ryan ahca

AHCA was NOT Obamacare Repeal or Replacement by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

The following was contained in an email from Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX District 1)to his constituents:

Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for seven years now. Some of us have proposed bills that had good provisions that would repeal Obamacare. In fact, we voted on a bill that would have been more of a repeal than this one through the House and Senate last year and put it on then-President Obama’s desk for signature. He vetoed the bill. But let’s be clear: the bill last week was NOT a repeal. It was NOT a replacement. It was an Obamacare tweak giving additional power to the federal government in hopes that our Republican Health and Human Services Secretary could make good changes.

Most east Texans are not in favor of giving the federal government MORE power to solve the problem of the federal government having too much power over our health care. If a true history of the rise and demise of the greatest, freest country in history is written, a chapter will detail how decade after decade, good ol’ go along folks kept providing more and more authority to the federal government rather than reining it in. But we still have a window to stem the tide and get back on track.

In closed meetings we were assured, if we will just give my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price this extra power, he can weaken Obamacare substantially, though he could not repeal it administratively. However, no one could give an adequate answer regarding all that additional power in the hands of the next liberal Democrat who will one day take the reins at that behemoth department. The answer is obvious: the next liberal Secretary of HHS would bring back Obamacare with gusto, never to be repealed until it does its job—to hand over full control of your health care decisions to the government, paid for by crushing tax burdens.

There were a myriad of reasons to vote against Speaker Ryan’s rejected bill. It would hit people between the ages of 50-64 with additional costs for premiums and deductibles—in addition to what Obamacare does now. In addition to the original $716 Billion that Obamacare cut from Medicare, this bill was going to hit our seniors yet again.

Most troublesome to me was that in our own Republican meetings we heard from experts who believed that this bill would not bring premiums, deductibles or co-pays down at all and they would most likely be increasing for the next two years, though there was hope costs MIGHT come down 10% three years from now.

From what I hear from my constituents in east Texas, they are really overwhelmed with health insurance and healthcare costs. They need help, and they cannot afford to wait three years. They need help now.

Some of us were exceeding concerned about a new “tax credit” entitlement scheme that did not require proof of citizenship, not even legality, before the U.S. Treasury sends a check.  This entitlement was another transfer of wealth from those who work hard and pay taxes to those not legally present in this country.

The bill also assured that nearly 1% of your hard-earned money would be paid for a Medicare tax to be sucked out of your paycheck that already has a tax of 2.9%, half paid by you and half by your employer.

To help east Texans with the higher premiums this bill would bring, my Freedom Caucus friends and I twice agreed to vote FOR the bad bill, if the Speaker would take out a few of the requirements that were going to increase premiums. We were convinced by knowledgeable analysts that removing these provisions would drive premiums down.

Please understand, we agreed to let the “pre-existing condition” provision in Obamacare remain, though some falsely reported that we refused. We agreed to let children stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26, though I would agree to a higher age or no age limit if you are still living with your parents.

There were numerous other provisions that caused some heartburn, such as giving authority to HHA to create, for the first time ever, FEDERAL high risk insurance pools at the cost of billions of new dollars. We were told not to be alarmed, and that the hope was to eventually devolve that responsibility back to the states. As President Reagan warned, however, the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a new federal program.

Even though I was called an uncompromising “purist,” I was willing to compromise significantly if we could just get the premium costs down for my constituents.

People should also be aware that if the vote had been taken, there would have been as many moderate Republicans voting “No,” which some believe is why the vote was pulled in the first place. Republican leaders would not have been able to lay blame unfairly on conservatives when it was clear within our conference that at least as many moderates were concerned about the bill as conservatives.

The House Freedom Caucus reached an agreement to vote for the bill twice with President Trump, only to have Reince Priebus or Speaker Ryan notify us that such a compromise could not be put in the bill because, they told us, it would risk violating the budget reconciliation rules in the Senate and kill the bill.

Repeatedly we were told by our Republican leadership that the Senate Parliamentarian could not tell us in advance how she would “rule” on whether we could include our requested language in the bill without killing the bill. Late last week, we learned that the reason they could not find out was because they simply had not asked her, as Senator Mike Lee reported.

Yet the whole truth of the matter is that the Parliamentarian never “rules” on anything. She or he may only whisper a recommendation into the ear of the Senate President, either Vice-President Mike Pence or a designee of the Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who sits in the chair with the gavel on the Senate floor. It is the President of the Senate who “rules” on admissibility, not the Parliamentarian. And if 51 Republican Senators support the ruling of the presiding officer, his or her ruling stands untouchable.

This letter offers just a glimpse of the many reasons that the last two weeks played out as they did. It is very disappointing that despite the several compromises that were offered by conservative members, we still were not near fulfillment of our promise to truly and completely repeal Obamacare. That is a promise I did not make lightly, and I will continue the fight to honor my pledge to my constituents and the American people by working aggressively to make sure we get a good bill, get it passed, and signed into law.

Faithfully Yours,

Congressman Louie Gohmert
First District of Texas

RELATED VIDEOS: Gohmert: ‘I Can’t Support a Bill That Does More Damage Than Good’

Gohmert on AHCA: For My Constituents – a 10% Drop Will Not Be a Help

old holy bible

The Great ‘Christian Terrorist’ Unicorn Hunt

It’s amazing how stupid smart people can seem when intent on putting a square peg in a round hole. This is seen continually when certain apologists try to dig Islam out of its hole — the one dug deeper every time there’s another terrorist act.

Khalid Masood

Khalid Masood. Photo: Daily Mail.

Consider the recent London jihadist attack by Muslim convert Khalid Masood. Globe & Fail columnist Doug Saunders, proving he missed his calling as a contortionist, actually tweeted that Masood, like the “authors of UK’s other big Jihadi attacks, was not a Muslim. Born Adrian Elms.”

He explained his “reasoning” in a second tweet: “Not Muslim by background. The question is where extremists are coming from — in UK, often Christian families.” In other words, relevant to Saunders is the faith Masood was “born into,” which he had no choice in, not the beliefs he consciously chose to embrace as an adult.

Question: If a godless child of atheists converted to Christianity and committed terrorism, would Saunders blame the act on atheism?

Then, I’m sure Saunders isn’t fond of Ronald Reagan and his policies. Does he blame Democrats for them because Reagan came from a Democrat family and was one well into adulthood?

Obviously, if Christianity were the issue in terrorism, we’d see actual professed Christians committing such acts — not just Muslims, a few of whom once were Christian.

Moreover, anyone with a lick of understanding knows that converts make the most zealous believers. Who is more passionate about chess? Someone born to chess-loving parents who is indifferent about the game or a person who decides as an adult to play it three hours a day?

But human pretzels abound. On the Friday edition of HBO’s Real Time, Heat Street columnist and former Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament Louise Mensch echoed Saunder’s rationalization. She then responded to host Bill Maher’s statement that Masood was motivated by his religion with, “It has nothing to do with Islam, the same way Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.”

Aside from how telling it is that jihadi apologists must reach back 22 years for an example of significant non-Muslim domestic terrorism — McVeigh bombed a government building in 1995 — we can be sure his act had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism: McVeigh was an atheist.

Another Real Time guest, MSNBC host Chris Hayes, responded to a Maher point about there being no Christian armies like ISIS with, “The IRA that blew up London for 15 years!” What’s tragic is that a media personality could say something so inane without blowing up his career.

The Irish Republican Army, as its name suggests, was defined by being Irish Republicans (not Christian), just as the Islamic State is defined by being Islamic. The IRA had three well-defined goals:

  • It sought the end of British rule in Northern Ireland, not the end of other religions.
  • It desired the reunification of Ireland, not the unification of the world under one faith.
  • And it sought the establishment of a republic, not a theocracy. Its terrorists didn’t scream “Christ is King!” while committing violence; in fact, many of its early members were those atheist ideologues known as communists.

Moreover, the IRA was devoted to fighting one government in one place; it wasn’t a worldwide movement seeking to subdue all of humanity. Equating it with the Islamic State is, quite frankly, stupid.

While Maher deserves credit for standing up to this head-in-sand lunacy, his defense was lacking. His main response was to point out that the events cited by his pitiful panel were in the past; he also contributed to the problem by citing the “Inquisition” as also being analogous to Muslim terrorism. Yet this is like saying that today’s “Human Rights Tribunals” are also terrorist entities.

First, realize that it’s hard to find a civilization that didn’t have laws against heresy. Pre-Christian pagan civilizations such as the Romans and Greeks sure did; in fact, one of the crimes legendary philosopher Socrates was executed for was “mocking the gods.” There also were Protestant inquisitions along with the well-known Catholic ones.

But consider: the first inquisition wasn’t instituted until the 12th century. What happened to heretics for the first 1,100 years of Christian history?

Answer: they were judged by the government. They’d be brought before the local lord, who likely had little training in law or theology and who might want to dispose of the case before dinner.  Consequently, his judgments were often arbitrary and capricious, and many people were unjustly convicted.

As a response, the Church instituted inquisitions — the first being in southern France in 1184 — for the purposes of bringing order and justice to the process. People forget that “inquisition” means “inquiry,” and that was the tribunals’ job: to inquire into the validity of heresy charges.

The result? Most defendants were acquitted or received light punishments — and none were executed by the inquisitions. This is because heresy was not a capital crime under Church law, only under government law. In fact, the now notorious Spanish Inquisition was considered in its time the best run court in Europe, with jails so good that criminals in state custody were known to purposely blaspheme in order to be transferred to them.

For more information, read my essay on the matter, that of medieval scholar Professor Thomas Madden, or watch the below BBC documentary, “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition.”

Of course, Americans generally don’t appreciate thought-police bodies, but that’s not the point. The aforementioned Human Rights Tribunals — which render “hate speech” judgments — are inquisitions. Yet I don’t think Bill Maher would equate them with the Islamic State.

It’s only surprising that Maher’s panel didn’t also mention the Crusades, defensive wars that were designed to stave off Muslim aggression and which, quite possibly, saved Western civilization. It’s usually thrown in there when people are making up anti-Christian history.

Of course, it goes without saying that Christians did at times use violence, yet when done unjustly this violates the faith itself. And is sin surprising? Christians are just imperfect people trying to live up to a perfect standard. As G.K. Chesterton put it,

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

It’s also true that, on occasion, Christianity has been enforced with an iron fist. Charlemagne certainly did this. But what hasn’t been? Why, we spread democracy at a bayonet’s tip when invading Arab lands and engaging in “nation building.”

The reality, though, is that the Christian norm has been to spread the faith by the word; the Muslim norm has been conversion by the sword.

And perhaps this was reflected in a very interesting German study involving 45,000 young people. Released in 2010, it found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, it made Muslim youth more violent.

There simply is no Christian analogue, in all of history, to today’s Islamic terrorism. It only exists in the minds of quislings who, wittingly or not, have become the propaganda arm of global jihad.

(Hat tip: American Thinker’s Rick Moran.)

RELATED ARTICLE: The National Library has uncovered a telegram written by Heinrich Himmler and sent to Mufti al-Husseini, in which the Nazi leader expressed his support of the Palestinian struggle against the Jews.

EDITORS NOTE: Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) is a traditionalist media personality whose work has been published widely online and in print, appearing at outlets such as The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American ThinkerContact Selwyn Duke or log on to SelwynDuke.com

VIMEO CLOSES AFA ACCOUNT

TAKE ACTION: Vimeo removes Christian ministry videos, closes account

If Jesus has changed your life and set you free from homosexual practice, your testimony is not welcome on Vimeo – not now, not ever. And if you see homosexuality as another aspect of sexual brokenness, something for which Jesus died and something from which you can be healed, your opinion is not welcome on Vimeo. Case closed, door shut, end of subject.

Pure Passion Ministries is a much respected friend of AFA and many other national ministries. Their videos have helped countless sexual abuse victims, people who have been sex trafficked, those who are addicted or in any other condition that causes them distress.

Sign the Petition to Vimeo!

us-appletv-1-pure-passion-tvOn March 24, Vimeo removed all 850 Pure Passion videos and closed its account.

Why? As Vimeo explained to Dr. David Kyle Foster, director of Pure Passion Ministries and himself a former homosexual,

To put it plainly, we don’t believe that homosexuality requires a cure and we don’t allow videos on our platform that espouse this point of view…We also consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow.”

Did you catch that? Vimeo is guilty of the very same intolerance they claim Pure Passion has. Read the entire exchange between Pure Life and Vimeo here.

But Foster’s ministry is not the first to be unfairly censured by Vimeo. In 2015, Vimeo unpublished an announcement for an upcoming “Hope Conference.” The conference was sponsored by Restored Hope Network, which is an association of ministries that help people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions. Early last year, Vimeo shut down Restored Hope’s entire account. Every single video. Gone.

Vimeo also shut down the account of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is an association of psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and therapists who have had the temerity to stand up to the PC establishment and who refuse to celebrate LGBT activism.

You can see why Foster described Vimeo’s move as “pure religious bigotry and censorship.”

Vimeo takes a hostile view towards groups and videos that espouse the Bible when it comes to human sin and brokenness.

Vimeo takes a callous approach towards groups and videos that preach the gospel of transformation when it comes to homosexuality.

TAKE ACTION

This is an outrage, and it needs to be addressed. Here’s what you can do today:

  • Sign our petition to Vimeo asking them to restore immediately the account of Dr. David Kyle Foster and Pure Passion, stating politely that this is tantamount to religious censorship and bigotry.
  • Share this information with family, friends and on social media.
  • Pray that the message of freedom and liberty in Jesus – from ALL brokenness and sin – would be proclaimed even more loudly and powerfully in the days ahead. Pray that Vimeo’s efforts to silence a powerful ministry (along with other excellent ministries and organizations) result in the amplifying of this ministry’s message.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

EDITORS NOTE: If AFA’s mission resonates with you, please consider supporting their work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

POPLE ROPE

People of the Rope vs People of the Ladder

Dinesh D’Souza has a wonderful way of explaining complex issues using simple analogies. In the video below D’Souza, speaking at Columbia University, describes the difference between Republicans and Democrats using the analogy of a rope and a ladder.

Ayn Rand used “Textbook of Americanism” to explain in the simplest terms possible what made America unique and great. She opens with an explanation of two starkly contrasting ideas.

What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

Read ‘Textbook of Americanism’

churchill quote on socialismRand built her case for limiting the power of the collective, for the difference between arbitrary law and moral law, and for the meaning of rights. She summarized the proper role of government — the smallest conceivable and essential functions — and the moral imperative not to initiate force. She clarified that individualism and collectivism are exclusive terms, that any “mix” is a breach against individualism.

Finally, Rand issued a warning: Compromising individual rights will lead to society’s destruction.

D’Souza’s “people of the ladder and people of the rope” analogy describes what Ayn Rand warned us about. The rope that Democrats are throwing to their supporters is actually a nose that will hang them and lead to the equal sharing of misery.

RELATED ARTICLE: The False Compassion of Liberalism

dzouza media

VIDEO: UNCHAINED — Dinesh D’Souza at Trinity University

In another #onlyatYAF lecture, Dinesh D’Souza blasts the left for their fascist roots and anti-minority bigotry, two things they have become adept at throwing at the right. In fact, the history of the Democratic Party is a history of corruption, bigotry, and totalitarianism.

Dinesh D’Souza is UNCHAINED at Trinity University.

Watch to see more!In his shocking new film, Dinesh D’Souza exposes the secret history of the Democrats and the true motivations of Hillary before the election this year. What are these Democrats hiding? “Hillary’s America” is available on DVD, Blu-Ray, and Digital HD now! Order your copy here: http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/#dvd.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn more about Young America’s Foundation: YAF.org. Readers wishing to connect with Dinesh D’Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DSouzaDinesh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dineshjdsouza/
Email: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/email-upd…

Trigger-warnings

Trigger-warning Tyrants

People like thinking the best of themselves, which is partially why we have “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and claims of “taking offense” — so these complainers don’t have to come to terms with the fact they’re spoiled, self-absorbed, tyrannical brats.

Here’s how it works: When accusing you of “microaggressing,” the truth is that, generally, these snowflakes just don’t happen to like what you’re saying. But shouting “Shut up! I hate that type of expression!” makes you seem intolerant. So to preserve your image and self-image, you use the ploy of shifting the onus onto the one whose speech you want to suppress.

Note that actual ideas are often targeted. Examples are “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” which academia has identified as “racial microaggressions.” The principle is: If you can’t refute it, boot it.

Since coining psychobabble terms is in today, I’ll label this onus-switching “Oppression Transference.” The snowflake oppressor stifles the speech of his victim by making the latter seem the oppressor — a microaggressor, an agent of triggered feelings or offender in chief.

Another major factor is that, lacking the power of the state, the snowflake has to use social pressure to impose his will. He might just put you in a gulag were he a Stalin, but he’s not, so he shackles you with political correctness.

Since snowflakes pride themselves on tolerance, it should be emphasized that they don’t even understand the concept. “Tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative. You’d likely never have to tolerate a fine car or delectable meal, but you would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather (unless you’re a masochist).

In other words, if, let’s say, you like homosexual behavior or just don’t care about it, that’s not called tolerance; it’s called affinity or indifference. A prerequisite for tolerating it is considering it a negative.

Thus, the true measure of tolerance is how well you handle things you don’t like. And pro tip: If you’re so triggered by “Where are you from?” and “You speak English really well” — which are also labeled microaggressions — that you participate in a Stalinesque effort to purge such things from discourse, you’re not just not tolerant; you’re not even tolerable.

Snowflakes are also pathetically self-centered and self-absorbed. If your feelings are hurt by the terms “black hole” or “man up,” well, you need to man up. If you think The Great Gatsby, Mrs. Dalloway or The Merchant of Venice needs a trigger warning, you’re not just a sniveling little wimp. You also haven’t learned an important life lesson once imparted during toddlerhood: Your feelings just aren’t that important.

There are seven billion people on this planet with seven billion sets of feelings. When snowflakes demand their feelings be the arbiters of policy, they’re saying that their emotions should be preeminent, with others who feel contrary being subordinate. Worse still, they’re saying that their feelings, which are subjective, should trump what should be the yardstick for policy: the objective, principles such as the imperative of encouraging the expression of Truth.

This is the crux of the matter. Saying that something originating within you (feelings) should take precedence over Truth, which exists outside of you, is a universal and is meant to be feelings’ arbiter, is the epitome of self-centeredness.

There is the occasional academic who stands against the snowflake phenomenon, such as Oklahoma Wesleyan University’s great president, Dr. Everett Piper, who penned an open letter to his students titled “This is Not a Daycare. It’s a University!” But modern universities, which now resemble dens of iniquity where all the hookers have Ph.Ds, are generally the problem.

For instance, the term “microaggressions” was popularized by a Columbia University professor, Derald Wing Sue, who got the idea from a more original Ivy League lunkhead. Brown University was content to let students establish “a ‘safe space’ that offered calming music, cookies, Play-Doh and a video of frolicking puppies to help students cope…,” reported the Telegraph. And institutions of lower learning have created charts of microaggressions so all us bigots can know what not to say. An example is the following from the University of Wisconsin:

microaggressions

As for trigger warnings, there’s an interesting thing about them. The people complaining about the “graphic violence” in The Great Gatsby weren’t raised in a cloistered Amish cocoon; they grew up imbibing the most violent, perverse Hollywood fare imaginable. So I suspect that what really bothers them is something else — such as the more traditional paradigm for society older works portray.

Tragically, the “educators” facilitating snowflakism are ignorant of the harm they do. The University of North Carolina warns that saying to a woman “I love your shoes!” or “[i]nterrupting a female-identified colleague…” can be a microaggression. So can saying to “a person of African descent: “Can I touch your hair?’” because it sends the message “Your appearance is exotic and foreign to me.”

Okay, but what if my appearance really is exotic and foreign to the person? When I was 19, I visited a rural Taiwanese town, a place where homes still had straw roofs. I was brought to the elementary school, and it just so happened that the children had recess. Circling around me curiously, it was plain they’d never personally seen a blondish white person before. The friend I was with told me they wanted to shake my hand, and, after extending it, it wasn’t long before I had a dozen Chinese lads on each arm screaming and pulling me like it was a tug-of-war. It was a fun experience I’ll never forget.

The point is that this curiosity is normal. And here’s another life lesson: If you can’t understand that or are offended by it, you’re abnormal. Thankfully, this abnormality can be cured.

But here’s where the harm lies. Is a couple, or two friends, closer when there’s nothing they can’t discuss? Or when many subjects are off limits and they must walk on eggs?

By creating the latter situation, the snowflake enablers are actually building walls between people. When you can’t acknowledge obvious differences among people — whether they relate to race, ethnicity, sex, religion or something else — you’re playing pretend. Another word for this is pretense, which has as a synonym “charade.”  Also note one of its antonyms: honesty.

How do you combat trigger-warning tyranny? Stop being defensive. The people effecting it are trying to shut you up as they purge Truth from your tongue. They’re using social warfare against you, so strike back; fight fire with fire and put the onus on them. Call them what they are: intolerant, spoiled, self-centered, evil tyrants. Take no prisoners.

Only when these oppressors masquerading as victims are stilling their tongues, fearing the scorn, ostracism and possible career destruction threatening sane people today, will we know we’ve made America great again. Remember, people who cannot be reasoned with, can only be fought.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: This $56,199-Per-Year Campus Offers ‘Self-Identified White Students’ A Safe Space To Feel Guilty

RELATED VIDEO: Microaggression: A Beginner’s #SJW Guide!

marine le pen quote

French Presidential Campaign: Why It Matters

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.

First, a brief summary of the overall situation:

The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist

The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche

François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.

And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National

The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.

The Polls

The one thing we cannot know before the 7th of May is the name of the winner. We don’t even know which of the current frontrunners-Le Pen, Macron, Fillon- will make it to the second round. Despite constant reminders of recent prediction flops, commentators are hooked on the fortune-teller syndrome. They watch Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron peddle uphill and careen around hairpin curves as if it were the Tour de France. Last week the media thought they had pushed François Fillon over a cliff and into the abyss, but he held firm. He’s only a few points behind the other two…in the polls, that is. Big Data Analysis gives a different picture, substantially more favorable to Fillon. But that’s not the media’s storyline…

So what about Marine Le Pen? Isn’t she the fourth act of the Trump/Brexit/Wilders divine surprises?

Marine Le Pen’s reputation as The Anti-Islamization Candidate goes back to the early 2000s, when she forcefully expressed the exasperation of the lower classes that were bearing the brunt of Islamic encroachment on French society. Immediately branded as xenophobe, Islamophobe, and racist she turned the disapproval into an advantage, gathered steam, and racked up a series of impressive electoral results. The Front National went from pariah to legitimate party. And Le Pen was handed ownership of anything that could be deemed hostile to Islam. Whenever a politician takes a stand on issues of immigration, Islam, law and order, or homegrown jihadis, he is accused of leaning to the far right, picking issues off the National Front’s plate, disgracing himself…

Foreign media have generally relayed this caricature, fueling widespread ignorance of other aspects of Marie Le Pen’s program and her embryonic party’s structural weaknesses.

Desperate to burnish her foreign policy credentials, Le Pen found no better destination than Lebanon. She opted out of an audience with the Mufti, by refusing to wear a veil. This put her head and shoulders above the Swedish ladies wrapped in hijab that had paraded in front of Iranian president Rohani as if they were merchandise at a slave market. She did not, however, veil her defense of Bashir al Assad, “the only solution for Syria,” or dissimulate her good relations with Michel Aoun, the Christian outsider that became an insider by making an alliance with Hezbullah. Madame Le Pen graciously suggested she might exempt French-Lebanese from her promised ban on extra-European dual nationality. How about French-Israelis? Hardly! Marine Le Pen wants French Jews to sacrifice the kippa in support of an across the board prohibition of religious garb in public. Her envoy, Nicholas Bay, was snubbed during a recent foray into Israel. The presidential candidate herself did not get any further than the Trump Tower coffee shop on a “recreational” weekend in New York.

The Assad connection is longstanding. Marine Le Pen’s friend and associate Frédéric Chatillon, handles PR for both the National Front and Assad.  Her father Jean-Marie badmouthed Muslims domestically while entertaining a close friendship with Saddam Hussein. I reported extensively in 2014 on the dubious alliances of the National Front.

The European Union accuses National Front eurodeputies of fraudulent use of EU parliamentary assistant salaries for a total of close to a million euros. Frédéric Chatillon is under investigation for tricky: campaign financing, Marine Le Pen is accused of faulty financial declarations, her cabinet chief is also under investigation and that’s just the tip of an iceberg that has virtually no effect on her faithful supporters. Nevertheless, the sudden flurry of activity on cases that have dragged on for years is questionable. As is the absence of coverage of the party’s unsavory dealings with neo-Nazis and Islamic Jew haters.

Under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, emphasis has been subtly shifting the from Islam to the economy, with a French brand of  national socialism: restored sovereignty, protected borders, increased welfare benefits and jobs for the French-French, zero immigration, law & order at home, no foreign entanglements abroad. Her rhetoric is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalization and, of course anti-EU. She promises a referendum to get France out of the EU and the Eurozone; if voters choose to remain, she will resign.

Sloppy comparisons with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. ignore the fact that Trump was able to hitch the Republican Party to his runaway wagon; Marine Le Pen rules over a heteroclite skeleton party that can’t be fleshed out by alliances-all the other parties are devils in FN theology. If she does make it to the second round, she has virtually no chance of winning and no hopes of forming an operational government. The idea that hordes of politicians from the Parliamentary right would pour into her administration is far-fetched.

Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy while freelancing as the founder of En Marche [On the go], a movement that wears his initials like a signet ring. Never before elected to public office, Macron teased his movement into a presidential election machine. He is now jockeying with François Fillon for 2nd position… the polls again. In a cheap version of Richard the Something, Macron made an end run around Manuel Valls, who remained the faithful Prime Minister while Hollande delayed announcing he wouldn’t run for reelection. Subsequently defeated in the primaries, Valls stands back while Socialists big and small go over to Macron. I expect François Hollande will join them at the opportune moment.

Macron is the feel good candidate. Just enough labor reform to look modern, a heavy dose of welfare to reassure the weak and make the strong feel generous. He talks high tech, floats a few inches above the ground, throws out ideas like flowers to lovely maidens, does Black is Beautiful photo-ops and makes affirmative action commitments in the banlieue, visits a police station to show he knows people want security, and declares, in Algeria, that the French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” That was followed by a rally in a Front National stronghold with a large population of “pieds noirs,” former French residents of Algeria, where he unashamedly declared “Because I want to be president, I hear you, I love you.” (borrowed from Général de Gaulle). Macron ruffled feathers with a hymn to multiculturalism: “There is no French culture, there is a culture in France.” That was followed by a long-winded exposé of his “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” project for France.

On his way back from Algeria, the startup candidate stopped in London where he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of expats. In a shocking feat of erroneous reporting, The Guardian turned Macron’s Algerian bomb into a modest statement that “human rights abuses” were committed during the colonization of Algeria. No, my friends, he said “crime against humanity.”  We heard elsewhere that the British government was not pleased by Macron’s invitation-extended in front of 10 Downing Street-to bankers, engineers, scientists, and other desirables fleeing the Brexited UK to settle in France.

Melodrama

February 22: 4-time defeated presidential candidate François Bayrou solemnly declared: “l’heure est grave” [the situation is serious]. The long-winded, pedantic, moralizing politician-professor performed a public act of abnegation-he wouldn’t be running for president-and heroically offered an alliance with Emmanuel Macron. Who immediately accepted. Bayrou maintains his hallmark pose of disinterested superiority: He never seeks fame, fortune, power or prerogatives. His mission is to save the nation from electing someone other than himself or a candidate he has sanctioned. Will he be an addition or a subtraction to Macron’s campaign? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull out before mid-April. But I might be wrong.

François Fillon

We can safely assume that François Fillon has not been accused of corruption at any point in his 36-year political career; if he had been, we would be hearing about it from morning to night. Tragically, Fillon stood straight and tall on his clean reputation in the primary campaign, going so far as to ask, rhetorically, “Could we imagine Général de Gaulle mise en examen (under investigation)? This was an obvious poke at his rival Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been repeatedly mise en examen since François Hollande took office. No matter that all the cases ended in acquittal, mise en examen has come to mean “presumed guilty.” When the scandal, maliciously labeled “Penelopegate,” broke in February, Fillon was so certain of his innocence that he said he would drop out of the race if he were mise en examen.

The opening shot was sensational: “Penelope Fillon earned 500,000 euros for doing nothing.” Zionists are familiar with this type of operation. Nothing that is said or done afterward will erase the initial shock effect. François Fillon’s lawyer, Antonin Levy (the son of the famous philosopher and activist Bernard Henri Levy), says he has filed more than 600 pages of evidence of madame Fillon’s effective assistance to her husband, why should anyone believe him? The story gets the post-modern treatment of verification by repetition.

Fillon’s platform and the relentless effort to keep him from reaching the second round, where he might defeat Le Pen or Macron, will be explored in depth in Part 2.

The outgoing Prime Minister and Interior Minister made a brief statement to the press shortly after the thwarted attack at Orly airport this morning. The assailant, they said, tried to grab the Famas assault rifle from a (female) aviator on patrol. But she held onto it. This was repeated several times. He couldn’t get the gun, but he was a danger to her and the passengers. He was shot dead by a fellow Air Force man in the patrol. A few hours later a photo of the dead assailant was published. The gun is lying across his chest.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Nationalist and Presidential Contender Is Schmoozing With Putin

61% of French adults say Islam is incompatible with their society and 79% support banning headscarves in universities, new poll shows

Eastern European countries join forces! Refuse to take refugees Brussels is pushing on them

France’s Hollande says his final mission is to ensure that “populism, nationalism and extremism cannot win”

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC: 61% of French say Islam is incompatible with their secular society.

french islam poll

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Family Security Matters. Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

american-flag-background_1_640x360

How to Destroy America from Within

Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Below is an account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism by a person who was there for his speech.

A Frightening Analysis

mexifornia book coverWe all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said,

“If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

“Here is how they do it,”

Richard_D._Lamm_Colorado

Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm

Lamm said:

First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on:

Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third,

“We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’”

Lamm said,

“I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.

It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

victimhood card

Victimhood: The New American Culture

victimhoodWho is a victim? Are you?

Everyone according to the Globalists, a.k.a. Left a.k.a. Progressives, is a victim (except “privileged” whites).   The minute that a new supporter becomes a Globalist, that new supporter is grouped and put into a victim class based on the findings of the Progressive left by your race, religion, gender, intelligence, health, looks, sexual preference, etc. You get the point.  America has hundreds of groups to create categories for separation to be used later to divide and conquer.   The left does not see individuals, only groups of victims.

If you listen to Michael Moore at the women’s March, all women are victims.  It does not matter how you view yourself, to the Globalists, you are a victim. Psychologically if you are told you are a victim often enough, you will act and behave like a victim.

The women’s March was quite telling for most people were complaining about things that didn’t happen, and probably will never happen.  Why were they there?  Most were there because in school, victims learn the PRECAUTIONARY Principal and act accordingly.  What that means is: if I can dream it up, then it might happen so I must restrict everything today in anticipation. This way their intolerable “life” can be turned into their “utopia” forced on everyone. Utopia forced on others. How does that work?

Their new laws are restrictive to the majority.  Kind of undemocratic, don’t you think?   This Precautionary Principal now applies to policy we have.

Examples:

  1. Our climate policy is not rooted in fact, instead computers are used with algorithms that will predict what will happen in the future under certain circumstances.
  2. NOAA’s catch shares destroyed the fishing industry. Volumes of fish were deleted by computer. If the computer deletes fish, NOAA can claim shortages.
  3. Claiming that the location of a building private, public, charter, home schools will create better students. The only thing that “fixes” education is changing the curricula.

Many causes make no sense, like abortion.  Globalists have decided that a baby doesn’t have life until it is born. Yet if we discover one single cell on Mars then we say we have discovered life.  Therefore by this scientific description, an abortion terminates life. The real question is, ‘Does a woman have the right to terminate life or does an unborn life form have a right to exist?’

“The central project of the liberal welfare state is to build a society based on a high-minded ethic of altruism rather than narrow self-interest. The whole point is to create a new kind of person whose humane commitments are driven by a more cosmopolitan sensibility beyond his parochial attachments to self, family, and clan.” REUTERS/Mark Blinch

What is actually happening is that we are allowing others to modify our behavior and create laws and policies that make no sense, and are often offensive to the majority. Who actually is the victim? Is it the majority now forced to follow laws they do not believe or is it the minority who think they may be oppressed in the future?

What are the women fighting for?  Many were fighting for the right to have an abortion.  Wait a minute, they already have that right. Others were fighting for equality in the work place.  Wait a minute, the statistics show equality in the work place. The Constitution guarantees that ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL.  It doesn’t say, blacks, Jews, Latinos, women.  The laws in America are for ALL.  If children were taught that in school, think of all the associations, club, groups that would no longer be necessary.

What is behind all of this?  Helping victims?  No, sorry its money. Victimhood creates emotions and emotions can be turned into money. The Globalists are all about money.

Victims are created by a common cause. That cause will generate money (donations) from others who feel emotionally connected to that cause.  Thus the group – not individual mentality – is born.  The Globalists do not care about individuals, only causes.

Why do Globalists need the money? That money is used to create and train people who will be future activist and rioters.  Check out Discover the Networks where you will find the organizations set up to train future activists as well as Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations.  Hundreds of millions have been spent and more to follow. Victimhood makes money!

Before we go further, let’s define victim: a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else.  In politics, the injury is more mental than physical.  Victims of political action are guided into feeling a certain way, building anger until the anger takes over the personality.  Any other feeling becomes intolerable. To think contrary to the group becomes unbearable and intolerable.  The student learns to hate.  Remember, you have to be taught to hate.

Where does all of this hate come from?   Hate is now taught in school.  You don’t start your life immersed in hatred. You must learn.  One just has to listen to the interviews of the crowds at the “gatherings”. Once you learn hate, intolerance is its evil partner.  Once that happens, your thoughts are easy to control.

The mistake we make is to think that the propaganda applies only in college.  Wrong again. This Data Mining in elementary school makes it easy to instill hate in the young by questions and then reinforce those feeling with the “correct” answers. It then makes it easy for the “computer” to begin to categorize the victims and alter behavior to the desired response in kindergarten.

The student, through careful wording and hidden meanings, can become part of a particular category.  The child will then be “accepted”.  “Being accepted” to a young child is often all they need to mold their future behavior.   The group mentality is then formed based around feelings, not fact.  Individuals take a back seat to the group.  Self- reliance, common sense, individual success are thrown aside in order to create a more perfect group of victims.  A child who thinks “outside the box,” is often kicked out of the box.

Young students can suffer the trauma of being separated from their family beliefs.  How often have you heard, “Old people don’t know anything. Don’t trust people over 30. You parents aren’t as smart as the teacher.  School is your new family?”

Through early indoctrination using the victim model, victims become the new cash cow of the Globalists. The cause creates control over the individual. Many individuals grouping together gives POWER to the group pushing the cause. Emotion of the cause creates the desire to help. Help comes in the form of donations. What a cycle.

Victims suffer because they are black. They suffer because they are women. They suffer because they are LGBT or anything that the tears people apart, changing what is “normal” separating them from the rest of the population.  At any given time victims can be called upon to act/mobilize with their fellow victims.  All are always victimized by: the whites, by their employers, the 1%, by the Christians, by the Jews, by the Constitution.  In essence you are a victim and therefore you need the government to help.  Just hop aboard the Globalist train, where you will find hoards of victims.

In order to get you into survival mode and not victim mode, I have a question. With all the money we have spent “on causes”, Why do we still have victims?  I’ve been hearing the same mantra since the sixties. Nothing has changed. Billions have been spent to eliminate that behavior.  Yet, nothing has changed.  All of that money has been spent.    Could it be the goal is not to change anything?  The real goal is to generate money.

Once you are part of that victim group with a cause (truth and facts be damned!) the media, Hollywood, teachers, lawyers, judges and professors stir the emotions. The propaganda slants the “news” to fit the narrative. The group believes that the majority feels the same. Yet statistics often show that the real victims of the cause are usually less than 3% of the population.  Why are new laws being made to support less than 3% of the population when ALL Americans are to be protected.  Aren’t the 3% part of ALL. Sighting a cause forces the 97% to adhere to the new laws. Why?  CONTROL.  Another goal of the Globalist Puppeteer is CONTROL. What drives these Globalists? MONEY, POWER, CONTROL

Look at the results of this new victim culture in America:

  1. 9/11 Americans became victims
  2. In the name of security, the Patriot Act was passed.  The Act created the NSA with power and authority to survey every American citizen and store the data in a huge facility in Utah.
  3. In the name of safety, the NDAA was signed giving the President the power to spy on Americans without warrants under certain circumstances.  (Do you think anyone pays attention to the circumstances?)  A President can just order the stored data to be delivered without a warrant.
  4. Obama EO 12333 allowed all intelligence agencies to share warrant less data without warrants.
  5. Do you feel more safe?  Is giving up your privacy worth being spied on for “national security” sake?  Don’t you feel like Nanny is watching you?

The Globalists usually create the atmosphere for victimization.

Hillary and Obama had women working for them a who were paid less than men in the same job. Hollywood is notorious for paying their women less than men. Yet they screamed loudest for equality in the work place.  Where was the outrage?

Now you know the process to control you, what can you do?  I am just one – will my voice be heard?  The good news is, “WE the People,” are a lot smarter then we are given credit for.  The past election proved that we have the numbers. The question is, will we do our part? What is our part?

The concept of America is that individuals will become the best they can be.  School is designed to provide the skills to be used by students, enabling them to make informed decisions in their future.  Once skills are learned, these individuals can work together and create the exceptionalism that drives America.  Today school no longer teaches those skills. You can’t be a victim and become the best, unless you consider that you will be the best victim.

Being successful requires self reliance, common sense, ability to think for yourself outside the box.  School was to assist you with the as the ability to check your emotions, deal with facts and think before you act. Since those skills are no longer taught in school it becomes our responsibility to reverse the irresponsible curricula. Students who are not taught about American exceptionalism, freedom and liberty, will not fight for American exceptionalism, freedom and liberty. We see the results of that failed education in America’s snowflake population.

The Globalists won this round.  In order to change America into a culture of Victims they have taken over the schools.  In order to “take back” anything, we have to look at where the cancer grows.  It grows in school. It is the curricula of victimhood that has created generations of victims incapable of thinking for themselves. So as POTUS gives education back to the states and local communities, will you participate and put together a new American, success curricula?  Will you go to school board meeting and monitor texts for truth, not values?  America is at a unique time in history. Once again the People are engaged.  Let’s channel our energy to a challenge that is in our control, the local schools.

America’s future is in our hands. If you can volunteer to help America’s children, contact me.

Areeje-Zufari

Orlando’s Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari — Profile of a ‘Radical Islamic Supremacist’

Areej Zufari photo

Areeje Zufari

This column provides the background of Professor Areeje Zufari, a Professor of Humanities and Coordinator of the Humanities Speakers Series at Valencia College located in Orlando, Florida. Zufari gained attention when she told her students “that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was ‘divine.’”

But there is much more to this story.

Joe Kaufman, an investigative journalist for FrontPage Magazine and Chairman of Americans Against Hate a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, filed an affidavit No. CT-003545-04 naming Professor Zufari and her then husband Maher Ghawji a medical doctor based in Memphis, Tennessee. The affidavit reads in part:

8. Maher Ghawji has admitted to his wife of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent political movement whose members are sworn to “defend Islam” with their “blood.” He accepted this status with a group of friends, during a trip they had made to Cairo, Egypt (Exhibit 1). He left Syria around 1982, the year a government-led massacre took place in the town of Hama – a Brotherhood stronghold – which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 to 40,000 people (Exhibit 2). Following the massacre, members of the Brotherhood fled Syria, some leaving for the U.S. or Europe, some joining up with Osama bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan (Exhibit 3).

9. During his court deposition, on June 4, 2004, Maher Ghawji admitted to the court and to his wife of being a Wahhabi, an adherent to a fanatical religious form of Islam emanating from Saudi Arabia (Exhibit 4 – page 26).

[ … ]

11a. Maher Ghawji’s son, Louis, has written about how his father wants to “get rid” of all Jews and how his father wants him [Louis] to become a suicide bomber. In an e-mail he sent to a friend on June 24, 2004, he wrote, “And because he [Maher Ghawji] wants to get rid of all Jews and everybody should be muslim and if not all others are idiots and blah blah blah muslim allah blah blah blah wants me to go blow up myself so he would be proud of me…” (Exhibit 5).

11b. Both of Maher Ghawji’s sons have discussed how their father hates Jews. In the July 2, 2004 chambers interview with Louis and K.K. Ghawji, the children state the following: K.K. Ghawji: “So, but also, when he watches the TV and hears about Jews, he doesn’t – he’s like saying I hate the Jews, it is – ” Louis Ghawji: “He’s always wondering like every time there is one Jew dead, it is always a big fuss…” (Exhibit 5).

12. About Palestinians becoming suicide bombers, Maher Ghawji stated in his June 2004 deposition, “I think this will generate this, I’m not sure, spirit of blowing themselves up or feeling in despair; and when you’re in despair evidently like they live, and these people has no education, fifty percent jobless, have no running water after the invasion of Israeli to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, destroy all their infrastructure, evidently they feel miserable; and I said these people — I don’t see why not.” (Exhibit 4 – page 82).

Read the full affidavit…

Areej-with-Maher-at-Wedding

Areeje Zufari at her wedding to Dr. Maher Ghawji. Photo: Joe Kaufman.

According to Jacob Engels from the Central Florida Post:

…Zufari had given Polston a failing grade without explanation, after the two disagreed over Zufari proclaiming during the first class that the Crucifixion of Christ was a hoax… as was the idea that Jesus’s disciples did not think he was “divine.”

Polston reached out and demanded an explanation from the professor, but she instead reported him to the Dean of Safety for making her feel “unsafe.”

The straight-A student would ultimately be suspended on March 24th and then face outlandish allegations by Zufari, later that day.

She accused him of skulking around in the brush outside the classroom, but video surveillance from a Dr. Phillips restaurant and neighborhood gate cameras prove Polston was nowhere near the school at the time.

Now the Central Florida Post has uncovered a lawsuit filed in Orange County, FL in 2007 that contains bombshell allegations against Zufari and provide insight into her radical Wahhabi leanings. SEE THE LAWSUIT BELOW.

Read more…

Zufari Lawsuit by Jacob Engels on Scribd

EDITORS NOTE: Ms. Areeje Zufari Amazon.com profile notes:

Professor and writer Areej Zufari was born in the United States to Middle Eastern parents. Her interest in Middle Eastern culture began during her childhood in Arkansas where she also discovered her love for writing and painting. She earned a Masters degree in Liberal Studies from Rollins College and a Bachelors degree from Southern Methodist University. After 2001, she took on the demanding role of Director of Media and Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida. Her experiences speaking in the media revealed to her the numerous misconceptions Americans hold about the Middle East and Islam. Inspired by the importance of education to promote peace, Zufari enrolled in Hartford Seminary and earned a graduate certificate in Islamic Chaplaincy. Now, as a professor at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida, Zufari teaches Humanities courses full-time and writes during her weekends and summers. [Emphasis added]

Discover the Networks reports:

Imam Muhammad Musri, who oversees seven mosques from the Islamic Society of Central Florida, believes that Arab Christians claiming to have converted from Islam “are lying and . . . were actually Christians all along.” “They are using tales of conversion,” he says, “to get financial backing from evangelical ministries.” Taking a jab at Christianity’s many Protestant denominations, he adds, “We don’t want the Muslims to end up with 700 determinations of Islam.” Musri’s speeches are sold and distributed by the Islamic Society of North America.

Ms. Zufari’s Faculty FrontDoor profile reads:

arab-spring 22

Ms. Zufari’s Faculty FrontDoor profile picture titled “Arab Spring”. Graphic courtesy of Ms. Zufari and Valencia College.

Welcome! I am a Professor of Humanities at Valencia Community College’s East Campus.

I teach the Middle Eastern Humanities, 20th Century Humanities, Renaissance & Baroque Humanities.

Human creativity is one of the most fascinating subjects, and Humanities courses allow us to jump into the creative fields in an integrative manner.

My courses emphasize student interaction and critical thinking. If you are interested in taking one of my courses, please send me an email. I would love to hear from you.

Phone: 407-582-2349

Email:azufari1@valenciacollege.edu

Office: East Campus

Ms. Zufari’s elective Middle Eastern Humanities course syllabus reads:

Course Description:

The course covers topics such as Middle Eastern religions, philosophy, literature, architecture, visual arts, music, and the effects of modernity on the Middle East.

Major Topics:

Students will have the opportunity to study the culture of the Middle East in an integrated manner that focuses on the dominant ideas and major trends, including:

  • Characteristics and Distinctions of Middle Eastern Culture
  • Themes, styles, and impact of Middle Eastern Literature
  • Concepts and impact of the religion of Islam
  • The effects of religion on Middle Eastern peoples
  • Characteristics and trends in Middle Eastern Art
  • Characteristics of Middle Eastern Architecture
  • The Effects of Modernity on the Middle East

Texts:

  • Beyond the Headlines: A Deeper Look at Middle Eastern Culture by Areej Zufari

RELATED ARTICLES: 

HERE’S EPIC EMAIL SUSPENDED CHRISTIAN SENT MUSLIM PROF: ‘There’s something seriously wrong and depraved about you’

Christian Student Challenge’s Muslim Prof’s Claim Jesus Wasn’t Crucified, Gets Suspended

Iowa State University asks students to write about 9/11 jihad attacks from jihadis’ perspective

Georgetown University and Radical Islamists: It’s a Family Affair – IPT News

The case of Yale

‘This Is Not a Debate’ – Yale’s fight for free speech

Australia: Muslim leader says people who leave Islam should be put to death

Liban Mohamed assault

Somali refugee sentenced to 3 years for attempted sexual assault of mentally disabled woman

When we first reported this case, it was learned through an apparent miscommunication by lawyers for the defendant that he had only arrived in the country the week before the incident occurred in July of last year. Now we learn he was a wandering Somali who had first been resettled in Idaho three years ago and had drifted from state to state ever since.

Before this case hit the news we had heard about the mayor there supporting the proposed opening of a direct resettlement site in Aberdeen and that citizens were upset. Click here for our first story on Aberdeen.  I then visited the city during my travels throughout the Midwest and West last summer where I was mostly interested in seeing meatpacking towns that were being changed with the influx of refugee laborers.

mike-levsen-mayor

Aberdeen Mayor Mike Levsen

Here is what happened in an Aberdeen court yesterday, from Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily:

Liban Mohamed, a 39-year-old Somali refugee living in Aberdeen, South Dakota, was sentenced Monday to three years for attempting to sexually assault a severely mentally handicapped woman at a group home.

Speaking through an interpreter, Mohamed said he didn’t know English. Yet, he was seen communicating with his lawyer in English.

Judge Richard Summers sentenced Mohamed to five years, with two years suspended for a total of three years and gave him credit for time served of 228 days. Mohamed is not a U.S. citizen, but he has been living in the United States on a green card.  [I assume there was no order for deportation after he finishes his sentence, will he be wandering to your state in three short years?—ed]

The incident happened July 30, 2016, just three days after Mohamed had arrived in Aberdeen to work at the Demkota Ranch beef-processing plant. He’d been in the country for about three years at that point, having been first resettled in Idaho. He then moved to Missouri, Kansas and on to South Dakota.

It’s not the only case recently of a Somali refugee running afoul of the law. Another man from Somalia, 24-year-old Abdirhman Noor, was charged with the attempted murder of two men on July 8, 2016, outside the Foxridge Apartments in Aberdeen. Noor jumped bail, failing to show up for a pretrial hearing in February. He has been missing ever since.

Still, the mayor of the small city, Mike Levsen, supports the continued arrival of refugees, many of whom are put to work in the local meatpacking plant and at a molded fiberglass plant.

The Liban Mohamed case was also notable for the way it was handled by the local media in and around Aberdeen.

Despite the facts – that a helpless woman was preyed upon by a refugee who had arrived in town just days earlier – coverage by the local newspaper, the Aberdeen News American, and local TV was non-existent until WND brought it to light.

When it did finally report the story, the News American refused to tell its readers that the perpetrator, Mohamed, was a refugee and buried the story on page 3.

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office refused to give WND a mugshot of Mohamed.

There are many more details.  Continue reading here.

I wonder what his arrest, his legal counsel, his interpreters and his incarceration is costing the taxpayers of South Dakota? So much for refugees adding to local economies!

Aberdeen citizens might wish to review the ‘Rutland model’ regarding mayors.

Mayor Levsen gave a state of the city address last month. Note: “immigrants” adding to Aberdeen population.

GIC-Housing-Finance

Index finds Rallying Home Purchase Market in 2016

Today, AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk (ICHR) and First American Financial Corporation release the AEI/First American National Housing Market Index (NHMI), the first index ever to analyze sales transaction volume for the entire home purchase market.

The national housing market continued its rally in the fourth quarter of 2016. On an annualized basis, 5,810,000 sales transactions were reported, which is up 350,000 transactions, or 6.4 percent, from 2015.

  • 2015 had already seen demand grow by 340,000 transactions or 7.6 percent from 2014.
  • The home purchase market also closed out 2016 with strong growth as transactions increased 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago.
  • Cash sales continued to trend down accounting for only 29 percent of all transactions in 2016, down from 30 percent in 2015 and 36 percent in 2013.
  • Filling its void was government-backed lending, which accounted for 55 percent of all transactions in 2016, up from 53 percent in 2015 and 50 percent in 2013. 
  • The AEI/First American National Housing Market Index (NHMI) is the first index to report on the entire home purchase market.
  • Transaction numbers are also available on the state and metro area level for unprecedented geographical detail.

The NHMI combines ICHR’s data on the federal agency market (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Association, Veterans Affairs, and Rural Housing Services) with data provided by First American via DataTree.com for the private side of the mortgage market and for cash and non-institutionalized lender sales. The combined data set nearly covers the volume of the entire market at the national, state, and metro levels. To account for the small amount of incomplete data, housing data are scaled to estimate total volume at the various reported levels.

In contrast to existing estimates of home sales, the AEI/First American NHMI is based on comprehensive loan- and transaction-level data and does not involve extrapolations from a survey or sample of the housing market. Other published data are based on surveys or samples, necessitating assumptions about the entire market. The NHMI is the only metric that (i) compiles data from virtually the entire housing market, (ii) provides views into the data from many key perspectives, and (iii) is published quarterly with minimal time lag.

The AEI/First American NHMI is released quarterly by AEI’s ICHR. It provides counts for home purchase transactions undertaken with institutional financing or other financing, as well as cash sales. In addition, dollar volumes, loan counts, average loan amounts, and market shares for primary owner and secondary owner/non-owner tenure types will be provided at the national, state, and metro area level for each of the five loan agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, the VA, and Rural Housing Services), as well as for the private (non-agency) loan sector in order to give an accurate and detailed picture of activity in the home purchase and the mortgage loan markets. Today’s release reports on transactions from the fourth quarter of 2016. The quarterly time series tracks housing data back to the fourth quarter of 2012 and is based on almost 23 million home purchase transactions. The number will grow with each additional quarter of data.

“The NHMI-Primary Owner Purchase Loan volume index rose to 141 in 2016: Q4, as compared to 124 in 2015:Q4 and 116 in 2014:Q4,” noted Edward Pinto, co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) International Center on Housing Risk. “Based on these and other data, I expect 2017 purchase originations to continue to grow robustly.”

“The total value of residential purchase transactions in the U.S. housing market approached $1 trillion in 2016, coming in at $965 trillion for the year. The share of cash sales continues to decrease, but remains a significant portion of the overall market at 29 percent,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist at First American. “Entering the busy spring home buying season, I expect prices to continue to rise and transaction volumes to continue to grow, spurred on by the strong sellers’ market and increasing Millennial, first-time homebuyer demand.”

The NHMI for the first quarter of 2017 will be released on June 26, 2017.

To arrange an interview with Ed Pinto, please contact AEI Media Services at mediaservices@aei.org or 202.862.4870.

To arrange an interview with First American Chief Economist Mark Fleming, please contact First American’s corporate communications team at 714-250-3298. Mark Fleming’s unique research and analysis of real estate, mortgage risk and housing trends is available at www.firstam.com/economics.

About First American

First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF) is a leading provider of title insurance, settlement services and risk solutions for real estate transactions that traces its heritage back to 1889. First American also provides title plant management services; title and other real property records and images; valuation products and services; home warranty products; property and casualty insurance; and banking, trust and investment advisory services. With revenues of $5.6 billion in 2016, the company offers its products and services directly and through its agents throughout the United States and abroad. In both 2016 and 2017, First American was recognized by Fortune® magazine as one of the 100 best companies to work for in America. More information about the company can be found at www.firstam.com.

About AEI

AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk provides research, commentary, and new tools for measuring housing and mortgage market trends. Mr. Pinto is the codirector of the ICHR, a resident fellow at AEI, and a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae.

juif-star

VIDEO: Muslim members of UN asked — ‘Where are your Jews?’ Hypocrisy exposed!

These countries exiled nearly a million Jews in 1948, and now they are posturing about Israel’s supposed “apartheid” policies, when Arab Muslims in Israel serve in the Knesset. The hypocrisy is astounding, and generally never noted.

Bravo to Hillel Neuer for calling out these self-righteous hypocrites.

“UN Watch Fires Back at Countries Accusing Israel of Abuses, ‘Where are your Jews?,’” by Jack Heretik, Washington Free Beacon, March 24, 2017 11:16 am

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer shot back at countries accusing Israel of apartheid and violence against Palestinians, asking them where the Jewish populations in their countries have gone.

During a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on Monday, several Middle Eastern countries took turns bashing Israel, saying that it has imposed apartheid and violence against Palestinians. A Palestinian representative was joined by Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in criticizing Israel.

Neuer was then recognized to respond to the accusations from the representatives, as well as those from a UN report.

“Everything we just heard, from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech, is absolutely false and indeed Orwellian,” Neuer said….

“Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court,” Neuer said….

“How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews lived in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?” Neuer pointed out. “Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.”

Neuer went through a list of those countries asking, “Where are your Jews?” after stating how many Jews used to live there.

“Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?” Neuer asked.

“Why are we meeting today on an agenda item singling out only one state, the Jewish state, for targeting? Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?” Neuer said.

For a substantial amount of time following Neuer’s remarks, the council was silent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas public high school defends its Islamic prayer room after warning from state deputy attorney general

Australia: Muslim slaughtered wife for opposing his desire to join Islamic State, wanted children to learn Qur’an only

refugee-moratorium

No statutory authority underpinning refugee program in so-called Wilson-Fish states

The Refugee Act of 1980 does permit a state to withdraw from the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, but here is the catch: Back in 1984 Congress passed an amendment to the act that was then completely abused by the bureaucrats in the federal government who did not want to stop sending refugees to those states.  They came up with a program (created through regulations with no backing in the law) to pass the responsibility off to non-profit groups.

Here James Simpson writing at the Daily Caller tells us more about the illegal program:

The Thomas More Law Center has initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Tennessee General Assembly. The suit charges that the government is violating both the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and the 10th Amendment by forcing Tennessee to cover the costs of refugee resettlement in the state even though Tennessee dropped out of the program in 2008.

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, the federal government promised to provide 100 percent of the state share of refugee cash and medical welfare costs for the first 36 months of their resettlement. That constituted a significant savings for participating states, especially considering that refugees use welfare at very high rates. However, by 1991 the feds had stopped reimbursing states altogether. The refugee program has become an unfunded mandate.

Adding insult to injury, starting in 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), began assigning a private refugee resettlement contractor (called Voluntary Agency or VOLAG) to keep the resettlement program running in states that drop out. This would ensure a continual flow of refugees to the state.

In addition to welfare, refugees bring significant other costs, including interpreters, English classes for students, medical and other services. For example, in 2016, Amarillo, Texas Mayor Paul Harpole complained, “We have 660 (refugee) kids who don’t speak English and the U.S. Department of Education says they have to be at grade level within one year. It’s a ludicrous requirement — they don’t even know how to use the bathroom.”

Simpson then points out that states which withdrew, and which then were turned over to a non-profit group to run, received many more refugees after the non-profit (VOLAG) began calling the shots along with the feds. His table  at right shows the dramatic jump in numbers when unelected non-profit group leaders placed refugees in unwilling states and effectively began spending state tax dollars.

Continue reading to learn more about the illegal placement of refugees in states that have wished to not participate in the program.

BTW, Texas recently dropped out of the USRAP—will the governor join Tennessee lawsuit???  Will Maine’s governor join the suit? How about Christie in NJ or Brownback in Kansas? See here.

More on Simpson, here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Australia plans to take mostly Syrian Christians for resettlement…

Stock image of female doctor writing on whiteboard: Health care reform?... Image over white background

Real vs Fake Health Care Reform, and How to Tell the Difference by Jeffrey A. Tucker

You want to know why the “freedom caucus” has balked at passing the Trump-backed Ryancare health care proposal?

Because the package does not address the core problem of the existing system. They are leaning – correctly – on a brilliant insight from F.A. Hayek.

Let’s think this through.

What was the most fundamental problem with Obamacare? It attempted to set up an artificial market that lacked the most salient feature of markets: genuine competition. Real competition. I don’t mean teams struggling for control. I mean an institutional setting in which producers can innovate. They face free entry and exit. Their well-being depends on serving the consumer.Obamacare has flopped because it disabled what remained of the competitive system with defined benefits packages, mandates that everyone be covered, requirements that everyone must purchase, and geographic limits on service provision. All these together took health care out of the realm of markets and made it a form of central planning.

And so: Obamacare resulted in soaring premiums, soaring deductibles, shoddy access, and ever-increasing bureaucracy. It became untenable. Objecting to it doesn’t have to be a matter of ideology. The contraption just didn’t work.

The core insight of the “freedom caucus” comes from Hayek and his fascinating piece “The Meaning of Competition”:

It is only through competition that we can assume that these possible savings of cost will be achieved. Even if in each instance prices were only just low enough to keep out producers which do not enjoy these or other equivalent advantages, so that each commodity were produced as cheaply as possible, though many may be sold at prices considerably above costs, this would probably be a result which could not be achieved by any other method than that of letting competition operate …

Yet the current tendency in discussion is to be intolerant about the imperfections and to be silent about the prevention of competition. We can probably still learn more about the real significance of competition by studying the results which regularly occur where competition is deliberately suppressed than by concentrating on the shortcomings of actual competition compared with an ideal which is irrelevant for the given facts.

I say advisedly “where competition is deliberately suppressed” and not merely “where it is absent,” because its main effects are usually operating, even if more slowly, so long as it is not outright suppressed with the assistance or the tolerance of the state.

The evils which experience has shown to be the regular consequence of a suppression of competition are on a different plane from those which the imperfections of competition may cause. Much more serious than the fact that prices may not correspond to marginal cost is the fact that, with an entrenched monopoly, costs are likely to be much higher than is necessary …

Competition is essentially a process of the formation of opinion: by spreading information, it creates that unity and coherence of the economic system which we presuppose when we think of it as one market. It creates the views people have about what is best and cheapest, and it is because of it that people know at least as much about possibilities and opportunities as they in fact do. It is thus a process which involves a continuous change in the data and whose significance must therefore be completely missed by any theory which treats these data as constant.

Let me paraphrase and apply: no, there will not be a perfect world. Total freedom is not a political option right now. So what’s the priority for any reform? The most crucial institutions in any society are the signaling systems of prices that reflect existing knowledge and possibilities.

When those are malfunctioning, nothing else works. Costs go up, quality goes down, innovation stops, and the sector starts to atrophy.

Competition Restoration Means Health Care Restoration

The first priority is that competition must be restored through some measure of deregulation. The mandates must go. The pre-set benefits packages must die. Insurers must gain control over their business affairs and customers have to be able to shop and choose.

We must regain flexibility to inspire innovation and achieve profitability. This must happen or else premiums will keep going up. This is a requirement. Obamacare failed because it disabled the market. Any reform must restore that market. This is more important than any other feature of reform.Trumpcare or Ryancare or whatever you want to call it does not do that. It replaces a mandate to buy with a tax incentive to buy. Otherwise it leaves the problem of the absence of genuine competition in place. True, the alternative doesn’t do anything about the transfer of payments, but, if you follow Hayek, you know that these are less important to eliminate than are the barriers to competition.

The restoration of competition will discover for us things we do not know about service provision: treatments, plans, new institutional arrangements, new forms of insurance, new methods for serving the public. Competition will grow the market and make profitability the test of success or failure.

If that does not happen, premiums will keep increasing, quality will go down, access will continue to shrink, and public anger will grow as a result.

Now is the time. Again, it is not about ideology. It is about a system of health care insurance that actually works to serve the common good.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. 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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Trump Sabotaging Obamacare? – POLITICO Magazine

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul Doesn’t Want the GOP to Fail at Obamacare Replacement Plan.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn real skills from successful entrepreneurs at FEEcon: June 15-17 (Register by May 15).