The Essential Arabic Muslims Don’t Want You To Know

Allahu Akbar = Allah Is Greater — ‘Allah’ is not simply the Arabic word for ‘God,’ but the name of Islam’s chosen deity and ‘Akbar’ does not mean ‘great’, but ‘greater’. Greater than what? The answer is, Allah is greater than whatever God, government, philosophy, or political system you happen to follow or live under.

Understanding Islam is to know Allahu Akbar is the foundation of Islamic Supremacism.

The precedent for Allahu Akbar was set by Muhammad when he attacked and murdered the Jews of Khaybar.  “

We reached Khaybar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaybar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, “Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” (Bukhari 64.238.4198)

Most every follower of Islam knows this Bukhari Hadith, over glorifying Mohammad’s massacre of defenseless Jewish farmers and the first use of Allahu Akbar as a battle cry.

Did you know most all followers of Islam say Allahu Akbar no less than 111 times a  day totaling  40,515 times  a year in their 5 daily prayers.  The repetition of saying Allahu Akbar 111 times a day becomes a conditioned supremacist response for the follower of Islam.

When the New York Times or CNN reports that Allahu Akbar is nothing more than a kind salutation, they are lying to you.  Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR understand the full supremacist significance of Allahu Akbar and their job is to tell non-Muslim’s that Allahu Akbar means only God is Great like the Christians say, no big deal.   Islamic apologists are desperately afraid you non-Muslims will learn the true Islamic supremacist meaning of Allahu Akbar – Allah is Greater than all others.

Your next question should be – What do  these Islamic supremacists call those who reject their Islamic supremacist ideology when talking amongst themselves?

Kuffar – Derogatory word for a non-Muslim.  Kuffar is an Arabic word that literally means “ingrate or infidel”  For a follower of Islam to call someone a Kuffar is as offensive as using the N word in America.

When a follower of Islam calls you a Kuffar they believe you are the vilest of creatures, referring to Qur’an 8:55.  The next time you hear the word Kuffar, it is one of the worst put downs a Muslim can say to anyone.

The followers of Islam also use the word Kuffar to describe their fellow Muslims, in the worst of ways, and is often a precursor to Muslim on Muslim violence.  Like the recent Sunni on Sufi Muslim attacks we just saw in the recent Mosque bombing in Egypt killing 235 Muslims by Muslims  where the Jihadis were screaming Allahu Akbar.  Why you ask? The Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims have been killing each other for 1400 years because they believe each other to be a Kuffar or Mushrikin.  In this Egypt attack above,     we have Sunni Muslims killing Sufi Muslims who are viewed as Kuffar by the Sunni.  Confused yet?  Keep reading and it will all make perfect sense.

Jihad – “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion (Islam).” Umdat al Salik P.599.

When Muslim Advocacy groups like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, tell you  Jihad is a personal spiritual struggle like losing weight or doing daily chores,  it is a deception of the most clever kind.  Spiritual Jihad is a deception because Mohammed said in  Qur’an 9:111 that those who fight in the way of Allah are assured paradise.

In Islam, getting into paradise is not guaranteed.  Mohammad says violent Jihad in the advancement of Islam will guarantee you a place in the highest levels of paradise.  That makes dying in the way of Jihad a noble religious act and taking as many Kuffar with you assures ones place in paradise or Jannah.

Killing oneself in the act of Jihad brings honor upon your family, tribe, and village.  Mohammad says the dead Jihadi can intercede for 70 of his family members assuring them all a place in paradise.  For the followers of Islam, this  is such a big deal parents of Jihadis often celebrate when their children die in Jihad.  Yes – you heard me right – parents celebrating the death of their own children.

The arabic word for a Jihadi Martyr is Shaheed and garners instant respect in the Muslim world.  This is why a devout Muslim parent will sometimes encourage their children to martyr themselves.  Here in the West, our immediate response is, that can’t be true because its so evil!  In the eyes of a follower of Islam becoming a Jihadi martyr is a spiritual religious act displaying ones love for  Allah and Islam.  In many cases, the Jihadi believes they are showing love for their non-Muslim victims who are living a sinful life by not reverting back to Islam.  The Jihadi, in Mohammad’s teachings is keeping these Kuffar from living a sinful life,  killing them is seen as an act of love.

Islamic apologists will say, “So why aren’t the worlds 1.3 billion followers of Islam going Jihadi and jumping on the Martyr death train securing their place in Islamic paradise?”

Mohamad was clever and knew not every follower of Islam is a warrior ready to die for Allah.   So Mohammed taught there is Jihad with your money, Jihad with your pen, civilizational Jihad in non-Muslim lands, and the personal Jihad of losing weight or to stop smoking.  If a follower of Islam does not tell you the entire meaning of Jihad, they are willfully lying and you should be offended because they think you are stupid.

What you don’t hear about is the large number of Muslims who want to leave Islam but are afraid they will be killed as apostates.  Islamic law states, leaving Islam is a traitorous act and death is the punishment. Many scholars say the apostate loophole is the glue of fear holding Islam together.

Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb – The Islamic Worldview and Definition of Peace

Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb is arabic for the House of Islam and the House of War.

Dar al-Islam is the name for those territories where Islam dominates and submission to Allah is observed. Key point:  Dar al Islam is the only place where followers of Islam believe peace and tranquility reign.

The definition of a true Islamic Peace is a countries complete submission to Allah and the Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

Dar al Harb  means anyplace on earth that fails to follow Allah’s will.  These countries, including the United States, are not considered legitimate powers because they don’t derive their authority from Allah.

The confusing duplicity is that Islamic governments (Dar al Islam) are allowed to enter  into temporary peace treaties with people of Dar Al Harb(Harbis) to facilitate commerce, one sided immigration flows, or alliances against other Islamic Countries if necessary.

This duplicity is how Bin Laden can attack the United States and the Islamic State of Pakistan can provide protection to Bin Laden while engaging in peaceful diplomatic and joint military exercises with the United States as a partner and ally of convenience.

Are you confused?  If not you should be because this Eastern logic is the exact opposite of standard Western thought and geopolitics.

Shariah Islamiyya = Islamic Law

For a follower of Islam, the Shariah is the “way of life”.  In Arabic Shariah means the straight path to the watering hole.  For the desert dweller, water is life.

Side Note: For those of you who say Shariah Law, Arabic speakers hear ‘Law Law’ and inwardly laugh at you as an ignorant infidel Kuffar – no offense it just is.

Shariah provides the legal framework for the functioning of an Islamic society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims on both an individual and collective level.

Now that you know  Shariah is from Allah and Mohammad you know it is considered timeless and of divine origin to the followers of Islam. The punishments in Islamic Law apply to non-Muslims too,  giving you another clue exposing its Islamic supremacy.

Internalize this,  Shariah is from Allah and is superior to all man made laws and religions like, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Humanism Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, Paganism, Democracies, Republics, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, Constitutional Monarchies, Buddhism, and Unitarian-Universalism to name only a few.

Shariah dictates to the followers of Islam how to pray, run an Islamic government, brush your teeth, what to wear, how many wives you can marry, exact legal penalties from death sentences, chopping off of body parts,  blood money for murder, death sentence for gays, what you can say and not say, what you can and can’t listen to, and how to behave in the land of Dar al Harb / Non-Islamic countries.

Shariah teaches that when the followers of Islam are weak, or small in number, then one must follow the rules and laws of the non-Islamic country they live in.  As the followers of Islam’s numbers increase,  Muslims begin to demand accommodations for Islamic culture, dress, food, and religion especially  when they conflict with the host countries culture and man made laws.

This is the stage we are at here in America.  The followers of Islam are trying to push Hate Speech laws on Americans as a vehicle to silence our Freedom of Speech,  using our man made legal system to do it.  Why you ask?  Because Islamic Law dictates it is a capital offense to speak negatively about Islam, Mohammad, or Allah.  That is why Muslim Advocacy groups go unhinged if a non-Muslim explains what Islam is and what Islam is not – like I’m doing here.

When you see people throwing around charges of Hate Speech against those speaking freely and legally about Islam – they are enforcing Shariah blasphemy laws on you, in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Lets Recap – What We Learned

  1. Allahu Akbar means Allah is Greater than whatever God, Government, Science, or Political System you happen to follow or live under. Allahu Akbar is the war chant of Islamic Supremacism said 111 times each by most followers of Islam in their 5 daily prayers.
  2. Jihad – “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion (Islam). Jihad is the violent struggle to advance Islamic Supremacism in the name of Allah.
  3. Dar al Islam & Dar al Harb = House of Islam & House of War – This is the definition of Peace In Islam. If you and your country are in the House of Islam there will be Peace.  It’s just that simple.  The followers of Islam also use the Interfaith Movement to preach a message of coexistence, peace, and love with everyone here in America and the West.  So how can two completely opposite messages be true?  Because Islamic doctrine makes it true.
  4. Shariah = Islamic Law Shariah is an all encompassing Islamic guidebook for all followers of Islam to follow.  Shariah covers how Islamic Governments are run, how to chop off your hands for stealing, how to kill apostates,  how to dress, brush your teeth, eat, clean your private parts, and most importantly what you can and can’t say – NO Free Speech.  The Islam advocacy groups in America are pushing legislation to make ‘hate speech’ against the law.  You guessed it, ‘Hate Speech’ is saying anything negative about Islam, Mohammad, or Allah thus shredding our 1st Amendment Constitutional right to Free Speech. 

Conclusion:  The Duality of Islam

We’ve learned 5 Important Arabic words and concepts today that have opposite meanings to the Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.

Most Muslims are so nice and integrated here in America , yet other Muslims target and kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam while screaming Allahu Akbar. Two opposites like this are perfectly normal to the followers of Islam.  As long as you are confused, blind, or don’t believe it – then you are right where the Jihadis want you.  Think about that for a second – go ahead read that last sentence again.

Each time a follower of Islam executes a violent Jihadi operation, we can count on the America Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR to say, “These terrorists don’t represent Islam”, yet when these terrorists are screaming Allahu Akbar we know its being done in the name of Islam.  Manufactured mixed messaging is meant to confuse and paralyze the victims of Jihad.  For example,  CAIR always  says after Jihadis kill, “this is not my Islam or we fear a backlash after  most every terrorists attack.”  Nihad Awad executes this black propaganda play like clockwork.  The good  news  is people are growing tired  of CAIR’s lies and arrogance.

Bill Warner sums it up in his 2007 Article ‘Duality and  Political Islam

“The kafir (non-Muslim) can be treated in one of two ways. They can be treated well or they can be robbed, killed, or cheated if it advances Islam. On more than one occasion Mohammed said to deceive the kafir (non-Muslim). Jihad as a political method killed, robbed and enslaved the kafirs (non-Muslim). This is a dualistic ethical system.

Islamic dualism is hidden by religion. The “good” verses of the Meccan Koran cover the verses of jihad in the Medinan Koran. Thus religious Islam shields political Islam from examination.

Scientific analysis shows us that there is a political Islam as well as a religious Islam. To argue about religion is fruitless, but we can talk about politics. We need to discuss political Islam, a system of ethical and political dualism.”

The Secretive, Taxpayer-Financed Settlement Fund Used by Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment

Staffers who are the targets of unwanted sexual advances on Capitol Hill should not have to endure a lengthy mediation process and pay the legal bills as lawmakers secretly draw on a mysterious slush fund to settle the accusations against them, an advocate for taxpayers argues.

In the event of a monetary settlement of sexual harassment complaints, members of Congress can draw on a taxpayer-funded account set up within the Treasury Department to cover their legal expenses and settle cases.

The account has paid out $17 million in the past 10 years, public records show, although it is not clear how much of that was for cases of sexual harassment.

“Right now, it’s very unclear to the taxpayer where this money is going,” Grace Morgan, director of external affairs for the Washington-based Taxpayers Protection Alliance, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“We don’t know who is getting paid the settlements and why they are getting paid the settlements,” Morgan said Monday. “The $17 million figure does not distinguish between sexual harassment claims and other general workplace claims. There is no information and no transparency.”

The spotlight fell on the question of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill after the scandal that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein prompted dozens of women, and men, to blow the whistle on the sexually predatory practices of major business, entertainment, and media figures ranging from actor Kevin Spacey to news anchor Charlie Rose.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the longest-serving member of Congress, has been accused of sexual harassment by two former staffers. Several women, although none of them staffers, also accuse Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., of groping them.

When a congressional staffer decides to press ahead with allegations of sexual harassment, he or she must navigate a four-step process administered through an agency called the Office of Compliance. The steps: counseling, mediation,  administrative hearing or civil action, and appeals.

“This turns out to be a 180-day process, and it’s not very fair or just to the victims,” Morgan said.

Nor is the amount paid out as the result of sexual harassment accusations against lawmakers currently public information, she said.

“We also need a full investigation into the $17 million and what has been paid to victims, how much involves sexual harassment claims and how this impacts taxpayers,” Morgan said.

‘Initial Spike’

For starters, the Senate passed a resolution requiring training on sexual harassment for senators and their staff. The House was expected to follow suit Wednesday.

Although an “initial spike” in sexual harassment complaints is likely to occur when new procedures go into effect, congressional employees will benefit over the long term from a healthier workplace, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Monday.

Comstock, sponsor of a resolution targeting sexual harassment and discrimination that has attracted broad, bipartisan support, said she expects the House to adopt it.

The resolution would require “all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows” to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training” during each annual session of Congress.

Comstock said she also will explore a legislative fix aimed at preventing the use of taxpayers’ money to cover settlement expenses when employees accuse lawmakers of sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, the resolution stipulates that lawmakers and employees complete training regarding sexual harassment within 90 days of the start of a one-year session.  New employees must complete the training within 90 days of their hire date.

Where the current, 115th Congress is concerned, individual lawmakers and staffers must complete training no later than 180 days after its second one-year session begins in January.

‘A Changed Culture’

The House vote Wednesday marks a “watershed moment” of bipartisan support for a resolution that will begin a step-by-step process for implementing “fundamental reforms that change how [sexual] harassment is detected and prevented,” Comstock told The Daily Signal.

“We are looking at what can be done by resolution and what needs to be done legislatively,” the Virginia Republican said:

What we want is a zero-tolerance policy for this kind of behavior and a changed culture so that people can be free from this kind of harassment. We would also like to streamline the process for victims to come forward with any complaints so that it is not so long and drawn out. It should be a victim-friendly process.

BuzzFeed first reported that Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, reached a settlement in 2015 with a former staffer in a wrongful dismissal complaint. She alleged that she was the victim of unwanted sexual advances from Conyers, now 88.

Conyers “repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public,” BuzzFeed reported.

Tuesday morning, news broke that another former staff member had leveled accusations against the congressman.

The accuser, Deanna Maher, said Conyers made unwanted sexual advances toward her on three different occasions while she ran his district office in Michigan between 1997 and 2005, according to the Detroit News and other media reports.

Four women have come forward to accuse Franken, 66, of sexual harassment, beginning with Leeann Tweeden, a radio talk show host who described his behavior during a USO tour in 2006, two years before he was elected senator. Another woman, Lindsay Menz, said Franken groped her while having his photo taken with her at the 2010 Minnesota State Fair.

Legislation Possible 

Co-sponsors of Comstock’s resolution include fellow members of the House Administration Committee: Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss.; ranking member Robert Brady, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.

Looking ahead, Comstock said she would like to see additional steps taken to ensure taxpayers would not be on the hook to cover legal settlements following allegations of sexual harassment.

“For that, we would need new legislation,” she said.

The House Administration Committee scheduled a hearing for Dec. 7 to review possible actions under the Congressional Accountability Act, the 1995 law specifying that certain civil rights, labor, workplace, and health care laws must apply to Congress.

That law also created an independent agency, the Office of Compliance, which is led by a five-member, nonpartisan board of directors and four executive staff members appointed by the board.

The Office of Compliance is charged with advising members of Congress, congressional staff, and visiting members of the public on their rights and their responsibilities in the workplace setting.

The office also offers advice on potential changes to the Congressional Accountability Act. Its general counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority for certain violations of the law.

‘Needs to Be Reformed’

After receiving multiple media inquiries about taxpayers’ money being used to cover the costs of settling sexual harassment allegations against lawmakers or legislative branch employees, Susan Tsui Grundmann, executive director of the Office of Compliance, released figures showing more than $17 million has been spent since 1997 to cover the settlements.

Not all of the complaints covered by the $17 million involved sexual harassment. Some were allegations made under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while others involved potential civil rights infractions.

Neither Grundmann nor other officials have made public a detailed breakdown of how and why the $17 million was spent.

The idea behind the Congressional Accountability Act was to apply the same set of anti-discrimination and civil rights laws governing other Americans to members of Congress and their staffs. But the 1995 law created a taxpayer-financed “Awards and Settlements” account in the Treasury Department to cover the cost of legal settlements.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is nonpartisan, focuses on educating the public about the effects of excessive taxation and spending at all levels of government.

Morgan, the organization’s director of external affairs, said the settlements fund appears to be used to insulate Congress from much-needed accountability and transparency.

“I would like to see a system where members of Congress themselves have to pay the settlement, or they have to go through the dispute process,” Morgan said in the interview, adding:

As it stands now, the victim has to pay for her own legal fees,  where the member of Congress gets the federal funding for their lawyer. It’s a very long, drawn-out process that needs to be reformed.

The Office of Compliance would be responsible for administering the training created by the House resolution.

Aggressive Action

Comstock said she anticipates more complaints will be filed against members of both the House and Senate as employees become more familiar with what sexual harassment is.

“We might see an initial spike in the number of complaints as people develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment,” the Virginia Republican said. “But the end result will be a more positive, healthy work environment.”

Congress could learn from how corporate America and the military moved to address questions of sexual harassment, she said. Both institutions have wrestled with similar issues for many years and their procedural changes could be instructive, she said.

“They have addressed this problem very aggressively,” Comstock said, and she believes in-person training is more effective than online sessions.

In a change long familiar to many other workplaces, the House resolution would require every lawmaker’s office to post “a statement of the rights and protections provided to employees of the House of Representatives under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.”

What happens next, assuming the House adopts the resolution Wednesday, will become more clear after the Administration Committee’s Dec. 7 hearing.

While it may be challenging for Americans inside and outside Congress to come to terms with misconduct that involves public officials who agree with their political views, Comstock said, the safety and well-being of employees should be paramount.

“I think it’s best to stay out of the team politics and instead focus on the right policies,” she said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

Portrait of Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


Planned Parenthood Is in Deep Trouble With the Law. This Could Be a Turning Point.

We are living through a remarkable time in history. Almost daily, those in influential positions who once appeared untouchable are falling out of popular favor as their abuses are exposed.

Earlier this month, one particularly corrupt institution was dealt back-to-back blows: Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.

On Nov. 13, The Hill reported that the FBI may be investigating Planned Parenthood and its associates for the sale of aborted babies’ body parts for profit. It’s the latest development yet in a scandal that began in 2015 with the release of explosive undercover videos.

Those videos showed abortion industry executives haggling over the price of hearts, livers, brains, and kidneys and describing, in chilling detail, their techniques for crushing late-term babies to get the freshest organs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives spent almost one-and-a-half years conducting a national investigation, reviewing 30,000 pages of documents, and hearing hours of testimony.

They found enough evidence to refer several Planned Parenthood affiliates and tissue procurement companies for potential prosecution. Attorney General Jeff Sessions suggested that if the FBI concurs, charges might be filed.

Then came the second punch.

Just as news of the FBI inquiry broke, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to revisit its ruling that the state of Arkansas can redirect Medicaid funds away from abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which the state is completely justified in doing considering the ongoing baby parts scandal.

These two major breakthroughs would have been inconceivable under the Obama administration, which repeatedly abused federal power to prop up the abortion industry.

President Barack Obama’s aggressively pro-abortion administration put the “bully” in “bully pulpit.” Under Obama, the Justice Department became a tool to harass and intimidate pro-life advocates, labeling them domestic terrorists alongside groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

Instead of investigating Planned Parenthood for the shocking, potentially illegal practices exposed in the videos, pro-abortion Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided to investigate the whistleblowers.

The Obama administration also actively interfered with state efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. KansasTennesseeIndianaTexasNew HampshireNew Jersey, North Carolina—all these states tried to get taxpayers out of the abortion industry, only to have the federal government bypass local officials to directly award lucrative contracts to Planned Parenthood or threaten to withhold federal Medicaid funds unless they kept tax dollars flowing.

As one last parting gift, during Obama’s final weeks in office, his administration issued an order banning states from defunding Planned Parenthood under Title X, which took effect two days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Through it all, Obama’s court appointees have generally been reliable backers of abortion. One Obama appointee even compared an abortion to a tonsillectomy in a recent case that would have created new “rights” to abortion on demand for illegal immigrants.

But there’s a new sheriff in Washington now, and a palpable sense of terror is gripping Planned Parenthood and its camp. Without their defender-in-chief or the courts to bail them out, they are finally being held accountable.

Trump has busily set about undoing his predecessor’s destructive pro-abortion legacy. He has filled his Cabinet with pro-life officials, and has filled court vacancies with outstanding judges like Neil Gorsuch who faithfully interpret the Constitution.

Right away, Trump signed legislation (H.J. Res. 43) rolling back Obama’s parting gift to the abortion industry—something that, on a personal note, I was proud to witness in the Oval Office.

Trump’s strong commitment to pro-life policies has helped embolden state governors and legislatures. Texas has now applied to reclaim the federal funding it was denied under the last administration. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster in August successfully defunded Planned Parenthood and requested a waiver from the Trump administration so that the state can do the same with Medicaid, which is where the abortion business gets most of its taxpayer funding.

The next step is for the Trump administration to issue new guidance to the states restoring their freedom to prioritize Medicaid funds the way they believe will best serve their citizens. The administration must be prepared to defend that policy vigorously should the case go to the Supreme Court.

The pro-life majorities in both houses of Congress should also fulfill their promise to redirect half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood using budget reconciliation, where they have the best chance of succeeding.

Sometimes justice is a long time coming, but as two of our nation’s greatest thinkers—Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King, Jr.—pointed out, it “cannot sleep forever” and “the arc of the moral universe … bends toward justice.”

There are good reasons to hope that for America’s abortion giant, justice is right around the corner.


Portrait of Marjorie Dannenfelser

Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Florida E-Verify Constitutional Amendment Needs Public Support

On Tuesday, November 28th the Florida Constitution Revision Commission will hold a hearing on proposed state constitutional amendments, including one that would require employers to use E-Verify to check the workplace eligibility of new hires proposals. You can see the amendment at the Floridians for E-Verify website.

The group Floridians for E-Verify Now is seeking people to attend the hearing and, if possible, testify in support of their E-Verify amendment. If you cannot attend but want to help, please see instructions further below for emailing commission members.

Regarding testimony, the group is seeking, in particular:

  • Business owners or their staff who use E-Verify;
  • American workers adversely affected by illegal workers; and
  • Farmers who use the H-2A visa program as an alternative to hiring illegal aliens.

If you want to testify, or can attend but do not wish to testify, please contact Jack Oliver at or 772-215-8424. Those not wanting to testify can waive their right to speak and assign it to others.

What: Florida Constitution Revision Commission hearing

When: Tuesday, November 28 — 1-6 pm

Where: The Capital, Room 401 S

400 Monroe St., Tallahassee, Fl. 32399

Emailing Commission Members

First “copy and paste” the comments just below to the body of your email. Then type in the subject line: Please Support Floridians for E-Verify Now’s E-Verify Amendment. Now place your name in the “To” field and copy the email addresses further below and paste in your “Bcc” field.

Dear Commission Member,

Please vote to move the E-Verify Amendment forward favorably without amendments. Floridians should have a right to vote on this issue next November. Thank you.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan (R) endorsed by radical environmentalist group

Florida Representative proudly posted on his Facebook page an endorsement by Ocean Champions:

But who is Ocean Champions?

According to its website:

Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority. By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.

What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”

Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups. In a July 19, 2010 press release titled “Conservation Groups Applaud National Ocean Policy” David Wilmot, Ph.D., President and Co-Founder of Ocean Champion stated:

The nation can now look to the National Ocean Policy to provide a guiding vision for all federal agencies and a needed mandate for the future protection and restoration of our coasts, oceans, islands and Great Lakes.

The House Committee on Natural Resources wrote this about the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy:

  • In four separate Congresses, legislation has been introduced to implement similar far-reaching ocean policies, and to-date NO bill has passed the House or been reported out of a Committee. Despite numerous requests from the Committee, the administration has yet to cite specific statutory authority on which this policy is based.
  • Rather than streamline Federal management, the policy adds layers of additional Federal bureaucracy that could significantly impact the economic and recreational uses of our oceans, ocean lands, and potentially all rivers, tributaries and lands that drain or adjoin our oceans. In total, the Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to an additional: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning to be created.
  • Restrictive national standards, along with ocean zoning, could slow and potentially stop the permitting of activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and energy production. This will harm the economy and cost jobs.
  • Although the policy is portrayed by the administration as primarily targeting Ocean related activities, recently released documents show just the opposite. The draft implement plan specifically states that the policy plans to address “the major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture—including forestry and animal feedlots.”
  • The policy establishes a Federally-controlled system of regional planning bodies that could override local and state zoning authorities. These bodies will have broad authority to issue regulations potentially impacting all activities that occur on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that eventually drain into the ocean, yet these bodies will allow no representation by the people, communities and businesses that will actually be impacted by the regulations.
  • The new national standards will also create a whole new class of lawsuits that could further restrict permitting of coastal and ocean activities and create a new way to challenge state permitting decisions for activities that “might affect” the ocean environment. This initiative is poised to become a litigation nightmare.
  • Over 80 national and local organizations representing agriculture, forestry, energy, fishing, boating, mining, transportation and construction wrote to Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers requesting a prohibition on funding for the implementation of the President’s National Ocean Policy.
  • This new policy will affect already budget-strapped agencies such as NOAA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, EPA, Department of Transportation, USDA, Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. As Federal budgets are further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are taking from existing programs to develop and implement this new initiative. [Emphasis added]

So Buchanan is against Florida’s fishing, boating, agricultural, forestry and energy industries. He wants to take control of  Florida’s shorelines and give oversight to unelected bureaucrats. He wants less permitting for construction along Florida’s shores and more lawsuits.

So is Rep. Buchanan pro-Florida? Pro jobs and for a growing Florida economy. Is he for the working people of Florida or not.

According to the House Committee on Natural Resources you can’t be pro-ocean and pro-growth. Pick one: the people of Florida or the ocean.

We report, you do your own research.


Fishermen Need More Flexibility than NOAA Doles Out

Six Years Later, Strong Uncertainty About President Obama’s National Ocean Policy Remains

In Charts, How These 7 Taxpayers’ Bills Would Change If Tax Reform Were Enacted

How will you fare if the GOP tax plan is enacted?

Well, on net, most Americans will see a significant tax cut under the proposed plans from Republican lawmakers, including virtually all lower- and middle-income workers and a majority of upper-income earners.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would, on average, provide immediate tax cuts across all income groups, according to analysis from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

This analysis does not, however, show how those tax cuts would vary based on factors such as total income, type of income, number of children, and itemized deductions.

While the plans lack a pro-growth cut to the top marginal tax rate (the Senate plan slightly lowers the top rate, but the House keeps the top rate and adds a higher bubble rate), both bills achieve significant reductions in business tax rates. This will help make America more competitive with the rest of the world, and will result in more and better jobs as well as higher incomes for all Americans.

To get a better idea of how some workers, families, and small businesses would fare under the proposed tax reform, The Heritage Foundation has estimated the tax bills of a range of taxpayers under current tax law, the House’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Senate’s modified mark of that bill.

Tom Wong: Single teacher with median earnings of $50,000 per year. Under the current tax code, Tom pays $5,474 each year in federal income taxes. His tax bill would decline by $914, or 17 percent, (to $4,560) under the House’s plan and by $1,104, or 20 percent, (to $4,370) under the Senate’s plan.

These tax cuts come primarily from a higher standard deduction of $12,000 and from lower marginal tax rates. Currently, Tom’s marginal tax rate is 25 percent. But under both the House and Senate plans, his tax rate would become 12 percent.

John and Sarah Jones: Married couple with three children, homeowners, and $75,000 in annual income. John is a sales representative and earns an average of $55,000 a year. Sarah is a registered nurse. After having children, Sarah cut back to part-time work and she earns $20,000 a year. Under the current tax code, John and Sarah pay $1,753 each year in federal income taxes.

But under the House’s tax plan, their tax bill would decline by $1,033, or 59 percent, (to $720). Under the Senate’s plan, their bill would be reduced by $2,014, or 115 percent, (to $0, plus a refundable credit of $261).

Even though John and Sarah would have more taxable income under the proposed plans (as a result of not being able to deduct all of their state and local taxes and not being able to claim personal exemptions), they would still receive a tax cut because they would face lower marginal tax rates and receive larger child tax credits.

Their current marginal tax rate would decline from 15 percent to 12 percent under both the House and Senate plans. Their current child tax credits of $1,000 each would increase to $1,600 each under the House plan and $2,000 each under the Senate plan. The House plan would also provide $600 in family credits to John and Sarah.

The numbers listed in the above example for John and Sarah’s current tax payments assumes John and Sarah own a home and live in a state with average tax levels. Under the current tax code, if they did not own a home but instead rented, their federal tax bill would be higher ($2,375 instead of their current $1,753 tax bill).

This would mean that their subsequent tax cuts—as renters—would be larger: $1,655, or 70 percent, under the House plan and $2,636, or 111 percent, under the Senate plan. The House plan would partially eliminate and the Senate plan would fully eliminate an inequity in the current tax code that provides bigger tax breaks to homeowners, wealthy individuals, and people who live in high-tax states.

If the John and Sarah rent, their new tax bills would remain the same under both the House and Senate plans (because the larger standard deduction would mean they would not itemize regardless of whether they owned a home or rented).

Peter and Paige Smith: Married couple with two children, homeowners, $1.5 million annual income. Peter works for a technology startup company and Paige is an accountant. Although Peter’s income fluctuates significantly from year-to-year, this was a big year for his company and he received a very large bonus, bringing his total earnings to $1.4 million. Paige’s stable income of $100,000 provided their family the financial stability they needed for Peter to take a risk and follow his dreams.

Under the current tax code, Pater and Paige pay $439,275 in federal income taxes. Their tax bill would increase by $87,993, or 20 percent, (to $527,268) under the House plan and would remain relatively the same, decreasing by just $1,313, or 0.3 percent, (to $437,962) under the Senate plan.

Peter and Paige’s taxable income would increase under both the House and Senate plans because they would lose some or all of their state and local tax deductions. Their total exemptions and child tax credits would remain the same—at zero—as their income is too high to claim any exemptions or credits under the current code or the proposed plans.

Under the current tax code, Peter and Paige face a top marginal tax rate of 42.5 percent (39.6 percent, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare surtax). Under the House plan, their top rate would rise to 48.5 percent (39.6 percent, plus the 6 percent “bubble” tax, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax), and under the Senate plan, it would fall to 41.4 percent (38.5 percent, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax).

Those marginal tax rates do not include Social Security’s 12.4 percent payroll tax, which can lead to extremely high combined marginal tax rates for second earners that are part of a high-income family like Peter and Paige. Because Paige makes less than Social Security current taxable maximum income of $127,200, her combined federal income and payroll tax rate is 54.9 percent under current law and would be 60.8 percent under the House plan and 53.8 percent under the Senate plan.

Although Peter and Paige would have the most taxable income under the Senate plan, the Senate plan’s lower top marginal tax rate does the most to remove the tax penalty on work and investment. The more Peter and Paige work and invest, the more jobs and income growth they help create across all income groups.  Peter and Paige would also benefit under the Senate plan’s lower marginal tax rates in the bottom brackets.

The above example assumes Peter and Paige live in a state with average taxes. Currently, however, their federal tax bill could be tens of thousands of dollars higher or lower, depending on whether they live in a state with higher- or lower-than-average taxes for them to write off. This is not the case under the proposed House and Senate tax plans, because the Senate plan fully eliminates the state and local tax deduction and the House plan eliminates all but a $10,000 property tax deduction (and at their income level, they would likely claim that full amount in any state).

Jose and Marie Fernandez: Married couple with two children, owners of JM Blinds and Shades LLC, homeowners, $250,000 annual income. Jose owns and manages JM Blinds and Shades manufacturing company. Marie primarily stays home with their young children, but she also helps out significantly with the business when needed. Under the current tax code, Jose and Marie pay $35,588, which is their alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount.

The AMT is a separate tax system, created back in 1982 to make sure that millionaires paid their “fair share” in taxes. However, because the AMT was not indexed for inflation until 30 years after it was enacted, it now hits a significant number of middle- to upper-income Americans with a higher tax bill than they would otherwise pay. That’s because under the current tax code, taxpayers pay the larger of what they owe under the regular income tax system and the AMT.

Both the House and Senate plans eliminate the AMT. Under the House plan, Jose and Marie’s federal tax bill would increase by $799, or 2.3 percent, (to $36,387) and under the Senate plan, their federal tax bill would decrease by $9,325, or 26 percent, (to $26,263).

Jose and Marie’s marginal income tax rates would vary significantly under the different tax plans. Their current marginal tax rate of 35 percent would decline to 30 percent under the House plan and 19.8 percent under the Senate plan.

Under the House tax plan, Jose and Marie would face a good deal more complexity. As a small business, they would face the top rate of 25 percent, but only on 30 percent of their income. The other 70 percent (counted as wages) would be taxed at the regular income tax rates (which range from 12 percent to 46.5 percent). At their current income level, that top rate would also be 25 percent. However, on top of that, Jose and Marie would face an additional 5 percent tax due to the phaseout of their child tax credits.

Under current law, Jose and Marie make too much to claim the $1,000 per child tax credits. Under the House plan, they would be able to claim $1,100 of each $1,600 child tax credit, and under the Senate plan, they would receive the full $2,000 credit per child.

Also, because Jose and Marie make $250,000, their next dollar of income would be subject to the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax under both the current and proposed tax plans. That would bring their marginal tax rate on any additional income to 37.9 percent under the current tax code, 32.9 percent under the House plan, and 22.7 percent under the Senate plan.

The above examples seek to show how some common taxpayers—including some wealthy individuals who are less common—would fare under the proposed tax reforms. Actual individuals’, families’, and businesses’ tax bills could vary significantly.

On net, however, most taxpayers—particularly lower- and middle-income taxpayers and businesses—will pay less in total taxes. Even more important than total taxes paid, however, is marginal tax rates. That’s because a lot of decisions are made at the margin.

For example, a worker is far more likely to work an additional hour if it counts as overtime and provides the equivalent of 1.5 hours’ worth of pay. And an individual is more likely to make a $1,000 contribution to his retirement savings account if that savings goes tax-free and means he can put all $1,000 away, instead of first having to pay between $100 and $400 in taxes on the savings.

Lower marginal tax rates are a big driver of economic growth, and the lower the rates, the higher the growth. Under the House bill, lower- and middle-income earners and businesses face lower marginal tax rates, but some high-income earners face higher marginal tax rates. The Senate proposal reduces the top marginal tax rate for an overwhelming majority of taxpayers, with the largest reductions occurring for businesses and for lower- and middle-income Americans.

While the proposed tax reforms do not achieve 100 percent of the potential pro-growth impacts that they could, they go a long way in helping to jump-start America’s struggling economy and put it on a pathway toward higher long-term growth.

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

By Michael Bastasch

For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican  issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

VIDEO: Dinesh D’Souza tackles white supremacy at University of Washington

Dinesh D’Souza writes

The Left continues to try to blame pin the racist tail on the Republican elephant, but Dinesh D’Souza has the facts. The Republican Party is now and always has been the party of emancipation, equal treatment under the law, and individual rights for ALL Americans. In fact, in the year leading up to the Civil War, EVERY SINGLE SLAVE IN AMERICA was owned by a Democrat—all 4 million of them. That’s right, not a single Republican owned a slave.

Last week, Dinesh D’Souza took the stage at the University of Washington to tackle the Left’s big lies once and for all. At the event, D’Souza showed how Republicans have been fighting against racism since the Civil War era and how Democrats continue to use blacks for their own political ends, just as they always have. It’s not the Republicans, but there ARE racists and fascists today in America today with real power. Who are they?

Watch now to learn who they are and how we can stop them.

EDITORS NOTE: Available nationwide, Dinesh D’Souza’s new book “The Big Lie” exposes the Left’s biggest lie yet: their orchestrated campaign to paint conservatives as Nazis to cover up their own fascism. To cover up their insidious fascist agenda, Democrats loudly accuse President Trump and other Republicans of being Nazis—an obvious lie, considering the GOP has been fighting the Democrats over slavery, genocide, racism and fascism from the beginning.

Now, finally, Dinesh D’Souza explodes the Left’s big lie.

Click here to order your copy immediately: — STOP! Before you watch any other videos, watch the trailer for “Hillary’s America”—you won’t believe the lies you’ve been taught about the Democratic Party your entire life:

Want to connect with Dinesh D’Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how:


Good Morning, Little Comrades

Nikita S. Krushchev said, “Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”

Vladmir Ilyich Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

The teachings of the Left include discrediting the Bible and replacing religion with social justice, dishonoring America and family, controlling the schools and curricula, and normalizing promiscuity. The Left has set about “deconstructing” (breaking down) the child’s psychology, removing every facet of life that provides the sense of security needed to create a mature, stable, responsible, independent, confident, and productive adult who will contribute to a free society. And it is through today’s schools that they are deconstructing our children in order to destroy the free society.

  • Education reformers are damaging the children’s psyche with gender redefinition, creating dysfunctional adults with confused purpose.
  • California lawmakers are proposing SB48; radicals, elitists and pseudo-experts are selling corruption disguised as freedom, promoting homosexual lifestyles while reducing morality and responsibility.
  • Under Common Core, fine literature that hones our comprehension and creative skills, teaching initiative and courage, are replaced with dystopian literature that adds to their sadness, immorality, and overall impairment.  Mis-education is becoming un-education.
  • Cursive writing, known to enhance creativity, is removed from curricula, and restricts the student’s ability to read our founding documents, understand their rights, and be prone to subservience to a master regime.
  • Common core began with higher standards, intentionally designed to frustrate and make for unhappy students.  Standards were then lowered across the board, to falsely lift self-esteem, reduce achievement and raise grades, but not in keeping with maturity and ability levels.
  • Fatherless households lead to irresponsibility, rebellion, and crime; welfare policies encourage unmarried motherhood and incomplete families.
  • Schools discredit our Judeo-Christian roots and allegiance to our country, but dwell on Islam and socialism.
  • There is growing disrespect for police and government.
  • Limiting free speech has prevented students from hearing opposing views, and the schools from providing a genuine education. They are fed ideas of Socialism/Marxism, globalism, and Islamism, and cannot reason, understand, or face ideas not within their realm of indoctrination.
  • Schools are creating young fascists who are taught to march, rage and destroy, yet cannot articulate their purpose.
  • The future workforce is reduced through dysfunctional children and entitlement programs, and open to replacement by migrants who bring their tyrannical way of life with them.

And now, another assault against the children has appeared in the offing, perhaps the most egregious. A mandate that first became evident in some English schools several years ago, now seen in some Canadian and American schools, is that children should be discouraged from having “best friends.”  England’s Thomas’s Battersea school has determined, with the agreement of some (but by no means all) parents and psychologists, that group bonding would encourage inclusion of all children and prevent rejection of the few.

The strength one gets from a best-friend relationship, if removed, may be sufficient to create enough despair where the individual will seek comfort in an ever-expanding government (the Marxist purpose). As with any detrimental Leftist concept, this technique is couched as an appeal for sympathy and compassion for those who are slow to bond with a best friend, but its stealth purpose is a means of assuring equalization by removing the securities of friendship.

Of course, not all children will immediately develop warm friendships, but should that be the norm to impose on others? Our schools have already lowered standards to meet the levels of lower achievers.  Should we also remove music and the arts with deference to the less gifted, or impose a veritable “eye for an eye” on behalf of those with poorer vision?  Would not our population be better served by a sensitive teacher to help all the children overcome their timidity and fears, learn the art of conversation, and develop the social graces needed to negotiate their future?  For school personnel to reduce every student to his or her lowest common denominator is a Marxist technique.  Already implemented in grading, it guarantees equality to the masses with obedience to the authorities, and where equality is imposed, freedoms are sacrificed.

There are many quotes about the value of friends, four of which I thought prudent to include here:

“When it hurts to look back, and you’re scared to look ahead, you can look beside you and your best friend will be there” – Anonymous.

“My best friend is the one who brings out the best in me” – Henry Ford.

“Things are never quite as scary when you’ve got a best friend” – Bill Watterson.

“A blessed thing it is for any man or woman to have a friend, one human soul whom we can trust utterly, who knows the best and worst of us, and who loves us in spite of all our faults” – Charles Kingsley.

The benefits of friendship are many and unique.  We are social beings and friends fill a psychological need for survival, to cope with life’s trials and to remain inspired.  A friend is an eager companion, one who provides praise and kindly given criticism, and a way for us to learn trust and support.  Friends are there for comfort and to teach us about respect, sharing, thought, discussion and debate, analysis and problem-solving; simply put, they bring us happiness. Vital for our emotional wellbeing, best friends provide what parents and teachers cannot, particularly because the adults are less than perfect or may have, themselves, been deprived of best friends.

The lack of close friends results in emotional distress – loneliness, sadness, emptiness, withdrawal – which can also take its toll on physical health.  It is known to be the leading reason for delinquency, school dropouts, antisocial personality disorder and suicide.  In adults, loneliness precipitates depression and alcoholism, and stress with sleep disorders and multiple medical problems. Psychologist John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago concluded that social skills are crucial for mental and physical wellbeing.

In geographic situations that contribute to isolation, but where children may turn to books of imagination, challenge and rewards, achievement and travel, one might anticipate emotional success.  But today’s educational system has removed such books and replaced them with dystopian novels, where the characters are immersed in loneliness, sadness, defeat, and an environment bereft of reason. The stories provide situations of crises from which the characters may not always extricate themselves.  Therefore, with no escape and nowhere to vent, the child can lose his individuality, creativity and the chance to form valuable coping skills, and be drawn to any available group mentality, as well as drug abuse and alcoholism.

Robbing the children of the necessary human encounter and intimacy conforms to Leftist ideologies, which intend to destroy all social, economic, and political artifacts of classical liberalism. We see disintegration of the old society and family in the history of the Soviet Union, but, significantly, there are parallels in Islam’s jihadi warriors who emerge from emotional solitude and emptiness. The Arabic term, Asabiyah, defined in Kobrin’s The Jihadi Dictionary, is comparable to group consciousness, group-think, and the loss of individuality.  By destroying intimacy, empathy and compassion, the group creates the shame-honor culture, using passive-aggressive behavior of intimidation and scapegoating.  Happiness is the meaning and purpose of life, the aim and end of human existence.

The child who is friendless and isolated, bereft of independence and initiative, responds with obedience, guilt, and lying to protect himself from being ostracized.  He may then be vulnerable to joining violent Leftist movements or submitting to Islamic radicalization.

A civilization becoming a shadow of its former greatness – this is the gift of the Left.

Attacking Judge Moore’s Morality is a Dirty Leftist Trick

Black Christian Conservative Republican Lloyd Marcus here. I call upon all my fellow Christians not to abandon our brother Roy Moore who is running for U.S. Senate Alabama. Right before the election, 40 year old sexual misconduct allegations have come out against Judge Moore which he has denied.

Judge Moore is hated by Leftists and establishment Republicans because he is an outspoken character driven Christian conservative; a faithful courageous defender of our Constitution, principles and values which have made America great. Moore elected to the US Senate would be extremely helpful to Trump draining-the-swamp and making America great again.

Judge Moore’s unwavering commitment to biblical morals and support of Trump’s agenda makes Moore the last person fake news media, Hollywood, democrats and RINO Republicans want to see in the US Senate.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Leftists and RINOs are clamoring for Moore to drop out of the race; claiming Moore is morally unfit to serve. These same people told us president Bill Clinton having an intern perform oral sex on him in the White House was none of our business. To defend Clinton, Leftists threw all men under the bus by claiming any man in a powerful position would say yes to sex with a starry-eyed young woman. Their narrative was particularly offensive to me because my dad and brother were men in powerful positions. Dad was the pastor of a large congregation and my brother was commissioner of a kids football league. Neither of them would mimic president Clinton’s adulterous philandering, sexual harassment and sexual assaults.

Leftists sold America their lie that president Clinton’s serial adultery was no big deal. Sexual immorality was the acceptable new normal for men in power (if they were democrats). Now, these same people who circled the wagons to protect Clinton are pounding on Moore’s political door with axes and pitchforks, demanding that he get out of the race over unfounded 40 year old allegations.

But what if the 40 year old allegations against Judge Moore are true. Judge Moore became a Christian several years ago. His consistent behavior, standing up for religious liberty and freedom strongly suggest his conversion to Christianity was real. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.” In other words, when Moore put his trust in Jesus and repented of his sinful life, Moore became a new man.

Before his encounter with Christ, the Apostle Paul was a bad man who killed Christians. 40 years before God used Moses to lead his people out of Egypt, Moses murdered a man. The Bible says “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). After becoming new people via their new birth in Christ, God has used everyone from former prostitutes to murders in extraordinary ways. So how on earth can any Christian join Leftists in deeming our brother in Christ, Roy Moore, morally unfit to serve today based on 40 year old unfounded allegations?

It is pretty obnoxious watching the same people (Leftists) who seek to normalize and legalize every conceivable sexual perversion trying to disqualify Moore on moral grounds. As Rush Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions, Leftists view sexual misconduct as resume enhancement for democrat politicians.

Check out the glaring hypocrisy. Leftists are calling for Moore’s political head on a platter. And yet, they gave the following democrats, for the most part, a pass for their sexual misconduct; Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, David Wu, Kwame Kilpatrick, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, David Paterson, Antonio Villaraigosa, Marc Dann, Paul J. Morrison, Gary Condit, Tim Mahoney, Roosevelt Dobbins, Neil Goldschmidt, Jim McGreevey, Bob Wise, Paul E. Patton, Mel Reynolds, Brock Adams, Chuck Robb, Gavin Newsom, Sam Adams and Barney Frank. Fake news media did not collectively declare that the sexual misconduct of these democrats made them unfit to serve

By the way, Barney Frank’s boyfriend ran a prostitution business from Frank’s home. Were there serious calls for Frank to resign? Nope.

This attack on Moore’s morals (right before the election) is a dirty trick to get a rock solid bold, brave and courageous Conservative warrior out of the arena. My fellow Christians, please do not fall for it.

Lawsuit filed to stop City of Charlotte, NC Silencing Pro-Life Prayer and Counseling

ANN ARBOR, MI –  The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, on Friday (11/17/17), filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, the mayor, and several city employees to stop the City’s unconstitutional censorship, intimidation, and harassment of peaceful pro-life advocates. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Cities4Life, a Christian pro-life ministry, and its Executive Director, Daniel Parks, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

For over a decade, Cities4Life volunteers have peacefully assembled outside of Charlotte’s busiest abortion facility to pray and provide faith-based pro-life counseling for mothers seeking an abortion. However, responding to pressure from pro-abortion groups, the City of Charlotte has recently acted to silence this pro-life message by using an ordinance that unconstitutionally discriminates against signs based upon their content. In July of this year, City officials began enforcing the ordinance in a discriminatory manner so as to target the activities of pro-life religious groups, but not those of pro-abortion organizations.

Since July, Daniel Parks has been issued at least 4 citations by the City alleging a violation of the ordinance.

Tyler Brooks, the TMLC attorney handling the case, commented: “The City of Charlotte and its code enforcement officials have used the City Code to violate the First Amendment by restricting Cities4Life’s use of signs, and therefore its speech, because they object to the content of those signs. Thus, despite their desire to exercise their constitutional rights and speak freely, Cities4Life and its volunteers have encountered unconstitutional censorship.”

Cities4Life, headquartered in Concord, North Carolina, has chapters in Nashville, Tennessee; Tampa Bay, Florida; and Lexington, Kentucky as well as other parts of the country. David Benham, of Benham Brothers fame, is Chairman of the Board and a major funder of Cities4Life. Cities4Life’s approach is peaceful, prayerful, and non-violent as it seeks to demonstrate the love of Jesus Christ, clearly seen in thisvideo (5 minutes).

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “This is the second pro-life lawsuit we’ve filed in the past month.  Despite the many pro-life victories in recent years, pro-abortion forces, which control the government in many large cities, have waged a guerrilla war against courageous pro-life advocates, like Cities4Life, who are engaged on the front lines of the battle. Cities like Charlotte are using their law enforcement powers to silence the voice of these pro-life warriors.”

The complaint asks the federal court to declare the City’s ordinance unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin its enforcement.

Read TMLCs Complaint Here

Europe Squanders Money on Green Dreams

By Cathie Adams, Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman.

President Trump’s energy agenda assures a bright future for Americans. He and his delegation did an amazing job defending free-market capitalism, national sovereignty, and our standard of living in Bonn without pandering to the radical greens. To stay on this bright path, it is imperative that Americans understand the United Nations agenda, and boldly stand with our President.

The supposed purpose of the Bonn meeting was to create a rulebook to implement the Paris Agreement, but that work will continue into next year at meetings leading up to the next major meeting in Poland.

Senators at COP23 in Bonn, Germany

The real purpose of the Bonn meeting, and every climate change meeting, is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries.  This statement by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) prior to convening in Bonn affirms the claim: “The LDCs are calling for COP23 to be a COP of finance and support…for two funds in particular, the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Adaptation Fund.” They were highly successful as evidenced by these examples:

  • Germany pledged 50 million Euros on the opening day of the conference to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and another 50 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund.
  • Germany also pledged an additional $125 million for an InsuResilience Initiative, a provision of insurance to 400 million poor people by 2020. This insurance mechanism is a partnership between Germany, the UK, other nations, and financial institutions such as the World Bank. This brings G20 nations into partnership with 49 vulnerable nations, called the V20.
  • Germany and Britain combined pledged $153 million to expand programs to fight climate change and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
  • The UK pledged 30 million Pounds to its Centre for Global Disaster Protection. And to immediately begin phasing out its coal usage.
  • Belgium pledged 3.25 million Euros to the LDCF.
  • Sweden pledged $185 million to the Adaptation Fund, plus $185 million to the LDCF.
  • Luxembourg pledged 5 million Euros to the Green for Growth Fund for development in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Norway, Unilever, and the World Bank pledged $400 million to stimulate resilient social development, i.e. high productivity agriculture, smallholder inclusion and forest protection. Laura Tuck, VP of sustainable development at the World Bank commented, “Achieving economic development and the eradication of poverty can’t be achieved if we don’t build climate resilience. This is why the World Bank is putting resilience, and the management of climate risks, at the heart of its investments.”
  • Norway also announced that it will divest its pension funds amounting to about $35-40 billion from fossil fuel companies.
  • Italy pledged 7 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund and another 2.5 million Euros to create a new “Capacity Award Program to Advance Capabilities and Institutional Training in one Year (CAPACITY) to developing local professional expertise in countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
  • The European Investment Bank pledged $75 million for a new $405 million investment for the Water Authority of Fiji to strengthen the resilience of water distribution and wastewater treatment following Cyclone Winston in February 2016.
  • The Green Climate Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development pledged a $37.6 grant for a $243 million project to make Moroccan agriculture more resilient.
  • The World Resources Institute pledged $2.1 billion of private investment to restore degraded lands in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • The UN Development Program, Germany, Spain and the EU pledged 42 million Euros for the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Support Program to help countries deliver on the Paris Agreement.
  • Thirteen countries and the International Energy Agency pledged 30 million Euros to the “IEA Clean Energy Transitions Program” to support clean energy transitions around the world.
  • Ecuador pledged to reduce 15 million tons of CO2 emissions in its forest sector.
  • National parks in the central African nation of Gabon pledged to halt illegal logging to stop 20 million tons of CO2.
  • Microsoft and Walmart also announced pledges to the UN climate change agenda. Microsoft pledged to cut CO2 emissions by 75% by 2030. And Walmart pledged to provide commodities that do not increase deforestation.
  • A gender action plan, an indigenous peoples platform, and an oceans pathway were created, but the Fiji host did not get what they wanted most: money for storm loss and damage.

Billions or even trillions of dollars will never satisfy the radical greens. Raijeli Nicole, regional director for Oxfam in the Pacific, put it this way, “For the most part, rich countries showed up to Bonn empty-handed. Instead, we got a tepid agreement that they’ll report back next year on progress towards their $100 billion promise.” The $100 billion promise is the annual UN Green Climate Fund that currently contains only about $10 billion.

Litigation abuse is another tool being plied by the radical greens.They have a number of legal cases hoping the courts will impose penalties for climate change on fossil fuel companies, similar to the penalties that were levied against the tobacco industry. They also bragged about potential litigation against major meat producers accusing them of liability for methane emissions.

The U.S. wisely kept a low profile in Bonn. Judith G. Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, did address the delegations reiterating President Trump’s plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, yet to remain open to rejoining under terms more favorable to the American people. She reported that while the U.S., since 2005, has reduced net greenhouse gas emissions by 11.5%, our economy has grown 15%, adjusted for inflation. She added that the U.S. will continue to support the cleanest, most efficient power generation, regardless of the source.

But that didn’t prevent U.S. Democratic Senators from Rhode Island, Oregon, Hawaii and Massachusetts from showing up in Bonn to make delusional claims: “Trump is just a temporary resident of the White House….Climate outlasts Presidents….We hold the Trump card….The American people are still in [the Paris Agreement.”

Jesse Young, a senior advisor at Oxfam America, also threw jabs at Garber’s remarks: “Today, the U.S. said it remains open to staying in Paris, and wants to help the world address the challenges of climate change. But until they cease their efforts to leave Paris and actually invest in policies to fight climate impacts — today’s statement will be worth little more than the paper on which it was written.”

Oxfam’s Pacific representative added, “From activists to governors and business leaders, we saw the real face of American climate activism here in Bonn. The world has left Trump behind, sitting alone on a throne of coal.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The undeniable truth is that America’s free-market capitalism, our clean air and water, and our standard of living are lights on a hill that can greatly benefit the rest of the world. Should the radical greens choose to take off their socialist blinders, they too can follow our successful path to an even brighter future.

Cathie Adams

Cathie Adams currently serves as the “International Issues” chairman for Eagle Forum and on the board of the national Eagle Forum. She previously served five years as president of the Dallas Eagle Forum and 16 years as president of the Texas Eagle Forum, until being elected chairman of the Republican Party of Texas in 2009. She was named by Campaigns and Elections magazine’s August 2010 issue as one of the top 50 Republican influencers in Texas.

Eagle Forum’s mission is to enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy-making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.

Cathie has been an election judge, a member of the district, state and national resolutions/platform committees; and a delegate to five Republican National Conventions. She was elected Republican National Committeewoman for Texas and as Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

Capitol Inside’s Texas Lobby Power Rankings placed Cathie first on their list of lobbyists for cause from 2005 through 2009. “The Democratic insurgence hasn’t pushed Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams out of the number one spot on the list of people who lobby for causes. Adams, a veteran activist who was elected to the Republican National Committee last summer, commands the immediate attention of GOP lawmakers whenever her organization decides to turn up the grassroots pressure on conservative issues dear to its heart.”

Most recently, Cathie has been observing the United Nations design a Green Climate Fund. As an observer of major UN conferences since 1995, Cathie enjoys telling about her experiences. She attended the Women’s Conference in Beijing, China; the Housing Summit in Istanbul, Turkey; the Food Summit in Rome, Italy; and a number of Climate Change meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bonn, Germany, The Hague, Netherlands, Poznan, Poland and Cancun, Mexico. When the International Criminal Court was created in Rome in 1998, Cathie attended the proceedings. She also attended the 2000 Millennium Summit in New York City, the Global Taxing Summit in Monterrey, Mexico, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. She traveled to Hong Kong for a Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization and to Paris, France for a UNESCO meeting.

Cathie has been involved in other civic activities as well. She was a member of the Human Services Commission for the City of Dallas, and has testified before the State Board of Education as well as several Legislative committees in Austin, Texas. The news media frequently calls her for the “conservative” side of their reporting.

Mrs. Cathie Adams is a full-time volunteer. She has been married to Dr. Homer Adams for 41 years and they have five grandchildren. Their son and daughter-in-law are both Texas A&M graduates.

Posts by Cathie Adams

New York City: Hub for the Deadly Drug Trade

“Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.

The mission of the immigration elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is, in part, to protect America and Americans from aliens who pose a threat to national security and the safety and well-being of those who are in the United States. DHS is also charged with securing our nation’s borders, America’s first and last line of defense, to prevent contraband such as narcotics and illegal weapons from entering the United States.

Today, my commentary is predicated on news reports that in August 2017 the DEA and other law enforcement agencies, including the NYPD, conducted a field operation that resulted in the arrest of two Mexican citizens, Rogelio Alvarado-Robles and Blanca Flores-Solis, a middle-aged husband and wife from Mexico, and the seizure, pursuant to the execution of a search warrant, of 213 pounds of narcotics in their apartment in the fashionable Kew Gardens neighborhood of Queens New York.

On November 13, 2017 The Washington Post reported on this investigation (“Mexican traffickers making New York a hub for lucrative — and deadly — fentanyl”), appropriately filing the report under “National Security.”

We will delve into this case, but first I want to ask a simple question and then provide some background information to put things into proper perspective.

The NYPD consists of over 35,000 officers and has garnered the reputation, around the world, for being the most sophisticated, well-equipped and effective police department in America, if not the entire world.

Why then would a foreign drug trafficking organization move its operation into New York City?

I would suggest that the fact that the city is a self-declared “sanctuary” for illegal aliens plays a significant role in that decision.

I spent half of my career with the INS assigned to elements of the “War on Drugs.”  Back in 1989, as a member of the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA, I began tracking the arrest statistics for the DEA in New York and was startled to find that at least 60% of those arrested by the DEA Task Force in NYC for drug-related crimes were identified as “foreign born.”

Nevertheless many members of the United States Congress are adamantly opposed to the construction of a wall or other fortifications along the U.S./Mexican border, declaring that it would somehow stop commerce and that such a wall would be an affront to Mexico.

In point of fact, the wall President Trump is determined to construct would not block ports of entry into the United States, only make certain to funnel all traffic through ports of entry to stop the flow of illegal aliens and the criminals and potential terrorists among them from evading the vetting process conducted at ports of entry.

Furthermore, such fortifications would also go a long way to stopping the flood of contraband, particularly narcotics currently inundating the United States.

The proponents of open borders and immigration anarchy claim that sanctuary policies protect “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement authorities.  Their position on border security and immigration law enforcement run in diametric opposition to the mission of the DHS.

In reality, lawful immigrants and temporary foreign visitors who abide by our laws need no protection from the the components agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who are charged with enforcing and administering our nation’s immigration laws.

Indeed, aliens who are lawfully admitted into the United States are admitted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and aliens who are granted immigration benefits such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship are granted those benefits by Adjudications Officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) a division of the DHS.

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 is the section of law that enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States and includes aliens who who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness as are criminals, human rights violators, terrorists and spies.  That law is utterly blind as to race, religion and/or ethnicity.

The media fosters the false narrative about immigration law enforcement by describing advocates for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement as “Anti-Immigrant” while using the term “Pro-Immigrant” to describe immigration anarchists.

The use of misleading language is a tactic that undermines public understanding of critical issues and ultimately undermines our very democracy. In point of fact, The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship.

Having provided this background information, let’s go back to the seizure of that massive quantity of narcotics that included 141 pounds of pure fentanyl, making this the largest seizure of fentanyl in U.S. history.

Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin.

In fact, according to the DEA, the fentanyl that was seized during this field operation could provide lethal doses to 32 million people.

In other words, according to the DEA, the quantity of fentanyl seized in that one apartment could kill roughly 10% of the entire population of the United States!

According that that Washington Post report Rogelio Alvarado-Robles and his wife  Blanca Flores-Solis, had flown to New York City about a month before their arrest and that the couple had no criminal histories and carried no weapons but were described by law enforcement sources as one of the many Mexican “drug cartel emissaries” have turned New York City into their Northeast distributions hub that employs aliens from the Dominican Republic as their “sales teams” that move incredible quantities of drugs through the “Big Apple” to cities located in neighboring states.

The article also noted that this year more than 350 pounds of pure fentanyl has been seized in New York City, a ten-fold increase in the quantity of this deadly drug that was seized in 2016 and that last year more than 60,000 people died from drug overdoses in the United States, with a fivefold increase in deaths attributed to synthetic opioids as fentanyl as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Washington Post report includes this excerpt:

According to DEA intelligence gleaned from wiretaps, about 80 percent of the fentanyl seized in the New York area appears to be linked to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel. The organization remains North America’s dominant trafficking group, even as its leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, awaits trial in a maximum-security jail in Lower Manhattan.

Sinaloa’s smuggling machine has carried on without Guzman, meaning his legal defense may be funded in part with profits from fentanyl sales made just a few miles from his cell.

The Sinaloa group does not bother with retail-level commerce, according to the DEA. It uses New York to deliver large wholesale shipments to middlemen, typically local Dominican traffickers. Those groups distribute to markets in New England, Pennsylvania, Baltimore and other places where the opioid crisis is raging.

On September 18, 2017 the NYPD issued a press release about the investigation seizure of the record quantities of fentanyl that includes this excerpt about a terrifying trend:

These cases highlight the enormous amount of fentanyl surging through New York City, hitting the streets and escalating overdose deaths. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, fentanyl is driving a spike in fatal overdoses, which reached an all-time high of 1,374 deaths in New York City in 2016 – 46% more than in 2015. A dangerously strong synthetic opioid, fentanyl is approximately 50 times stronger than heroin and is increasingly found mixed into the city’s illicit narcotics supply.

Dead is dead.  While the number of people dying of gunshots wounds in NYC is decreasing, the number of deaths attributable to drug overdoses is skyrocketing but, incredibly, there is no mention of the fact that the couple arrested were citizens of Mexico, that the narcotics were smuggled into the United States from Mexico or that aliens from the Dominican Republic were used as “salesmen” to market these drugs on street corners of New York City and other cities across the Northeast.

This should not, perhaps come as a surprise because New York City is a “Sanctuary City” that not only shields illegal aliens from detection by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) but also provides “municipal ID” to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens further enabling them to embed themselves in New York City.

Nearly five years ago the NY Times published an important and illuminating article, Roosevelt Avenue, a Corridor of Vice that reported on the nexus between illegal immigration, false identity documents and a variety of crimes including human trafficking, prostitution and narcotics.

Drug money bankrolls gangs and terror organizations.  Drugs have a direct and indirect nexus to violent crime.  Considering that most of the narcotics peddled in the United States is smuggled into the United States by aliens, it is beyond belief that any mayor of any city would turn his town or city into a magnet for aliens whose presence in the United States may undermine national security and public safety.

A few weeks ago I asked, Who Deserves The Drug Cartel’s MVP Award?

Mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors of “Sanctuary States” must certainly be prime candidates for this “award.”

Under Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law, Weinstein Could Walk

The Harvey Weinstein exposé has opened a can of worms. The news is filled on a daily basis about sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace. If the West were ruled by Sharia, however, it would likely not be in the news. First, under strict Sharia, women would not be in the workplace if men were there. No women, no groping.

Furthermore, there would be no rape to report. Why? Under Sharia, rape can only be proven if there are four male witnesses. If a man rapes a women in private, no witnesses, no problem. But wait.  Can’t the woman report the crime? Yes she can, but in a Sharia court, her testimony has only half the value of a male witness. Result? No conviction.

There is another reason that there would be no news about sexual abuse in the workplace. Under Sharia, a woman is seen as the cause of the molestation. She is so attractive to a man that he can’t control himself. She is the perpetrator. The man is the victim.

Conclusion? Sharia could solve the problem of these news headlines, but at the cost of inhumanity towards women.

Totalitarian Islam

Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world. Just as in the year 632, after Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.


Political Islam, a totalitarian doctrine

The True History of Muslim Conquests