womans march montage

The March to Nowhere

A day or two before the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump on January 20th,2017, I watched a reporter interviewing five attractive, intelligent, articulate women from California, who were all making the long cross-country trip to the Women’s March on Washington on January 21st.

Amazingly, not one woman was able to express a persuasive or even rational reason for the trip, but instead resorted to time-worn platitudes, bromides, and leftist talking points about “unity” and “solidarity” and “getting the message out.” Um… what message?

At the March itself, I was struck by the fact that women who pride themselves on their intelligence resorted to reading their statements, never veering a syllable off the scripts that were clearly written for them—scripts, by the way, that were not only boilerplate and banal, but shockingly blasphemous.

Madonna, punctuating her statement with foul-mouthed obscenities, looked down at her script, then lifted her head to speak into the microphone.  “I’m angry.” Pause. Again, she looked at her script, then read: “I’m outraged.” (Very difficult lines to memorize, to be sure). Pause. Again, back to the script where she read about her fantasy of “blowing up the White House.”

Gloria Steinem read from her script. America Ferrara read from her script. Ashley Judd both read and acted out her script. “We’re here to be respected,” she snarled, oblivious to the irony that her ghastly performance evoked the exact opposite.

On and on and on they intoned and screeched and railed, sounding remarkably like barnyard creatures and giving the rest of America the distinct impression that the conceit these women harbor of their superior intellects and evolved moral sensibilities are fantasies borne more of delusions of grandeur than of either objective IQ numbers or developed moral compasses.

But to be fair, they had genuine passion that inspired them to spend thousands of dollars to drive, bus or fly across the country, pay for lodging and food, and then travel back to their homes.

Just kidding. We all know that leftwing activists are notoriously cheap, believers as they are that either government or other benefactors should pay their way.

And sure enough, according to Matthew Vadum’s stunning article, “Soros’s Women’s March of Hate,” billionaire radical George Soros—the same man “who says Communist China’s system of government is superior to our own and that the United States is the number one obstacle to world peace”—was directly involved in funding at least 56 of the March’s ‘partners.’”

Vadum listed a good number of the radical-left and anti-American groups attending the March: Planned Parenthood, the National Resource Defense Council, MoveOn, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, Advancement Project; American Constitution Society; America’s Voice; Arab American Association of New York; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Center for Reproductive Rights; Color of Change; Communities United for Police Reform; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Every Voice; Green for All; League of Women Voters; Make the Road New York; MPower Change; NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America Fund; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance; National Network for Arab American Communities; National Council of La Raza; PEN America; Psychologists for Social Responsibility; Public Citizen; United We Dream; and Voter Participation Center,” et al.

ENEMIES OF AMERICA

Vadum and others also reported that Muslim terrorist supporter Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Sharia law in America, was deeply involved in planning the March-related events. Sarsour, Vadum wrote, “has familial ties to HAMAS and works with the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).”

If you’re not sure what Sharia mandates, here are just a few of the grisly details, which include:

  • Relegation of women to a status inferior to men.
  • Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man.
  • Muslim men are given permission to beat their wives and commit marital rape, and rape is not considered a felony.
  • Women who are raped are accused of adultery.
  • A woman is not allowed to travel outside the home without the permission of a male.
  • A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage.
  • ‘Honor’ killing: a Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for killing his child or grandchild.
  • Female genital mutilation, while not required by Islam, is the norm in parts many parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Also among the motley crew of attendees at the March was featured speaker Donna Hylton, a convicted felon who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death.

Then there was Angela Davis, former Black Panther, former fugitive from U.S. justice, former VP candidate for the U.S. on the Communist Party platform, and famous for her speeches praising American traitors, terrorists, and cop killers.

Also making appearances were Obama cronies, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn.

On hand, as well, were members of the radical—but ultimately discredited and ineffectual—groups Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter.

Not to forget that most if not all of the women at the March who vehemently objected to then-candidate Trump’s interview with Access Hollywood’s host Billy Bush—in which Mr. Trump talked about the easy access rich and handsome guys like him had to women and how easy it was to grab them by the crotch—were thunderously silent when Bill Clinton was not only abusing and embarrassing and spitting in his wife’s face for decades on end, and also being routinely “serviced” in the Oval Office by one Monica Lewinsky.

Funny how their moral outrage is always reserved for Republicans. But enough about leftist hypocrisy and the piles of debris they left for others to clean up after the March, not quite as bad as the gross mess Barack Obama’s fans left after both of his inauguration ceremonies. What is it about Democrats and cleanliness?

So there they all were—the hysterical harridans of Hollywood and the music industry and the hate-America-firsters—along with ordinary women and their children, all of whom when interviewed also didn’t quite know why they were there but appeared to be perfectly okay with all those “F” words and women dressed up as the female sex organ.

Yuk.

Writer Vadum goes on to quote Asra Q. Nomani—a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter who described herself as “a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president.” Nomani wrote that “the march really isn’t a ‘women’s march.’ It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump.”

Nomani was right, but she didn’t zero in on the animating cause of their rage.

THE REAL REASON BEHIND THE RALLY: ABORTION

The Holy Grail of the left is abortion. There is not one subject—including ISIS beheadings, inferior public-school education, unaffordable healthcare, even child pornography—that is more important to leftwing women than unwanted pregnancies, i.e., ending the lives of inconvenient embryos.

But now that science and technology have evolved past the point when feminists like Steinem pronounced embryos “blobs of tissue,” and everyone who views a sonogram can see the vital, heart-beating, active life of the developing baby, let’s review what abortion destroys forever:

  • At two-to-four weeks of pregnancy, the blueprint for an entire human being is established.
  • By four weeks, the ball of cells in the womb is already forming into three layers that will later become your baby’s organs and tissues:
    1. In the top layer, the neural tube begins to form, where your baby’s brain, backbone, spinal cord, and nerves will develop. Skin, hair and nails will also develop from this layer.
    2. The middle layer is where the skeleton and muscles grow, and where the heart and circulatory system will form.
    3. The third layer houses the beginnings of what will become the lungs, the intestines and the urinary system.
  • At six weeks, a baby’s nose, mouth, and ears begin to take shape.
  • At seven weeks, the baby’s hands and feet are formed.
  • At eight weeks, the baby is moving.
  • At 10 weeks, the organs are in place.
  • At 11 weeks, the baby’s hands can open and close into fists, and tiny tooth buds appear.
  • At 12 weeks, the heart is beating, urine is being produced, and the baby’s unique fingerprints are being developed.

All of this is miraculous and awe-inspiring. Still, leftwing women—and their cowed and sissified partners—insist that literally killing the baby they’re carrying is more important than every other issue on earth.

That is why they ostracized—literally banned—any pro-life woman from their March, even feminists who agreed with them on this or that social or foreign policy issue. Bottom line, if the pro-life women didn’t believe in killing babies in the womb, the “inclusive,” tolerant abortionistas were psychologically unable to either include or tolerate them.

Did I fail to mention how inherently racist abortion is? An overwhelming 76.5 percent of aborted babies are either black or Hispanic, according to Californian Stephen Frank, a political activist and commentator.

THE BOTTOM LINE

In one of his first acts, President Trump signed an Executive Order to defund the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. He also issued an executive memorandum reinstating the Mexico City policy, which bars federal funding for overseas groups that provide access to or counseling about abortions. And he has vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v Wade, the law that legalized abortion in 1973, effectively returning abortion back to the states, “and then the states will make the determination,” he said.

This is what the mass hysteria was all about—the “right” to end the lives of unborn babies.

Happily, the vast majority of Americans “got” the entire meaning of the anti-life March, which included:

  • The immense hypocrisy of the Left.
  • The surprisingly large number of leftist mothers who thought it was perfectly fine to hurl vile F-bomb epithets in front of their young children.
  • The intellectual and moral impoverishment of leftists.
  • The staggering irrationality of killing in-utero babies instead of waiting a few months and allowing desperate infertile parents to adopt and love them.

All this reinforced to the more than 63-million people who voted for Donald J. Trump for president that his pro-life stance was more timely and powerful than ever!

“Are so many women so shallow?” asks  editor and writer Ruth S. King. “They came, they howled, they carried signs and wore stupid ‘pussyhats’ and they accomplished nothing, nada, zilch other than street theater.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Women’s March Featured Donna Hylton–Kidnapper And Torturer | The Daily Caller

dhs

Department of Homeland Security: President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place

Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation

Release Date:
January 29, 2017

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

[Emphasis added]

RELATED ARTICLE: Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting – Middle East Quarterly

stop_fraud

It’s Naive to Think Not One of the Millions of Aliens in the U.S. is Voting

It’s now officially an issue: illegal aliens are voting. President Donald Trump has announced a major investigation into the charges and counter charges surrounding this phenomenon. At Judicial Watch, however, it’s nothing new. We’ve had our eye on this for years, and our Election Integrity Project  was active in monitoring polling places in the most recent election.

I was interviewed some time ago (when the issue was first raised around the November election) by Breitbart Daily News about illegal voting, and I want to share that with you. Here is a report at Breitbart on the interview:

On…Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton about a study from the Center for Immigration Studies that revealed that “there could be as many as 43 million non-citizens in the United States right now.” Fitton had previously spotlighted this study on Twitter as evidence of potential voter fraud issues.

“There’s 43 million people who are not citizens and are ineligible to vote, but a good percentage of them do register to vote. And of those that do, some vote,” Fitton explained.

“Most tend to vote Democrat. It’s a fact,” he continued. “There’s been a study out of Old Dominion University that shows it is enough of a vote to sway elections, one way or another. It may have resulted in election, specifically, of Al Franken to the United States Senate, and all the bad things politically or public policy-wise that happened as a result, like Obamacare and things like that.”

“Are we supposed to be so naive as to think that tens of millions of people are here, present in the United States, and none of them are illegally voting?” Fitton asked. “In states where you don’t have voter ID, in states where most voter registration, you’re not required to certify citizenship, other than signing and saying you’re a citizen?”

“It happens repeatedly where you have these voter registrations signed by aliens because they shouldn’t be voting, so they’re registered to vote – and the irony is, once they’re registered to vote, voter ID ain’t gonna protect you,” he noted, “because they have the ID necessary to vote, once they’re registered. So you have many non-citizens voting in elections, and they vote in large numbers in a way to sway elections.”

“The number of non-citizens in the United States are at record proportions – about as big as it’s been in 105 years, according, I think, to CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies,” he observed. “It is looking at U.S. Census data, and there’s just been this massive uptick, just even the last few years.”

“And it’s not just illegal aliens. We’re talking about aliens who are here legallywho are also voting illegally,  potentially,” he added. “That’s why we’re gonna be in Virginia, trying to monitor elections, because we know this is an issue. This is one of the issues that can lead to voter fraud and a stolen election.”

The Washington Times published a big story today following up on this issue and featuring JW:

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence – that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 – 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”

President Trump is right.  A full-scale, non-partisan federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue.  I’m not aware of any systematic federal investigation of voter fraud – ever.  Initially, such an investigation would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity team, headed up by Robert Popper, former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, would be more than happy to help.

In the meantime, you can sample our comprehensive efforts on election integrity here.

cres logo

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions ramps up team to ‘continue momentum’

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) announces three new staff hires, Heather Reams, Andrew Bird, and Kelsey Callahan, to increase its collaboration and work with agencies within the Trump administration, Members and staff of the 115th Congress, and state policymakers throughout America.

“CRES had tremendous success supporting congressional GOP candidates in the November elections and is ramping up the team to continue our momentum in 2017,” said CRES Chairman James Dozier. “The expertise of this talented team of Republican operatives will help solidify our leadership to advance conservative clean energy solutions in Washington and in state capitals across the country. Our team looks forward to working with Republican leaders to deliver opportunities for the American people that are in line with our conservative values. This includes free market clean energy solutions that will advance President Trump’s priorities of creating high paying manufacturing jobs and achieving American energy independence, while also helping to preserve our clean air, water, and climate.”

In 2016, CRES formally endorsed 29 House and Senate Clean Energy Champions – all Republicans – and spent more than $1.7 million in support of candidates with a record of advancing renewable energy solutions both in their campaigns and on Capitol Hill. Nearly 90 percent of CRES’ champions were successful as 25 of them won election or reelection. Since 2014, CRES has invested over $3 million electorally in support of clean energy champions in the House and Senate.

“CRES looks forward to working with Congress and the Trump administration to advance clean energy solutions that embrace commonsense, free market principles to help create jobs, strengthen our economy, and protect our nation’s security and environment,” said Heather Reams, CRES Managing Director.

“In November, voters handed Republicans the opportunity to improve the lives of every American household, allow our economy to flourish, and preserve our nation’s beauty,” said Andrew Bird, CRES Director of Federal Affairs. “CRES is excited to help seize this opportunity and deliver long-term solutions utilizing clean energy that is affordable, reliable, and supplied by diverse natural resources.”

ABOUT CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS (CRES)

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization founded in 2013 to engage Republican policymakers and the public about commonsense, conservative solutions to address our nation’s need for abundant, reliable energy while preserving our environment.

To learn more about the CRES team please visit: http://www.citizensfor.com.

shibly-florida-flag

VIDEO: CAIR Florida’s Mubarak and Shibly — What Are You Trying To Hide?

The Council  on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL), a  self proclaimed civil rights  group,  is discriminating against non-Muslims at one of their advertised “open to the public” events at the Rosen Center Hotel in Orlando, FL.

The CAIR January 28, 2017 event is titled, “Media Training-How to Interact & Engage with the Media.”  The problem is many people who had RSVP’d and were approved  for tickets, later had their ticket registrations denied without cause or reason.

My question to you Ms. Rahaman, Rasha Mubarak, and  Hassan Shibly – What are you trying to hide from the public?

The Council on American Islamic relations should welcome non-Muslims from the community with open arms of friendship and coexistence, not rejection, secrecy, and intimidation.

CAIR leader Hassan Shibly has a pathological disdain for law enforcement so its only natural that his employees exhibit similar behaviors.  Hassan Shibly is so self absorbed he made a selfie video telling all Muslims to ‘Defy’ U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agents in the course  of doing  their jobs to keep us all safe.

Maybe Rasha Mubarak is afraid this video of her at Lake Eola Park in Orlando, FL with her friends who  proudly fly the Hezbollah Flag will get even wider distribution.

This is just one more example of the CAIR organization operating more like the mafia than a civil rights group.  CAIR likes to operate from the shadows and with good reason.  This report is just a small ray of sunshine on how CAIR conducts itself when they think nobody is watching.

Below is the same registration denial letter myself and several  other people around Central  Florida have received.  I have numerous emails advertising the event saying the training class is “open to the public.” Groups like CAIR who say one thing and do  the opposite are forever stained with public shame.

cair media event orlando posterCAIR Ticket Letter of Denial

Shaliya Rahaman <sRahaman@cair.com>

Jan 23 (1 day ago) to me

Mr Kornman,

Thank you for registering for CAIR-Florida’s upcoming media training on January 28, 2017. As the host and provider of this event, CAIR-Florida has the right to approve or deny individual registration requests.

You are hereby notified that your registration request has been denied, therefore, you are not allowed to attend the event.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

CAIR-Florida

Shaliya Rahaman
Community Outreach & Events Coordinator
Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida
8076 N. 56th Street
Tampa, Florida 33617
P: 813.514.1414
sRahaman@cair.comcairflorida.org

wanted high crimes

Wanted for High Crimes and Misdemeaners

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

The Washington, D.C. police and Secret Service are looking at, and for, a number of those who participated in protests on January 19th – 20th in the nations capitol. Among them are Madonna, and an unidentified man who punched a woman in the face and a woman who set another woman’s hair on fire for supporting President Trump, both pictured below.

wanted man woman

UPDATE: It has been reported that the man on the left was identified after his picture went viral on Twitter. His name is Dion Bews, a Canadian.

If you have any information on the whereabouts of these individuals please contact the Washington, D.C. police at (202) 727-9099 or text 50411.

Video of female anti-Trump protester (pictured above right) lighting a girl’s hair on fire:

Madonna is wanted for high crimes for stating in a public forum on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., “Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House…”

The Women’s March has been labeled peaceful by some media outlets. However, it was not peaceful in that many of those there were inciting violence bordering on sedition and treason.

Examples of child abuse were also evident as seen in the photo below.

mother daughter racist sign

Three women shown in the below photo with posters are promoting Islamic (shariah) law. Islamic law does not recognize the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land.” Under Islamic law the Quran is the supreme law. Under shariah law women are second class citizens and treated as chattel. In Islamic nations and communities, including the U.S., honor killings occur when a woman violates the tenants of the Quran, as determined by a male family member. If the male family member determines the woman is not Islamic enough he may beat, torture and kill her. Holding up these signs is the antithesis of women’s rights.

womans march hijabs

Linda Sarsour, who co-chaired the march, is a Pro-Palestine Muslim activist. She also advocates for Sharia Law in America and has ties to the terrorist organization Hamas.

linda sarsour shariah law tweet

An example of the anti-First Amendment and hate against Jews and Christians is shown in the below photo:

abortion jesus

While the actions of those at the Women’s March were largely non-violent, their rhetoric was anything but non-violent. The Woman’s March set the stage for greater violence and mayhem as was seen in Washington, D.C. on January 19th, in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland.

Many were in-sighting “resistance” against the lawful and established government and the U.S. Constitution. This march and its rhetoric can, and will, incite others to take action and resist, perhaps using violence against others.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim woman investigates groups behind “Women’s march,” finds Soros everywhere

Republicans call for Madonna’s arrest after Women’s March speech, want to see her get Dixie Chick’d

RELATED VIDEO: #WomensMarch – Violence, Profanity and Hate, Reporter Attacked.

hands web

Web Scraping: A Means to Push the Anti-Gun Agenda

You may have read recently about a “breaking analysis” that includes numbers derived from a “mass shooting tracker,” which purports to present to the world, real world cases in which mass shootings have occurred.  One problem, this is not actual data nor does it rely upon trusted sources like the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) to report incidents.

Web scraping is a relatively easy way to automatically collect data from the internet for use in any number of applications. Price comparison, travel accommodation research, real estate listings, news and sports feeds, job listings…the list of useful applications of web scraping is bounded only by a user’s creativity. 

These uses are harmless; the biggest risks are missing out on a sale on airline tickets or a house you didn’t know was for sale. The political use of these tools is a threat because it can drive the narrative surrounding an issue. Automated web scraping allows political activists to easily collect data that supports their predetermined conclusion. 

Web scraping tools are ripe for misuse – whether intentional or incidental – when used for political purposes. The results should always be closely examined because these tools are subject to limitations including:

  • User input and biases: activists can easily and even subconsciously taint their findings by using only the common terminology that fits their ideology.
  • Overlooked context: when a web scraper returns a large number of results; the volume of the database is frequently more important than the details.
  • First-report errors: early reports on major issues often include errors and unsubstantiated claims. Breaking news reports on crime are the shining example of this limitation. A lack of follow-up queries also limits the credibility of such automated lists.

Those who want to strictly limit our Second Amendment rights rely on web scrapers to compile material they believe supports their agenda. Gun controllers want to present the biggest number possible. Their bots copy any website that mentions their keywords which are, of course, written in their own preferred language. Program the tool to find any mention of “gun violence” or “victim shot” and you won’t see much on defensive uses of guns or the shooting sports. 

The results should be placed into context, but rarely would an organization compromise its own mission so readily. Instead of talking about gang violence, gun controllers recast the same events as “mass shootings.” Instead of talking about the role of drugs or criminal conflicts, they spin the event into a case of gun violence that needs heightened regulation.

Take a quick spin through shootingtracker.com and you’ll see how most of the events described are not what are traditionally considered public mass shootings, at all.  This is agenda-pushing propaganda at its worst.  

Moreover, automated web queries and bots pull reports based on keywords, with no ability to discern fact from fiction. Late-night crime and breaking news reports are well-known to be riddled with errors, but a bot doesn’t distinguish between initial reports and completed investigations. When the web scraper returns an article or posting that says someone was shot, gun controllers chalk that up in their tally. When later investigations find that there is no evidence of shots fired, the perpetrator was a known violent felon, or the victim is a willing participant in the crime itself (as in a gang conflict), the tally may not be adjusted.

When the goal is to get a big number, web scraping gives gun controllers the ability to find the keywords they want and ignore the incidents and context that conflict with their position.  This is precisely what anti-gun advocates are looking for in pushing their narrative.

scott pruitt epa

Scott Pruitt EPA Nominee: More Leftist Slavery Ended

Leftists’ hysteria and vitriol in response to Trump winning the presidency is escalating. Enraged, they vow to stop Trump at all cost. It occurred to me that what has really driven the Left insane, enraged and quaking in fear is Americans free to live their lives. Over the past 8 years, Obama transformed government agencies such as the EPA into his personal hit squads. Using these agencies, Obama incrementally repealed our Constitutional and God-given freedoms, while criminalizing and silencing dissenting voices. Leftists arrogantly assumed Hillary would win to take Obama’s slavery of Americans to unprecedented irreversible levels.

Trump is America’s Abe Lincoln, our emancipator. His election equaled him unlocking and pushing open the 2 feet thick, 100ft high iron gates of the Left’s government plantation. Overwhelmed with the anticipation of freedom, millions of traumatized Americans ran for their lives, flooding out of the compound, joyously running free in all directions. As they ran, visions of starting businesses free from Obama’s 4000 new EPA regulations and restored freedoms like raising their kids according to their conscience danced in their heads.

Frustrated enraged Leftist overlords (Rosie O’Donnell and other evil wackos) watched helplessly as the tsunami of Trump’s emancipated runaway slaves exited the government plantation. Leftist mercenaries have already begun capturing, beating, torturing and dragging back freed Americans in chains

I want low-info voters like my professional electrician nephew Mike to understand that Leftists are a different species, Arrogantous-Superiorist. Though sighted throughout America, Leftists’ natural habitat is Hollywood, New York, LA and Washington DC. Leftists believe their superior compassion authorizes them to use their superior intellect to dictate how we inferior commoners must live our lives.

So now the battle is on folks. Freaked out Leftists are pulling out all the stops to stop Trump. Trump seeks to further our liberation. Ending Leftist government bullying will spark a new era of American prosperity; investors risking capitol, creativity, jobs and growth beneficial to all Americans.

There is no greater Leftist government plantation overlord than the EPA. Therefore, Leftists’ attempts to demonize Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to head the EPA, will be insanely vicious, filled with lies. Leftists hope to brand Pruitt evil incarnate. They will claim Pruitt wants dirty air and water for personal gain. Leftists will throw old standbys into the mix, racism, sexism and homophobia. They will claim Pruitt’s destruction of the environment will harm minorities, women and homosexuals most. Leftists foolishly continue to use their old school tricks to stop our new president.

Here are a few of many of our Leftist slave master’s unbelievable power grabs via the EPA.

While claiming to champion the little guy, Obama’s draconian EPA carbon regulations harm the poor and most vulnerable Americans

Ponder this folks. A record 94,708,000 Americans are not in the labor force. http://bit.ly/2aGWPJ4

And yet, stupid EPA manufacturing regulations hurt jobs and competitiveness. American manufacturers scolded the EPA. Paraphrasing,

“Look you arrogant clueless idiots. We create jobs that support our economy and build technologies which make cleaner energy possible. Poorly crafted regulations like your New Source Performance Standards for new power plants threatens both.” 

Using the EPA as his enforcers, Obama’s illegal war on coal is projected to cost 125,800 jobs.

Unbelievably, Obama’s EPA is illegally confiscating privately owned land and dictating water usage across America

For daring to challenge the EPA in court, an EPA official threatened to throw executives of HVI Cat Canyon Inc in jail to be raped by a black male prisoner named Leroy. Yes, this is the extraordinary arrogance and abusiveness of the untouchable government agency

But folks, the most egregious dictatorial command of the EPA is that we embrace their religion of Climate Change. The EPA conspired with Obama’s DOJ to jail anyone expressing unbelief in their god (Climate Change). Yes, you heard me correctly. The EPA intends to criminalize disagreeing with them regarding Climate Change, throwing “Climate Change Deniers” in jail.

Meanwhile, Climate Change is a hoax.

Scott Pruitt will liberate Americans from the shackles of the Climate Change religious zealots running the EPA. Leftists have begun launching lie-infested fake news stories trying to destroy Pruitt. They will fail folks. Trump’s election marks a new day in America.

With Scott Pruitt heading the EPA, Americans can breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty we’re free at last!”

trump ethics

Trump Makes Good Moves On Ethics Issue

President-elect Trump has to handle some pressing personal ethics issues as he takes on the presidency.  As I wrote in the New York Times on the topic:

Given the potential for conflicts, it makes sense for the American people to demand assurances that the public interest won’t be harmed by the continued operation of Trump Inc. So, what to do?

First, let’s not pretend that the Trump children will not be conflicted in running the company for their father. That is why Mr. Trump should formalize his complete separation from his company and stop working on any aspect of his business. He should draw no pay. And, difficult as it may be, he should vow not to discuss any aspect of the Trump business empire with his children — or any other Trump executive.

Mr. Trump and those at the company’s helm should commit to full transparency by making public any contracts with any federal agency, foreign government or foreign corporation. Our nation’s enemies, and some of our friends, will seek to either curry favor with or damage America through the Trump businesses. By providing full transparency, Mr. Trump and his family can show that they take seriously that, as Mr. Trump has tweeted, it is “visually important, as president, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.”

It would be in the company’s best interest to set up an internal watchdog to help develop procedures that could help avoid conflicts

[ … ]

The Constitution’s Emoluments Clause bars the president from earning any compensation from a foreign government. Mr. Trump ought to consider a partial disinvestment from his company by either selling outright or rejecting the proceeds of any stakes with foreign government partners.

He should refuse any third party contributions to his personal foundation.

Above all, the Trump administration should be completely transparent on any government dealings with the Trump empire.

Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer announced his plans to handle these issues this week and he seems to have followed much of JW’s advice.    His interest in the Trump Organization will be put in a trust and his company will be run by his two oldest sons. The company will hire an ethics officer to help police its dealings for any conflicts.  And Mr. Trump’s business will forswear new foreign deals while turning over any “profits” from ongoing foreign deals to the U.S Treasury (to try to avoid the emoluments issue).

They are critics of the Trump ethics plan, and some of the questions  about the transparency and enforcement of his promises are fair.  But we think his plan is the right start.

While there is no off-the-shelf ethics plan for a matter as complex and unprecedented as this, Mr. Trump seems to be on the right track.  As we said in the New York Times op-ed, it would be unfair to insist that Mr. Trump destroy his business to become president.  This ethics plan follows many of Judicial Watch’s recommendations and reasonably addresses pressing concerns about separating Mr. Trump’s private business from the public’s business.

True to our independent, nonpartisan mission, we plan to police Mr. Trump on the ethics issue. We can see from the Hillary Clinton pay-to-play Clinton Foundation debacle what happens when politicians mix their government business with their private interests. 

We hope Mr. Trump understands this, but we’ll be watching just to make sure!

jeff-sessions-800x430

Gun Rights Organization: ‘Call Your Senators To Confirm Sessions as U.S. Attorney General’

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is today encouraging its members and supporters to contact their U.S. Senators and urge them to confirm Sen. Jeff Sessions as the next United States Attorney General.

Jeff Sessions is a man who clearly understands the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He doesn’t merely ‘support’ the Second Amendment with lip service, he has defended it against erosion by anti-gunners during his Capitol Hill career.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up Sessions’ nomination Tuesday morning.

“Senate confirmation of Jeff Sessions as our next Attorney General will bring about much-needed change at the Department of Justice,” Gottlieb continued. “Instead of promoting or defending schemes that impact law-abiding Americans, his track record shows that he will go after genuine criminals.

“Senator Sessions has fought proposals that sought to ban firearms,” he added, “and he also opposed the nominations of both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because of their anti-Second Amendment records.”

Gottlieb recently suggested that the next Attorney General appoint an assistant whose job will be to seek out and challenge state and local gun laws that infringe on the Second Amendment.

“The nation is in serious need of an attorney general who knows the difference between civil rights and criminal wrongs,” Gottlieb concluded.

The U.S. Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. To reach your senator via e-mail, log onto http://www.senate.gov/general/contacting.htm

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Black Leaders Who Support Jeff Sessions: ‘He Is a Good Man, Let That Be Heard’

The Real Reason for the Left’s All-Out Assault on Jeff Sessions

united-states-ft-lauderdale-shooting-joe-raedle-getty-640

Readers respond to the Ft. Lauderdale attack and Guns: Here are Your Answers

We asked our US readers: Is there a way to ensure terrorists can’t carry out attacks in airports while allowing legal weapons into airports?

Clarion Project asked our American readers the following question:

Is there a way in future to ensure terrorists can’t carry out attacks in airports, while allowing citizens to legally bring weapons into airports?

Here are some of the 80 answers we received.

We urge our readers to get involved in educating the public and taking political action against radical Islam. Clarion’s full-length documentaries are all available to be screened – privately, for a group in your house or at a community function.

Get involved! For more information, please contact info@clarionproject.org.

My opinion is we can’t over react to every event.  Yes, analyze if we can improve, but not at the expense of freedoms. You can’t make every pubic place risk free.

M

At the end of the day, the non-secure section(s) of an airport are no different than any other public space, such as a mall. I am not sure that protecting people in these public spaces is more important than any other.  Are travelers more important and/or more vulnerable than shoppers at malls or fans at a sporting event?

RP

Terrorists will use something else to kill if guns are banned.  

JM

Since criminals don’t obey laws, the solution is to stop the idea of these areas of the airports from being gun-free zones.

RK

One thing that would help is to allow law-abiding citizens to conceal carry handguns in such places. Had there been one or more such person when this criminal began to act, there would have been hope he would have been stopped! But, when guns are banned, criminals rule!

RK

I’m sorry but gun control is not needed, what is needed is to remove all gun-free zones. Our people can take care of themselves. When flying with checked firearms, the owner should have to pick up that firearm at an authorized location outside of baggage claim. A waiting time maybe warranted to pick up the fire arm.

JP

Good thing this didn’t happen in Dallas/Ft. Worth or anywhere in Texas where everyone in the state can carry a gun or dead would be tripled!!

CB

I’m all for our 2nd Amendment Rights, but there should be other measures put into place such as turning guns and ammo over to security. Security then places them in some secured box in the planes holding compartments. Once the individual gets to his destination, security retrieves the gun and ammo, escorts the individual out of the terminal before turning over the gun ammo. Maybe not 100% fool proof but pretty close.

MW

We are an unprotected population. The police show up after they are called to an event. I spent time in France this summer, and I saw groups of three armed guards everywhere I went. They wore camouflage uniforms and held machine guns in their hands. I felt safer there because of their presence.

CR

Ohio just enacted legal concealed carry in non-secure airport areas.   You can’t make all areas perfectly secure.   Best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

KK

Place officers both uniformed and plain clothes in public non-secure areas. Also, someone picking up a checked weapon should be required to leave the premises immediately under the supervision of an officer. Another solution is that all weapons should not be shipped with ammunition except those for authorized law enforcement personnel. No loaded clips, boxes etc. The airlines would love this — they could charge them more.

CS

I think it would be ok if people pick up the weapons in a secure and more controlled environment.  Maybe need to restrict the ammo.

RH

Aren’t guns brought into airports by travelers supposed to be unloaded?  And, what is the difference between a shooting at an aiport vs. a shooting at a mall? People are injured in both situations. The difference is the location.  

C

All guns and ammunition should be checked, catalogued and stored separately from other luggage. They should then be delivered to a specifically designed, security-controlled area outside the perimeter of the airport for collection by the owners.

AB

Checking guns in for travel isn’t the problem. If someone wants to shoot and terrorize at an airport, or anywhere for that matter, all they have to do is walk in the front doors and begin shooting. Criminals don’t obey regulations and certainly do not read signs prohibiting such activities. Allowing all people to carry concealed weapons in any public area would most likely have stopped such a mass shooting. shortly after the first bullet had been fired.

SF

Ft. Lauderdale baggage area is totally unprotected, totally lax. Anyone can enter from outside. Guards should be posted at all entrances. Luggage should be sealed with tape at trip outset, and the tape only allowed to be removed outside the airport, or under supervision of armed security. If the luggage contains firearms, it should be so labelled.

RA

Why not fear for shopping malls, football games, beaches, all dance halls and music venues, the grocery stores, parades, schools, starbucks and coffee bean, etc. The problem isn’t the location — it’s the people. Profile or lose America and world freedom to the ambitions of the globalist socialists who adamantly refuse to see truth because it conflicts with their ambitions.  The paranoia at airports relates to bringing down planes. But that doesn’t apply here

RX

I’d opt for not allowing weapons to be checked baggage and have people ship them to their destination in advance via Fed Ex or other common carrier.

DV

This is a no-brainer. Citizens with guns do not belong in airports, and if they want to transport firearms they can find a different, more suitable way. We need sensible and better gun control or we will continue to see these attacks.

AS

I suppose you will get many letters saying “take away all guns” and “guns kill people.” Well, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and the most murders. Guns kill people.  Yes, and cars kill people.  And trucks kill people.  So… take away all cars?  Or trucks? We need an entirely new approach. What we have now is not working. 

LT

Law abiding citizens with lawfully owned firearms are guardians of the peace. You have never heard about a mass shooting at a gun show have you? These attacks always happen in “gun-free” ones only. If guns were the problem, the number of shootings in Wyoming would far surpass Chicago — as every vehicle in Wyoming has at least one firearm in it.

KS

This is an easy fix.  When my children were under age and flew alone, I paid $100 or so extra to check them in with an airline escort.  Weapons could be the same way.  Arrange beforehand to take a weapon.  Contact a contractor outside the airport.  Pay the fee and the certified contractor brings the weapon to the correct flight.  On pick up, it would be the same.  Get your weapons outside from the contractor. A little inconvenient but very secure.  Make it so that people enter the physical building after passing security.

GA

Perhaps all guns should be mailed separately.

M

I have a solution to stop any more terrorist attacks like the Ft. Lauderdale terror attack. Do not allow ammo to be checked in or transported while flying. Allow weapons only! No ammo allowed in  airports period.

JH

Banning the ability for passengers to carry firearms in checked luggage will not eliminate airport shootings.  The killer could just as easily have shot up the airport in Anchorage where he lived, or driven south with the loaded gun and shot up any other airport or public place.

B

The answer is simple, allow and especially train folks to carry in those areas. Totally eliminate “gun-free” zones, for they are magnets for those who would do us harm.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Should Parents Ransom Their Children From Terrorists?

How Edward Snowden Helped Terrorists Succeed

House Homeland Security Chair Backs Brotherhood Ban

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a young woman running behind a police officer as they seek cover outside the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International airport after a shooting took place near the baggage claim on January 6, 2017. (Photo: © Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

bitcoin 3

What’s Truly Remarkable about Bitcoin: It Exists by Jeffrey Tucker

It was the second week of February 2013 when I first ventured a public opinion that Bitcoin is the real deal. The dollar exchange rate was at $25, on its way toward another run-up and crash that had been the pattern for two years.

I had just returned from a conference where some Bitcoiners surrounded me and force-fed me the information I needed to know. It would take another two months before I wrapped my brain around it enough to be able to write an article. But in these early days, it was enough publicly to dispense with incredulity to cause the ceiling to fall in.

To this day, I’ve never faced such a barrage of criticism. Derision, ridicule, outrage, disgust – I saw it on my feed, all of it very personal and hugely inflammatory. It was my first experience with what it is like to feel like that whole world is against you (an illusion social media specializes in creating).

And yet I completely understood why. I had been reviewing submissions on Bitcoin since 2009, and I had not been a believer either.

Money for Nothing?

How can you create money out of computer code? That struck me as absurd, a techno version of alchemy. Money had to grow out of commodities used in barter – this is what Carl Menger had proven. If Bitcoin had a value, it had to be an error, a result of clever marketing, like any Ponzi scheme. Like many observers at the time (and there weren’t that many), I had no idea about the underlying payment system (the Blockchain) or the complex history of fits and starts that led to its creation in 2008. I had read the original “white paper” but could hardly understand the language.

So, yes, I dismissed it.

Bitcoin Didn’t Care About My Theory

Groucho Marx once said: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

After having acquired Bitcoin and used it, I had to deal with something that became profoundly important in my own intellectual life. I had to recognize the reality of something my mind could not explain. I had been writing about money, its history and theory, since college. I thought I knew it all. Now this thing came along that blew up all my understanding. Who was I going to believe, myself or my own eyes?

I finally decided in favor of my eyes. The market had outwitted my expertise. This was a very humbling experience for me, and it taught me a lesson I hope never to forget. Never become so wrapped up in the certainty of your own opinions that you fail to look out the window and walk the streets to discover something that challenges what you think you know. It’s a Hayekian point but one that intellectuals are prone to ignore.

First Public Writing

As Bitcoin reaches the age of 7 and is again floating around an exchange rate of 1BTC to $1,000, I decided to look back at my first public writing on the topic (April 1, 2013), just to re-experience the lesson. And by the way, all credit to Max Borders (then the editor of FEE) and Lawrence Read (president of FEE) for daring to publish this piece, which defied all conventional wisdom. They were willing to take the risk on this piece, which was probably the first major article in the established free-market opinion world to say: this is real and it matters.

As I look back, I put the most important point up front:

Understanding Bitcoin requires that we understand the limits of our ability to imagine the future that the market can create for us.

Thirty years ago, for example, if someone had said that electronic text—digits flying through the air and landing in personalized inboxes owned by us all that we check at will at any time of the day or night—would eventually displace first-class mail, you might have said it was impossible.

After all, not even the Jetsons had email. Elroy brought notes home from his teacher on pieces of paper. Still, email has largely displaced first-class mail, just as texting, social networking, private messaging, and even digital vmail via voice-over-Internet are replacing the traditional telephone.

It turns out that the future is really hard to imagine, especially when entrepreneurs specialize in surprising us with innovations. The markets are always outsmarting even the most wild-eyed dreamers, and they are certainly smarter than the intellectual who keeps saying: such and such cannot happen.

It’s the same today. What if I suggested that digital money could eventually come to replace government paper money?

I then marched through the reasons for my conversion to the cause. The main one was the realization that Bitcoin reproduced a key feature of money that no previous attempt at digital money had achieved: scarcity. The algorithm assigned property rights to the units in question. At that point, this was enough for me to see that it could become money. It would take another year before I discerned its intellectual origins, and another half-year before I could intelligently explain why Bitcoin gained value in the first place.

My first article concluded:

It’s possible that Bitcoin will flop. Maybe it is just the first generation. Maybe thousands of people will lose their shirts in this first go-round. But is the digitization of money coming? Absolutely. Will there always be skeptics out there? Absolutely. But in this case, they are not in charge. Markets will do what they do, building the future whether we approve or understand it fully or not. The future will not be stopped.

And Yet, the Price Doesn’t Matter

Like many observers, I became caught up in the exchange rate madness, thinking that a higher rate confirmed my embrace while a lower rate raised doubts. In my mind, I became a cheerleader for the Bitcoin boom and correctly predicted the first price break above $1,000 (December 2013) but failed to predict the bust that followed.

In retrospect, I should have stayed focussed on my main theme that started me off on this journey. The remarkable thing about Bitcoin is not its upward trajectory in valuation, the rate of its adoption, the pace which which it made its march to the mainstream. All that comes in time, and no one is in charge of the process or pace or direction of change. The main insight I had at the time is still the right one. What’s wonderful about Bitcoin is that it exists at all.

Money for the digital age, and without the state: the concept has been proven. That’s what matters. The technology is known. It works. It represents a path for reforming the world’s monetary and legal systems. It points to a bright future.

It is all the more wonderful to consider the glorious way in which Bitcoin has outsmarted the experts, including me. And this is precisely why I adore market forces so much. No one is in charge of them. No one can consistently outthink them. Markets keep us humble. They constantly remind us that even the most astute and prescient observer can be surprised, even shocked.

I like living in such a world, one where the future is not only unknown but unknowable. That will always be true, and this is also why no one will finally gain control of it.

That is the lesson that the astonishing experience with Bitcoin teaches us.

Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker

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

BUSINESSMAN DROWNING IN PAPER   Original Filename: AB26186.jpg

You Will Comply: The Regulatory Menace vs. America

The regulatory hive centered in Washington, D.C., buzzes with a power and reach that even the Caesars never imagined. And they were considered gods.

Federal regulators can bankrupt companies, distort markets and shut down entire industries with their decrees — the rules that implement Congressional laws. They can also move or slow entire economies and prop up or undermine Presidents. Not good.

Here’s how it works.

Laws are often and by necessity general. The rule-writing and rule enforcement is where the power is. Regulators, lifelong employees with little accountability to the people, write the rules and enforce the rules. If you as a private citizen or a business person have the misfortune of running awry of the regulators, you have virtually no recourse.

They are all powerful. Like gods of an industry. And like all people, they are given to ideology, partisanship and self-interest.

So here is the dynamic: Ideological, partisan, all-powerful regulators write and enforce rules and are unaccountable to the people. This is why so many conservatives want deregulation, in addition to the job-creating economic boost.

Their power is really stunning. Because of that, we have the armies of lobbyists. People mistakenly think the lobbyists are only interested in persuading the politicians. Actually what they are looking for is language that will help their industry or hurt their competitors — when the regulators write the rules. They can also lobby — unofficially — the regulators themselves.

What we have seen in spurts with FDR and Nixon was a corrupting of certain federal regulators. But what we have seen in recent years is a wholesale corrupting of regulatory agencies along ideological and partisan lines. Here’s a few.

  • The U.S. Department of Justice selectively enforcing laws
  • The IRS in blocking the non-profit status of tea party and conservative organizations, thus eliminating their influence
  • The Environmental Protection Agency used on multiple levels to achieve political aims
  • The Department of Homeland Security body-patting grandma while allowing burka-covered Muslim women through in the name of multicultural correctness
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency that refuses to enforce immigration laws and allows millions of people to come and live here illegally
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture targeting of small farmers and closing down “undesirable” farmers and ranchers

Abuse by the EPA undermine Trump

And so now we come to this moment. The EPA regulators have changed the agency’s report on fracking in groundwater contamination to make it more difficult for future approvals.

In last year’s draft version, the EPA reported that there were no “widespread systematic impacts on drinking water.” That report said the number of contaminated sites was quite small compared to the number of fracking sites and concluded the impact to be minimal. Good for the fracking industry, jobs, energy costs and energy independence.

However, that did not make the anti-fracking environmentalists happy, and those conclusions are now gone from the final report that just came out — one month before the new president is sworn in. Now the same EPA — based on the same data — reports that there is not enough evidence to dismiss the water contamination threat and says more vaguely that fracking activities “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.”

This is regulatory abuse at its clearest, because it is supposedly relying on scientific evidence to tweak the wording. But what it does is empower regulators to deny permits, allow stronger legal challenges to fracking and, probably most specifically, undermines Trump’s stated desire to open up more fracking to create American jobs and energy independence.

Abuse by the Fed undermine Trump

The Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates to spur the economy or try to slow it. The supposedly politically independent organization has kept interest rates at record lows for almost the entire Obama presidency. Obviously the economy needed all the help it could get, and it still wasn’t enough.

But interestingly, right before Trump takes office the Fed is planning a rapid series of rate increases. Either the Fed leadership knows exactly which policies goose the economy (Trump’s, not Obama’s) or they are actively trying to undermine a Trump recovery.

We never know what is going on inside of the secretive Fed, but given that Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellin chaired Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors and was appointed to the Fed’s top seat by Obama, who appoints fellow ideologues, it seems likely that it is not suddenly a clear view of what is good for the economy. If that is right, then this is another abuse of one of the most powerful and unaccountable of regulators.

This will not be the end of the Regulatory State’s attempts to undermine Trump at every turn. We saw this regularly in the Bush Administration, particularly in the State Department.

Americans should not have to fear the federal government and whatever local regulators show up at the door. But many do. And virtually all businesses do. Now, Republican presidents also must deal with the menace.

This needs to stop. But that will be a Herculean task, requiring a commitment to substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government through agency elimination and deep funding cuts.

northwestern-univirsity-protest

How Bad is the Neo-Antisemitism on American Campuses?

Our review of the Americans for Peace and Tolerance documentary, Hates Spaces:  The Politics of Intolerance on American Campuses raised the question of how extensive is the problem of the New Antisemitism. Moreover with the recent US abstention on UN Security Council  adoption of Resolution  2334 how might  the strident  anti-Zionism  messages exacerbate the problems  of Anti-Israelism, Antisemitism  and  Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions on American university campuses.

We saw in our review of Hate Spaces that hate mongering of Israel and Jewish students has been fostered by Palestinian and Muslim Brotherhood groups connected to the US designated terrorist organization Hamas, Muslim Students Association  (MSA) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). They have been abetted by progressive academic associations and even anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and J Street that alleges it is “pro-peace, pro-Israel.”

Moreover, administrations at many higher education institutions are caught in the dilemma of trying to prevent disruption and threats to Jewish and non-Jewish students  by the abuse of traditional academic freedom and free speech standards. Further, as we shall see adoption of state and even federal standards of what constitutes Anti-Zionism  as Anti-Semitism have failed  to  stop the  atmosphere of intolerance on  American campuses.   That may result in draconian measures possibly violating Supreme Court rulings on so-called ‘protected speech’.  This article will provide   background that  might determine how much worse  the hostile environment  could  become  for  Jewish students on  many  American campuses and  the seeming  difficulty  in the academy to alleviate it.

Spike in Israel Hate and Antisemitism across U.S. College Campuses

AMCHA Initiative, the leading NGO focused on campus Antisemitism, in a recent report identified more than 600 incidents at the top 100 American campuses; an increase of 45 percent over the same period in 2015.  AMCHA was co-founded in 2011 by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin , a Hebrew  Language lecturer at the University of  California Santa Cruz and  UCLA professor emeritus Leila Beckwith “ to investigate, document, educate about, and combat Antisemitism at institutions of higher education in the United States.”  AMCHA, “Hebrew for ‘your people’, sought to adopt protocols for defining as discriminatory anti-Zionism as Antisemitism.  The AMCHA report attributed this increase to:

The suppression of Jewish students’ freedom of speech and assembly doubled, while calls for Israel’s elimination tripled. The calls and acts opposing Israel’s right to exist were found to be highly correlated with behavior that targeted Jewish students for harm.amcha-logo

Underlying this spike in campus Antisemitic intolerance, she said was:

The presence of three factors — anti-Zionist student groups; faculty who support boycotts of Israel; and pro-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activity — are “each strong predictors of anti-Jewish hostility.”

The target Rossman – Benjamin says is: “Jewish students …whether they actually support Israel or not. Their support is presumed just based on the fact that they are Jewish.”

The 50 Worst Universities for Jewish Students

A Brandeis University report released in October 2016 identified the top 50 American University “hotspots”. Among the top 10 were Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Northwestern University, and the several University of California campuses at Irvine, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Davis. Here are examples of Israel hatred and Antisemitism cited by Jewish students:

Rutgers University in New Jersey

Members of the SJP “stood in front of the dining hall wearing white shirts with red ‘blood’ splattered across them. They had signs saying ‘this is what the Jews did to us.’ I felt extremely harassed; even though it was not personally directed at me, when I stood there I saw complete hatred that they had to all of the Jews walking by. There were even some people, a part of SJP, shouting profanities and giving the middle finger to the Jews that were just standing next to them.”

Northeastern University

A junior said campus life became “unsafe” when “a group on campus put eviction notices on the dorm room doors of Jewish people.” The incident, and others like it, was reported in the press to be the work of SJP members.

Ohio State

A woman student opened her door “to see my next-door neighbor drawing a swastika on my door.”

The special case of the University of California at Irvine

Perhaps the worst case of anti–Israel and Jewish hatred has occurred on the University of California at Irvine over the past decade. Unfortunately, it had been abetted by the former head of the local Orange County Jewish Federation.  An affiliate foundation of the Federation financed a program called the Olive Tree Initiative that brought students in a supposed ‘accidental’ contact with a Hamas Palestinian legislative leader in 2009 in the west bank. Local Orange County Jewish community activists found themselves under attack creating counter marches during MSU Israeli Apartheid Awareness Weeks that featuring notoriously Antisemitic speakers like Malik Ali.

In February 2010, MSU students from both UC Irvine and UC Riverside disrupted a speech being given by former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren. That brought charges by the Orange County District Attorney against 11 MSU members of heckling under California laws. The trial resulted in convictions of 10 MSU members and a year’s suspension by the university, subsequently reduced to one term.

Over the past six years we have written and interviewed Jewish students at UC Irvine regarding MSU/SJP disruption of campus Israeli Independence Day events. On May 18, 2016, another disruption by the SJP chapter, Jewish Voice for Peace and Black Student groups occurred at UC Irvine. They were objecting to a showing of an Israeli film, “Behind the Helmet” about IDF soldiers, two of whom were present, at an event sponsored by Students Supporting Israel. The SJP –led protesters blockaded the exit, verbally assaulted the audience with anti-Israel and Antisemitic epithets that required campus police to escort attendees from the SSI event.  Chancellor Gilman released a statement condemning the SJP-led disruption:

A group of protesters reportedly disrupted the event, blocking exit paths. Participants feared for their safety, calling on our police force for assistance. While this university will protect freedom of speech, that right is not absolute. As I mentioned in a campus message at the beginning of the academic year (freespeech.uci.edu), threats, harassment, incitement and defamatory speech are not protected. We must shelter everyone’s right to speak freely – without fear or intimidation – and allow events to proceed without disruption and potential danger.

He referred the matter to the office of the Orange County District Attorney for review of  campus police incident reports and statements of eyewitnesses that found no basis for criminal charges.

Notwithstanding in August 2016, the UC Irvine Office of Student Conduct found that the SJP chapter violated university policy. A  Los Angeles Times  August 18, 2016  report noted “university policy prohibits “obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures or other university activities.”  The SJP chapter at UC Irvine will be required to undertake a so-called “power meeting” on conduct of protests.  An UC Irvine spokesperson Cathy Lawson said:

The program is designed to help SJP members “better understand how to host constructive events and protests if they want to protest and add to the conversation, rather than detract from it.” The written warning, she said, puts SJP on notice through March 2017 that its behavior is under increased scrutiny and that another violation could lead to harsher consequences.

Office of Student Conduct head Parham noted in an email:  “We support and defend groups exercising free speech and assembly, yet we must protect everyone’s right to express themselves without disruption. This is a bedrock principle of our university.”

amcha-coalition-at-the-university-of-california-board-of-regents

AMCHA coalition at the University of California Board of Regents, March 23, 2016.

So what’s being done about the problem?

On March 23, 2016, AMCHA co-founder, Tammi  Rossman-Benjamin,  backed by Jewish community leaders ,  was successful  in having the Regents of the California University System adopt hate speech standards, specifically addressing the various forms of  campus  Antisemitism.   Leaders and Representatives included AMCHA Initiative, Bruins for Israel, Iranian American Jewish Federation, Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs, Students Supporting Israel at UCLA, Zionist Organization of America, UC Students, UC Professors, and concerned UC Alumni testified at the UC Regents Meeting.  Rossman-Benjamin in a statement wrote:

The vote, with the inclusion of the condemnation of Antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism, represents a new direction in administration addressing modern Antisemitism.  We are incredibly proud of this achievement. It was a challenging journey to arrive at this point, one that required the persistence of AMCHA, our extraordinary at-will coalition partners, students, activists, alumni and supporters.

The Board of Regents adopted an anti-discrimination protocol that included “anti-Zionism” such as BDS, as long as the matter was deemed “Antisemitic”.

The reality following this remarkable achievement in California was that the MSA and SJP were allowed to carry out their annual Israel Apartheid Awareness and anti-BDS campaigns on university system campuses, including the May 18, 2016 disruption at UC Irvine.

Swastika vandalism breaks out on campuses after Presidential Election

Following the electoral victory of Donald Trump there was a spike of Antisemitic Swastika vandalism on college campuses across America reported by The Algemeiner:

At Northwestern University in Illinois, two anti-Trump freshmen — one of them Jewish — spray-painted a swastika, images portraying genitals and anti-gay and racist slurs, alongside the president-elect’s name, on the wall of a non-denominational campus chapel.

At the University of Mississippi, a swastika was found in a residence hall elevator. According to a report in the student newspaper The Daily Mississippian, it was the “fourth instance [on campus] since Election Day.”

At the American University in Washington, DC, a swastika next to the phrase “Go Trump” was discovered on a classroom wall. According to the student newspaper The Eagle, students later modified it to look like an octagon, and changed the words to “Go Drumpf,” adding the words “peace” and “love” to the graffiti. The incident came on the heels of an anti-Trump protest on campus, during which students burned American flags.

At Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania, a Star of David with a swastika drawn in its center was found in a classroom.

In Indiana, a swastika was discovered drawn on a dry erase board hanging outside of a dorm room door at Earlham College. “This act was completely reprehensible and totally unacceptable,” the school’s president said in a statement.

In Oregon, Reed College students found Antisemitic, racist and homophobic graffiti — such as a swastika surrounded by a circle alongside the phrase “White is right” — on the wall of a bathroom at the school’s library.

That prompted Aviva Slomish, International Campus Director for Boston-based Middle East Media watchdog CAMERA to call on university officials to “denounce these episodes and thoroughly investigate and punish the offenders.”

In early December 2016, a Rutgers Jewish student, Avi Kulich was interviewed by The Tab about the continuing threats on the New Jersey campus in the wake of this swastika vandalism.  His comments underline the increasingly hostile campus environment towards Israel and Jews graphically portrayed in Hate Spaces:

Students for Justice for Palestine are pretty big on campus. And at virtually every left-wing protest Israel manages to get mentioned somehow.

I think they see Jews as both benefiting from white privilege and as complicit in so-called Palestinian ‘suffering.’ Most of this is based on misinformation and lies and they have no issue supporting groups like Hamas that expressly call for extermination of Jews.

People like to pretend they’re just ‘anti-Zionist’ and not ‘Antisemitic,’ but Israel is a Jewish state and Zionism is the effort to have a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland.

[…]

It’s blatant Antisemitic blood libel. Most anti-Israel rhetoric is tinged with Antisemitism.

Abusing Free Speech – the Dilemma Facing American Universities

On December 1, 2016, the US Senate unanimously passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act”.  Final passage of the companion House version awaits the start of the 115th Congress on January 3, 2017. The legislation “expands the Department of Education’s definition of Antisemitism to include problematic criticism that ‘demonizes’ and ‘delegitimizes’ Israel or applies a ‘double standard’ against the Jewish state.”   The effort to rein in Antisemitic speech by Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups on American campuses runs into existing Supreme Court rulings allowing protected speech under the 1969 ruling in the Brandenburg v State of Ohio matter involving a KKK leader. The dilemma that many university administrators face is barring campus  protests that violate academic freedom and  ‘protected speech’ standards. Barring disruption of free speech events and threatening physical harm are matters about which  university administrations have established policies.  However  preserving  free speech  on campus  some critics believe, as expressed in a recent Wall Street Journal exchange of letters, “shields campus free-speech intimidators.”

The trigger for the WSJ letters was a December 16, 2016, op-ed by UC Irvine Law School dean Erwin Chemeresky and Chancellor Robert Gilman, “A Bill to Police Campus Speech.”  Their  argument is that  the changes in the definition of what constitutes Antisemitic campus speech runs  afoul of First

Amendment ‘protected speech’.  They concluded:

To put the point simply: Congress should not pass legislation that requires a government agency to monitor and respond to political speech—even if that speech ‘demonizes’ Israel or any other country.

We agree that the problem of anti-Semitism on campus and in society generally, is real and ought to be addressed. There are many steps colleges can take. They should ensure that Jewish and pro-Zionist students are included and that the proud expression of Jewish identity on campus is welcomed. Universities should make clear that attempts to disrupt events organized by Jewish or pro-Israel students will not be tolerated. Campus leaders should speak out against hateful speech, and they can react swiftly to any actual threats, harassment or destruction of property.

But the solution most despised by the Constitution is for Congress to pass a law that threatens universities and speakers merely because of the views being expressed. The Antisemitism Awareness Act is troubling because it seems to do precisely that.

One critical letter writer to the editor of the WSJ, pointed out that Dean Chemeresky had violated his own principal in the matter of a fee imposed on the campus Young Republican for bringing in anti-PC gadfly Milo Yiannopoulous alt-right speaker.  That , the letter writer suggested violated the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the Forsyth County  case banning so-called “pay to speak”  The argument being that “UC Irvine penalizes those who engage in speech.” Noting that Dean Chemeresky had defended the convicted MSU 10 students who “criminally disrupted” the speech  of former  Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren on campus at UC Irvine in 2010.

Conclusion:

Perhaps the answer lies in adopting federal standards regarding Antisemitic hate speech protocols modeled on that adopted by the Board of Regents of the University of California system.  A more drastic step may be the adoption of legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood  affiliates in the U.S. as terrorist organizations.  That in the opinion of some Trump advisers might stop the anti-Israel and Antisemitic activities of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates on college campuses.

The matter of addressing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel was taken up in model state legislation  developed by  Professor Eugene Kontorovich of  Northwestern University’s  Pritzker School of Law and promoted by the Washington, DC –based Israel Allies Foundation. To date 14 states have passed the anti-BDS legislation, the latest being signed into law by Ohio Governor John Kasich.  We will see if any of these initiatives come to fruition in 2017.  In the meantime, the SJP is seeking to establish chapters at high schools across the country.

Parents of college students  concerned about the potential spike in New Antisemitic  incidents on American campuses  might keep a watching brief by periodically checking with the AMCHA Initiative Antisemitism Tracker.  Another  useful  source is the Algemeiner report on the 2016 40 worst American universities hostile to Jewish Students.

israel-star-of-david-palestinian-flag

Donald J. Trump and the Death of the Two-State Solution

President Obama has set the stage for President-elect Donald J. Trump to pivot away from a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians to a one-state solution policy.

How is this possible?

Sandy Tolan, in her article The Death of the Two-State Solution, writes:

Washington has finally thrown in the towel on its long, tortured efforts to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians. You won’t find any acknowledgement of this in the official record. Formally, the U.S. still supports a two-state solution to the conflict. But the Obama administration’s recent 10-year, $38-billion pledge to renew Israel’s arsenal of weaponry, while still ostensibly pursuing “peace,” makes clear just how bankrupt that policy is.

For two decades, Israeli leaders and their neoconservative backers in this country, hell-bent on building and expanding settlements on Palestinian land, have worked to undermine America’s stated efforts — and paid no price. Now, with that record weapons package, the U.S. has made it all too clear that they won’t have to. Ever.

Read more…

Given the reality on the ground and the failure since 1967 to negotiate a two-state solution President-elect Trump has a historic opportunity to reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East, starting with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Began-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in a white paper UNSCR 2334: A Sad Disservice to the Cause of Peace by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman concludes:

In four respects, UNSCR 2334 undermines the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace and threatens what little regional stability is left. First, it could force Israel to fall back on its powerful legal position as the only existing legal inheritor of the British Mandate. Second, it compounds the error made by Obama’s transition team even before he came to power of ignoring a written commitment of a US president. Third, it has placed Sisi’s government in Egypt – a keystone of regional stability – in an untenable position. Fourth and most painfully, it will make it far more complicated – if not impossible – for the Palestinian leadership, enticed by the prospect of international coercion, to accept a reasonable compromise. The New Zealanders, do-gooders with a very dim understanding of what they have wrought, can be forgiven such folly. The Obama administration has no such excuses.

Read more…

Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria—the West Bank—since ancient times. The only time Jews have been prohibited from living in the territories in recent decades was during Jordan’s rule from 1948 to 1967.

Numerous legal authorities dispute the charge that settlements are “illegal.” Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defense may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also observes that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawal, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.

According to Eugene Rostow, a former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration, Resolution 242 gives Israel a legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution, Rostow noted, “Israel is entitled to administer the territories” it won in 1967 until ‘‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’’ is achieved.

Though critical of Israeli policy, the United States does not consider settlements illegal.

End the two-state solution and it will have a ripple effect across the Middle East.

In an The Algemeiner column titled “Trump Announces Next US Envoy to Jewish State Will Be Attorney David Friedman, Who Says He Looks Forward to Working From ‘Israel’s Eternal Capital, Jerusalem’” Barney Breen-Portnoy writes:

In a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November, Friedman said that a Trump administration would not expect Israel to uproot its citizens who now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as part of any future peace deal with the Palestinians.

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

[ … ]

Friedman went on: “The critical thing is to recognize that there is not going to be any progress on a Palestinian state until the Palestinians renounce violence and accept Israel as a Jewish state. Until that happens, there is really nothing to talk about in terms of a political process.”

What a Trump administration would not do, Friedman said, “is put its finger on the scale and try to force Israel into a particular outcome, but rather will support Israel in reaching its own conclusion about how to best achieve peace with its neighbors.”

Read more…

Some, like Amos Yadlin from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) , still cling to the idea of a two-state solution. Yadlin in his INSS article Security Council Resolution 2334 and a Strategy for Israel writes:

In the final days of 2016, it is more important to look ahead than to engage in a retrospective analysis of the events that led to Resolution 2334. Preparations must be made with the aims of minimizing the negative impact of this resolution and formulating a more suitable policy for Israel, considering the difficult political situation that the resolution has created.

What will minimize the “negative impact of this [UN] resolution”? Donald J. Trump. Yadlin suggests, “[I]t would be advisable for Israel to adopt a proactive strategy that is based on understandings with the United States. Israel could present a proposal to the Trump administration for a proactive Israeli initiative that involves practical actions to shape an improved reality. Israel must successfully resist the contentions that the settlements are the obstacle to peace…”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.