that judges ruling on the cases have no idea about what the US Refugee Act of 1980 says or how the program has been administered for 37 years!

Story “One Unelected Leftist Judge in Hawaii Decided Security for the Entire NationIt makes me want to scream!

The line that I see while searching just now, that is being spread by many news sources, is this one:

“The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.”

We are assuming that comes from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society suit we reported here. The true gist of their argument is that they, the federal resettlement contractors, were expecting more paying “clients” and had built their budgets around the per head payment they were expecting with the unrealistic 110,000 refugees Obama said would come in the year he no longer was president!

For the umpteenth time, that 110,000 that Obama set last fall is a CEILING that the Administration says it will not surpass, it is not a goal!

And, that 110,000 was the highest Obama had ever set in his presidency.  Trump has the absolute authority to reduce the ceiling, but more importantly he can bring in any number under whatever he set, or whatever Obama set!

Forget the EO!

President Trump has all the authority he needs to not import any more refugees this entire year (I’m not sure that his team even knows that he has no legal obligation to bring in even 50,000!).

As of this morning, we have admitted 38,106 refugees this fiscal year (2017) via Wrapsnet.  783 refugees arrived in the ten day period from the announcement of this EO and today when the “moratorium” was to go in to effect.

I repeat!  The President does not have to call it a moratorium or include it in this EO. He can simply stop processing new refugees abroad with no further explanation!

President George W. Bush had 4 years under 50,000! His lowest year was 39,554.  Even Obama had two years under 60,000 and well below the ceiling!  See here.

Now look at this chart (below) very carefully.   When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete.  Know that we brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence).

The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!

What do you see?  Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.

In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?
In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?

Obama got closer to the lowered CEILING over the next few years.

You get my drift!

Be sure to note that Obama never set a ceiling as high as 110,000 in all his previous years as president. That 110,000 was set in the final months of his final year! The average admissions over the years shown here is around 65,000. I could not find the chart that includes the last month of FY16, but we admitted only a few refugees short of the 85,000 ceiling because the Administration was hell-bent to get in thousands of Syrians.

I’m begging ignorant and lazy reporters to get the facts!

And, I am sure you are scared as heck, as I am, to see judges making decisions based on sheer ignorance of the law.

See my post from last Friday about how Hawaii hypocrites! have “welcomed” only a tiny number of refugees over the years—none from Africa and only 5 (total) from two Muslim countries.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What 2 Obama Judges Got Wrong in Striking Down Travel Executive Order

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

Refuting, once again, the big lie about 18-24 months of vetting!

inflation

Trillions in Debt and We’re Just Scratching the Surface by Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

As the federal debt has gone from astounding to unbelievable to incomprehensible, a new problem has emerged: The US government is actually running out of places to borrow.

How Many Zeros Are in a Trillion?

The $20 trillion debt is already twice the annual revenues collected by all the world’s governments combined. Counting unfunded liabilities, which include promised Social Security, Medicare, and government pension payments that Washington will not have the money to pay, the federal government actually owes somewhere between $100 trillion and $200 trillion. The numbers are so ridiculously large that even the uncertainty in the figures exceeds the annual economic output of the entire planet.

Since 2000, the federal debt has grown at an average annual rate of 8.2%, doubling from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the past eight years alone. Who loaned the government this money? Four groups: foreigners, Americans, the Federal Reserve, and government trust funds. But over the past decade, three of these groups have cut back significantly on their lending.

Foreign investors have slowed the growth in their lending from over 20% per year in the early 2000s to less than 3% per year today. Excluding the Great Recession years, American investors have been cutting back on how much they lend the federal government by an average of 2% each year.

Social Security, though, presents an even bigger problem. The federal government borrowed all the Social Security surpluses of the past 80 years. But starting this year, and continuing either forever or until Congress overhauls the program (which may be the same thing), Social Security will only generate deficits. Not only is the government no longer able to borrow from Social Security, it will have to start paying back what it owes – assuming the government plans on making good on its obligations.

With federal borrowing growing at more than 6% per year, with foreign and American investors becoming more reluctant to lend, and with the Social Security trust fund drying up, the Fed is the only game left in town. Since 2001, the Fed has increased its lending to the federal government by over 11% each year, on average. Expect that trend to continue.

Inflation to Make You Cry

For decades, often in word but always in deed, politicians have told voters that government debt didn’t matter. We, and many economists, disagree. Yet even if the politicians were right, the absence of available creditors would be an insurmountable problem—were it not for the Federal Reserve. But when the Federal Reserve acts as the lender of last resort, unpleasant realities follow. Because, as everyone should be keenly aware, the Fed simply prints the money it loans.

A Fed loan devalues every dollar already in circulation, from those in people’s savings accounts to those in their pockets. The result is inflation, which is, in essence, a tax on frugal savers to fund a spendthrift government.

Since the end of World War II, inflation in the US has averaged less than 4% per year. When the Fed starts printing money in earnest because the government can’t obtain loans elsewhere, inflation will rise dramatically. How far is difficult to say, but we have some recent examples of countries that tried to finance runaway government spending by printing money.

From 1975 to 1990, the Greek people suffered 15% annual inflation as their government printed money to finance stimulus spending. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Russia printed money to keep its government running. The result was five years over which inflation averaged 750%. Today, Venezuela’s government prints money to pay its bills, causing 200% inflation which the International Monetary Fund expects to skyrocket to 1,600% this year.

For nearly a century, politicians have treated deficit spending as a magic wand. In a recession? We need jobs, so government must spend more money! In an expansion? There’s more tax revenue, so government can spend more money! Always and everywhere, politicians argued only about how much to increase spending, never whether to increase spending. A century of this has left us with a debt so large that it dwarfs the annual economic output of the planet. And now we are coming to the point at which there will be no one left from whom to borrow. When creditors finally disappear completely, all that will remain is a reckoning.

This article first appeared in InsideSources.

Antony Davies

Antony Davies

Antony Davies is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University in Pittsburg.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.


James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is the Senior Research Fellow at Strata, in Logan, Utah.