Illegal alien kills a 17-year old Muslim girl, discredits ‘open borders’ propaganda

Illegal alien from El Salvador allegedly murdered Nabra Hassanen a Muslim teenager walking with a group from the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center.

Diversity is supposed to be beautiful, right?  Immigrants who come to the great American melting pot are supposed to love and respect multiculturalism, right?  Unlike in Europe, we do everything to foster ‘assimilation’ of races, religions and cultures, right?

Well, here is a case that goes so far against the Left’s message that many predict it will disappear so fast you will think you imagined it …  This is not supposed to happen!

It is just run-of-the-mill road rage says Fox 5 headline:

Man charged with murder of Muslim teen; road rage appears to have led to killing, police say

HERNDON, Va. – A 22-year-old man has been charged with murder after police say he killed a 17-year-old Reston girl whose body was found in a pond hours after being reported missing during an early morning road rage incident in Virginia.

Illegal alien Darwin Martinez Torres (left); seventeen year old Nabra Hassanen (right)

Fairfax County Police say the victim, Nabra Hassanen, was with a group of teenagers of about 15 people walking and riding their bikes along Dranesville Road from a McDonald’s restaurant at around 3:40 a.m. Sunday. The group got involved in a dispute with the driver of a vehicle after they attended an overnight event at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, a mosque located in Sterling and is one of the largest mosque in the country.

Police say a teenage boy got into an argument with the driver, identified as 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres.

Continue reading here for awful details.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement regarding Torres [guess this means he was not a DACA darling?—ed]

“On June 19, ICE lodged a detainer on Darwin Martinez Torres, a citizen and national of El Salvador, with the Adult Detention Center in Fairfax, Virginia. ICE lodges detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges when the agency has probable cause to believe an alien is removable from the United States. Mr. Martinez Torres has no prior encounters with ICE.”

[….]

On Monday afternoon, Fairfax County police say the killing appears to be the result of a road rage incident and they have no evidence that Hassanen was targeted.

“No evidence has been recovered that shows this was a hate crime,” said Fairfax County police spokesperson Julie Parker. “Nothing indicates that this was motivated by race or by religion.”

However, Mahmoud Hassanen, the victim’s father believes otherwise and says his daughter was targeted because she is Muslim.

Just a reminder readers that this is Virginia, a leading diversity-is-beautiful state if there ever was one! You can tell the authorities are working overtime to keep a lid on the story.

This is a story, not about refugees, but one about the idea that we can continue to pour immigrants (legally and illegally) of all sorts in to the US at such a rate that the tensions will inevitably build and become so disruptive to the social order that civil unrest is inevitable.

If you see more on this case going forward, please send links my way.

RELATED ARTICLE: No Allah Please, We’re British

HuffPo Scrambles to Scrub Website Piece on Executing Donald Trump

The Huffington Post scrambled to pull a piece about executing President Donald Trump, written by contributor Jason Fuller, from its website, after a shooting attack at an Alexandria, Virginia, ball field left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in serious condition, and an aide to another Republican lawmaker, along with two Capitol Hill police, wounded by gun fire.

A Huffington Post writer called for the executive of President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

The shooting seemed a target on Republicans, given the anti-Trump postings of the now-dead shooter, James Hodgkinson.

The HuffPo piece, titled “Impeachment Is No Longer Enough: Donald Trump Must Face Justice,” was published June 11.

And it read, in part, like this:

“Trump’s impeachment and removal from office are no longer enough,” the HuffPo contributor wrote. “Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason. They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then —  upon receiving guilty verdicts  —  they must all be executed under the law. Anything less than capital punishment  — or at least life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security detention facility  — would send yet another message to the world that America has lost its moral compass.”

Fuller also called for similar actions against Republican leadership.

“Nothing would do more than to convict them of the highest offense defined by our Constitution, and then to deliver the ultimate punishment. Donald Trump deserves nothing less,” the author wrote. “Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, and Paul Ryan should also share Donald Trump’s fate, for they have done more than practically anyone to protect him and to throw our country under the proverbial bus. In order to survive, we as a nation must deliver the ultimate punishment under the law to all involved in its current destruction.”

The HuffPo pulled the piece in the aftermath of the Alexandria shooting. But The Daily Caller found it and ran it on its own website.

Fuller, meanwhile, showed litte remorse.

He wrote, on Medium:

“What appears to have garnered the most vitriol was my opinion that President Trump and his co-conspirators within the government should be executed for treason if found guilty in a court of law. …

“‘In other words: I want President Trump to be fully investigated, face the charges of treason, and then executed under the law should a guilty verdict be attained. […] I 100 percent stand behind every word that I wrote and make no attempts to apologize or to appease the Trump supporters who are unable to comprehend those words.’

RELATED ARTICLE: The ‘Resistance’ is using any and all means — lies, leaks, lawbreaking, and violence — to overturn the results of the 2016 election

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

Is Freedom of Speech Irretrievably Lost?

COMMENTARY Magazine has devoted their July-August edition to an issue-length symposium in which many prominent writers, activists and thinkers were asked to respond to the question, “Is free speech under threat in the United States?” I was asked to contribute. The following is an excerpt from my piece in COMMENTARY’s symposium on the threat to free speech. Go read it all:

The real question isn’t whether free speech is under threat in the United States, but rather, whether it’s irretrievably lost. Can we get it back? Not without war, I suspect, as is evidenced by the violence at colleges whenever there’s the shamefully rare event of a conservative speaker on campus.

Free speech is the soul of our nation and the foundation of all our other freedoms. If we can’t speak out against injustice and evil, those forces will prevail. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.

With that principle in mind, I organized a free-speech event in Garland, Texas. The world had recently been rocked by the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. My version of “Je Suis Charlie” was an event here in America to show that we can still speak freely and draw whatever we like in the Land of the Free. Yet even after jihadists attacked our event, I was blamed—by Donald Trump among others—for provoking Muslims. And if I tried to hold a similar event now, no arena in the country would allow me to do so—not just because of the security risk, but because of the moral cowardice of all intellectual appeasers.

Under what law is it wrong to depict Muhammad? Under Islamic law. But I am not a Muslim, I don’t live under Sharia. America isn’t under Islamic law, yet for standing for free speech, I’ve been:

  • Prevented from running our advertisements in every major city in this country. We have won free-speech lawsuits all over the country, which officials circumvent by prohibiting all political ads (while making exceptions for ads from Muslim advocacy groups);
  • Shunned by the right, shut out of the Conservative Political Action Conference;
  • Shunned by Jewish groups at the behest of terror-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations;
  • Blacklisted from speaking at universities;
  • Prevented from publishing books, for security reasons and because publishers fear shaming from the left;
  • Banned from Britain.

A Seattle court accused me of trying to shut down free speech after we merely tried to run an FBI poster on global terrorism, because authorities had banned all political ads in other cities to avoid running ours. Seattle blamed us for that, which was like blaming a woman for being raped because she was wearing a short skirt.

This kind of vilification and shunning is key to the left’s plan to shut down all dissent from its agenda—they make legislation restricting speech unnecessary.

The same refusal to allow our point of view to be heard has manifested itself elsewhere. The foundation of my work is individual rights and equality for all before the law. These are the foundational principles of our constitutional republic. That is now considered controversial. Truth is the new hate speech. Truth is going to be criminalized.

The First Amendment doesn’t only protect ideas that are sanctioned by the cultural and political elites. If “hate speech” laws are enacted, who would decide what’s permissible and what’s forbidden? The government? The gunmen in Garland?

There has been an inversion of the founding premise of this nation. No longer is it the subordination of might to right, but right to might. History is repeatedly deformed with the bloody consequences of this transition.

RELATED ARTICLE: When socialists attack Article VI

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

Common Sense Soapbox: Don’t Be PC, Be Polite by Seamus Coughlin and Sean Malone

As someone who fights on the side of free speech, I’m the first to tell ya, we do have a tendency to strawman political correctness. You may have heard things like “them snowflakes just don’t like being ‘fended” or “they want to suppress the truth!” and though I agree in PC cultures worst form all these things are true, those aren’t the actual arguments they make.

So let me arm you with the intellectual tools you need to successfully contribute to the discussion! And if you’re PC, listen with an open mind- maybe I can change it.

One argument they actually make is that “political correctness” is just a bogeyman term invented to lash out against polite society without seeming crude or uncivil. That what we call “political correctness” is actually politeness, and we just don’t wanna be polite!

But this is just plain wrong. There’s a difference between being PC and being polite, and I can prove it! Let’s look at an example: Jim and Jill.

The Motivations to Be Polite vs. PC

Jill doesn’t like racist humor because it offends others, and she doesn’t want to be a jerk. Jill is polite. Jim doesn’t like racist humor because he believes problematic social attitudes inadvertently contribute to the upholding of systemic power structures that strengthen systemic bigotry and subconsciously influence us to commit acts of violence.

Let me break it down. Jim believes when you say bad words, you contribute to negative social attitudes which cause others to commit acts of violence. For example, trans people have a high suicide rate. When you question modern gender theory, misgender somebody, or commit another similar microaggression, you contribute to a culture which marginalizes non-gender-conforming people, and increases their suicide rate.

This may sound convincing – until you realize this logic can be applied to any group if you’re willing to make the same kinds of assumptions. Veterans and soldiers have a very high suicide rate and aren’t well cared for. But we can still criticize US foreign policy and military action. We even burn flags.

Young men have a very high suicide rate as well. Should male-bashing be a hate crime? We can do all the same mental gymnastics to make either case, and whether or not you’re taken in by them, it’s clear that the motivations for being PC and just being polite are different.

Jill doesn’t want to upset or alienate anyone with her language. Jim believes stumbling across improper uses of language is tantamount to violence.

Jill is a nice person. Jim is an ideologue.

Jill is polite. Jim is PC.

Jill: I’m polite.

Jim: And I’m PC. You know, there’s no difference between us, really.

Jill: I don’t know about that. I mean I want people to be polite, I don’t wanna ban impolite speech.

Jim: Neither do I, that’s just an insane strawman argument. Name ONE country where PC folks have gotten ANY forms of speech banned.

Jill: You mean besides Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland…

Don’t be PC. Be polite!

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin is a comedy writer and animator with a deep interest in politics and morality. A good deal of his work can be found on the FreedomToons YouTube channel.

Sean Malone

Sean Malone

Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.

MIGRATION: Death by Diversity

In 1965 Ayn Rand wrote,

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees… by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

One of the great uncontested absurdities, which has become the official ideology of today, is “diversity.”

In his June 18, 2017 Wall Street Journal article Europe’s Elites Seem Determined to Commit Suicide by ‘Diversity’ Douglass Murray writes:

From the 2000s legal and illegal immigration picked up [in Europe]. Boats regularly set out from Turkey and North Africa to enter Europe illegally. Syrians fleeing civil war pushed into the Continent, soon joined by people from across sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, the Middle East and Far East.

Today the great migration is off the front pages. Yet it goes on. On an average weekend nearly 10,000 people arrive on Italian reception islands alone. Where do they go? What do they expect? And what do we expect of them?

To find the answer to these and other questions it is necessary to ask deeper questions. Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.

Read more…

Former U.S. Army Chief-of-Staff General George W. Casey, Jr. after the Fort Hood slaughter on November 5th, 2009 said that this was a case of “work place violence” and that the real victim of the shooting were not the soldiers murdered by Nadal Hassan – rather it was “diversity.”

Ayn Rand warned, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

Diversity lies squarely in the middle.

EDITORS NOTE: Douglass Murray is the author of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam.”

TAKE ACTION: Put the brakes on the refugee resettlement program

Thanks to reader Denise for making a very cool flyer to remind you to call your Washington representatives to counter the lobbying campaign by the refugee industry this week.  They are ginning-up thousands of calls to Congress in advance of World Refugee Day tomorrow.

This is a very handy way to get the phone numbers for your representatives.  I just tried it, and in addition to my reps in Washington, I received phone numbers for my state reps too!

Post is filed in ‘What can you do’ because you asked!

RELATED ARTICLE: 117 Leftwing groups/refugee contractors oppose bill to BEGIN to reform refugee program

American Pride

Here we are in the month of June.  June represents a month of pride for many.  The Islamic holiday of Ramadan is this month.  This is also Gay Pride month.  Rather ironic that the two would cross paths on the calendar.

But, obviously Muslims and LGBTQ people are not proud just one day or one month per year.  They exude their pride all year long.

So I wondered, how about a month of plain old, good natured, old fashioned American Pride?

Across this land we have a number of communities, ranging from apartment complexes to various kinds of condominium complexes to municipal ordinances that limit the showing of American Pride to just a few days per year.

You may tell me that is not true.  I would then direct you to a plethora of rules, regulations and laws that dictate that the American people can fly the American flag only on a few days.

Memorial Day.

Independence Day.

Veterans Day.

Flag Day.

I count four, just four days.  That is not even a week.  Obviously far short of a full month.

How did we let this happen?  How did it come to be that Americans were shamed in their feeling and showing pride in their nation?  How?

It is due to a relentless attack on all things American.  Don’t doubt me.  We have a political party all geared up to oppose all things great about America.  We cannot feel special.  We cannot feel exceptional.  We are told over and over again by the Democratic Party that we are not great and that we never were great.

They even go so far as to tell the American people that the only way for America to be great is to drop this sill notion of American Pride and join the world community as citizens of the world.  A one world government.

When America joins this one world government, then we can feel pride.  Not the pride of being an American but the pride of capitulating that kind of pride to the false pride of being a citizen of the world.

Donald J Trump campaigned for President of the United States on American Pride.  His slogan was, and still is “Make America Great Again”.  Make America, not the world.

Mr. Trump ignited the fire of American Pride in many.  He instilled the values that have been attributed to “Traditional America”.  He made is safe to feel Pride in America.  He made it cool again.

I don’t know about you, but I get puffed up with pride, American Pride, every time I see the great American Flag waving on someone’s house or business.  I give a silent salute to the driver of that pick-up truck that has the American Flag flying high and free in the truck bed.  I am brimming with pride when I see a motorcyclist with an American Flag on his bike.

I giggle with delight and pride when I see a child with a flag on their bicycle or Big Wheel or peddle car.  I tear up with pride when I see flag after flag on the graves of the fallen heros who bravely defended our flag.

Make no bones about it.  I am full of American Pride and I will be damned if I am forced to admit and show that pride only four days out of the year.

If gays get a month, America gets a year.  Every year.

There is no shame in American Pride.  There is no room for apology for having American Pride.  Negativity does not reside with having pure, unadulterated American Pride.

So the next time someone tells you that you should limit your American Pride, simply respond “I am a Proud American every day of the year.  Period”

Any questions?

VIDEOS: Senator Rubio on President Trump’s ‘New Cuba’ Policy

Miami, FL – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committee, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union, CBS’s Face the Nation, Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, and NBC’s Meet the Press today to discuss President Trump’s announcement on U.S. policy towards Cuba, the Russia investigation and healthcare. A partial transcript of key exchanges is below.

VIDEO: On State of the Union, Rubio discusses Cuba policy 

RUBIO: Well, the one thing I would say to you is that they challenge the world to do more to create stability in their own regions. And the Western Hemisphere is the region that we’re in. And I would say it’s in our national security interest to have human rights and democracy in our region because the absence of those two things leads to migratory pressure and instability, whether it’s Haiti or Cuba, or Mexico or Central America, so much of the migratory pressure on the United States is created by instability in the Western Hemisphere. And so there is a national security interest in our region in creating stability and democracy.

And the other thing I would say is, if you look at the Western Hemisphere thirty years ago, the majority of the countries were governed by dictatorships or strongmen. Today every country in the hemisphere has had at least one free and fair election in the last decade and a half or so, except for one—the island of Cuba. So hopefully we’re getting closer to the day where that happens there as well.

VIDEO: On Face the Nation, Rubio discusses how to empower Cuban people

RUBIO: This basically says that American travelers to Cuba, they’ll continue to fly on commercial airlines or get there on a cruise, but when they get there they have to spend their money primarily with individual Cubans who own these private businesses, which is everybody who supported the Obama opening was always bragging about. They were saying, there was all these new small businesses, well we want to put them in a privileged position. And so American travelers to Cuba will have to spend their money with them instead of the Cuban military. That was the goal of this, is to empower individual Cubans to be economically independent of the Castro military and of the Castro regime.

VIDEO: On Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, Rubio discusses new Cuba policy

RUBIO: Look at the migratory pressure, whether it’s people coming across the border from Central America or Mexico or people on rafts coming from Haiti or Cuba, it’s all driven by one thing. And that is the lack of political freedoms, and the lack of human rights, and economic rights.

And so the United States, as national security interest, needs stability in our region. If you look at the Western Hemisphere, every country in the region has had at least one free and fair election in the last decade and a half or so except for one. Cuba has not had a free election in almost 65 or 70 years—that needs to change.

Now the Obama policy towards Cuba made all sorts of concessions. Those concessions have allowed the Cuban military, which controls upwards of 50, 60 percent of their economy, to enrich itself and to tighten its grip through a monopoly that they control and we’re reversing that—the president is reversing that.

What he is saying is that if Americans travel to Cuba now you will have to spend your money with private individual Cubans, not with the Cuban military. That is a very appropriate thing. And I don’t understand how anyone could argue that we should not have a policy that enriches the Cuban people instead of the Cuban military.

Pittsburgh Not Paris: And That’s The Way We Like It

President Donald Trump withdrew from Obama’s anti-American Paris Climate Agreement saying, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” 

The Paris Accord was one of many anti-American agreements made by the most lawless anti-American president ever to hold office.

Obama is a Globalist whose “hope and change” for America was/is the destruction of American democracy and sovereignty in favor of socialism and internationalism.

Oama’s anti-American Paris agreement was another attempt to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. Obama joined the Paris Agreement in 2016 without Senate approval, pledging to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) explains,

“The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. . .It empowers one administration to make  legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections.” 

Of course it does. That was Obama’s purpose and was his intention for his globalist legacy Hillary Clinton. The unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton threw Obama’s eight year Globalist march into disarray. No matter. True to his radical Leftist training, Obama followed mentor Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and reconstituted himself as the leader of the “resistance” movement to overthrow our Constitutionally elected President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump is an unapologetic America-first nationalist and the single greatest obstacle to one-world government in the world today. In spite of intense lobbying efforts from globalist corporations, globalist green lobbyists, globalist U.N. bureaucrats, infamous globalists like Al Gore, and even some family members, Trump recognized the Paris Accord as a very bad deal for American sovereignty and jobs and he kept his campaign promise to withdraw.

Staying in a bad deal for “diplomatic” reasons is absurd. Donald Trump was elected precisely because he does not play diplomatic political games. Trump is an anomaly in politics because he actually means and does what he says.

Surrendering control of the Internet to the United Nations was another one of Obama’s anti-American effort to internalize laws in preparation for an internationalized world and imposition of one-world government ruled by the globalist elite. 

The Obama administration surrendered American control of the internet to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) without getting Congress approval, another example of Obama executive overreach. Assigned names and numbers refers to the Domain Name System (DNS) on the Internet which is how a specific web address, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), connects to the correct server and opens a specific website. All of the information including names, numbers, and any other data that DNS needs to do get to the specific website is stored in one central file known an the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

Before the surrender ICANN’s function was to oversee how web addresses on the Internet were passed out and to regulate the IANA. Now, ICANN formally owns the IANA. It is not difficult to see how internationalizing the operation of the Internet could be used to help the globalist elites impose one-world government by manipulating information or access to information worldwide.

Obama surrendered United States technical management of the Internet to ICANN which is a global organization of governments around the world. ICANN includes a Government Advisory, which has representation from 111 states around the world, including 108 UN members and the Holy See, the Cook Islands and Taiwan. Many of these governments are anti-American and pro-globalism.

In the sixties Americans openly criticized Communist countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. In the 21st century after 9/11 Americans openly criticized Islamic countries for propagandizing their citizens with exclusively government controlled information – we prided ourselves on our freedom of speech and open access to information. Obama’s surrender of Internet control to ICANN makes it possible for the United States to lose our freedom of speech on the Internet – Obama sacrificed American interests to the international community he supports.

Ted Cruz has argued that online freedom is now in jeopardy and that authoritarian governments who are members of ICANN can inhibit freedom of speech on the Internet. Cruz observes, “foreign governments and global corporations will have an increased voice within ICANN moving forward,” which can allow them to censor speech.

It is no surprise that the giant globalized technology companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Cloudflare and Yahoo all support a more globally controlled Internet – of course they do. These giant corporations are run by Globalists whose businesses are global and whose self-interest is in internationalizing the world for greater profits and marketshare. They are using a business profit prism not a human rights prism for policy decisions even though their owners talk of humanitarianism, altruism, social justice, and income equality.

There must be no confusion between global trade and Globalism. Global trade is simply the sale of goods around the world between nations. Global trade can be fair or unfair among nations. If the New World Order of one-world government is imposed then global trade will be a meaningless concept because there will be only one nation, one marketplace, and one government.

Globalism and the New World Order has been romanticized and dishonestly marketed as the international system that will provide the world with income equality and social justice. Songs have been written about Globalism. John Lennon’s “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. Consider its lyrics:

Imagine

John Lennon

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Lennon’s lyrics clearly describe a Utopian New World Order of peace and harmony. So far so good. The problem with Lennon’s dreamscape as the anthem for Globalism  is that it has no relationship to objective reality. The essential quality of dreams is that they are not encumbered by time, space, gravity, people, or any other consideration in objective reality. Dreams are the epitome of subjective reality.

In objective reality all groups large and small have some organizing principle. Families, communities, states, countries – the larger the group the more important the organizing principle becomes.

Lennon’s dreamscape is not encumbered by an organizing principle even though the world is the largest conceivable group. The New World Order most definitely has an organizing principle even if John Lennon does not sing about it. The left-wing liberals singing John Lennon’s song are imagining their own personal dreams of one internationalized world at peace in harmony with all people of the world equal in every way. The problem is their imagined universe has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of one-world government imagined and described in unapologetic chilling detail by elitist aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

Russell’s one-world government is a binary socio-political system of the ruling few and the enslaved population whop serve them. The left-wing liberals, progressives, and anarchists lobbying for Globalism are the useful idiots unwittingly advocating for the regressive return to a master/slave society of tyranny.

Globalism is a very old song being sung anew by the naive Left and the laughing globalist elite who have successfully duped them.

Americans who wish to preserve their national sovereignty and individual freedoms understand Pittsburgh is the priority not Paris – and that’s the way we like it!

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

EDITORS NOTE: Here is KC & The Sunshine Band singing their 1975 hit single That’s The Way (I Like It):

Tennessee: World Relief accused of not taking care of their refugees

When refugees were initially being placed in the county where I live (now more than 10 years ago), our community’s first impression was that the ‘Christian’ resettlement agency—the Virginia Council of Churches—was basically dropping off a couple hundred refugees, placing them in deplorable housing, and then not providing them with some of their basic needs.

I wanted to know what sort of program was this.  Did the government allow this? But, of course as we know now, nine major federal resettlement contractors (including World Relief)*** are federal government contractors who oversee a network of over 300 subcontractors.  The nine sign agreements with the US State Department laying out what services they will provide refugees in their care. Indeed the contractor is paid by the head for each refugee it is assigned.

Over the years, we have reported on many cases like this one being made in Tennessee that the contractor is not fulfilling its end of the bargain.

Abdou Kattih has been an outspoken critic of efforts by the legislature to keep Shariah law out of Tennessee and to rein-in the refugee industry in the state.

From The Tennessee Star:

During the March “Murfreesboro Muslim Youth” (MMY) meeting soliciting help for refugees brought to Rutherford County by federal resettlement contractor World Relief, it was disclosed that goods and services that the government paid for were not provided to the new refugees.

Abdou Kattih

According to Abdou Kattih, founder and president of MMY, were it not for his organization, special emergency needs such as getting medical care for the refugee who arrived with a broken jaw or simply providing household essentials and even clothing, would not have been addressed, explaining they had taken care of “someone that does not have literally anything but the clothes they had off of last month.”

Melissa Sohrabi, who merged her group “Roots for Refugees” with MMY, was more direct in detailing the deficiencies of the government contractor in this talk she delivered in March:

“There is an expectation of what should happen and there’s reality of what really does happen. . . Why didn’t World Relief give them a table and chairs? Why didn’t they bring them a couch? What’s going on? . . . Not only did it not happen but if it did happen, those families are charged for every belonging, every item that is donated to World Relief, the family is then charged for, for having it delivered to them.”

World Relief (WR), based in Baltimore, is one of nine national refugee resettlement organizations that sign a “Cooperative Agreement” with the U.S. State Department to receive federal funding to resettle refugees. This is taxpayer money allocated for each refugee brought to a community; the funds are split between the refugee and the agency. In addition, the resettlement agency is required to provide the goods and services as detailed in the signed agreement.

Between fiscal years 2016 -17, WR was paid over $40 million by the federal government to resettle refugees in communities where they operate local offices which also receive federal funding through grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Continue reading here.

One of several things that came to mind when I read this, is something I have been wondering about for some time.  Five of the nine resettlement contractors are ‘Christian charities’, one is Jewish and three are secular.

They all eagerly resettle Muslim refugees, but I have wondered when will some Muslim charity demand to get in on the federal gravy train? Laying the groundwork in this story?

Here are the nine federal contractors that monopolize the US Refugee Admissions Program:

The Loophole in Background Check Thinking: Criminals Obey the Law

Gun control groups expend an awful lot of ink, time and money advocating for “common-sense public safety laws” like “universal” background checks because such restrictions, they claim, will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.

It’s peculiar, then, that many of these entities don’t do a better job of background-checking their own adherents and associates. Not too long ago, then-California state senator Leland Yee (D), whose staunch support of gun control measures earned him a spot on the Brady Campaign’s “Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll,” was accused of committing various felonies, including illegal firearms trafficking and money laundering offenses. Following a plea agreement in which he acknowledged his participation in a firearms trafficking conspiracy, among other offenses, Yee was sentenced to five years in jail.

Members of the Michael Bloomberg-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), now reconfigured as Everytown for Gun Safety, popped up in the news with such embarrassing regularity due to arrests and convictions for crimes, including gun crimes, that the New York Post ran an editorial in 2013 titled “Illegal mayors against guns.”

And last month, a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Illinois alleges that a certain Francisco Sanchez violated a federal gun law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a felon. The snag is that at the time, Mr. Sanchez (a.k.a. “Smokey”) was apparently working as a supervisor at CeaseFire Illinois, as highlighted in a February feature by the Everytown-funded website, The Trace.   

The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint states that Mr. Sanchez was convicted of murder and aggravated battery in 1986, and adds the more disturbing allegation that he is the “national leader of the Gangster Two-Six Nation,” a street gang “prevalent throughout Chicago” and in other states. Mr. Sanchez’s arrest occurred as part of a larger federal investigation of gang-related gun and drug trafficking in which other suspected gang members or associates were apprehended and over 100 firearms were seized.

Of course, the complaint contains only allegations, not evidence, and Mr. Sanchez and his fellow defendants remain innocent until proven guilty. However, the arrests – which took place shortly before the Memorial Day weekend – coincided with a drop in gun homicides as compared to last year’s holiday weekend.

We’ve written before about how criminals get guns, including this study at Chicago’s Cook County Jail that concluded criminals bypass legal sources in favor of guns obtained from “family, gang members, or other social connections.”

Expanded background check laws won’t stop criminals because criminals ignore the law. Nonetheless, Everytown and others of its ilk will continue to call for ever-increasing restrictions and laws affecting law-abiding gun owners in the name of prohibiting felons, violent criminals, and gang members from obtaining guns. Honest gun owners will continue to do what they’ve always done: obey the law.

NJ Court: State Can’t Criminalize Possession of ‘Pencils’ and Other Lawful Objects for Home Self-defense

It is refreshing to finally see some common sense coming out of a court in NJ, as the state is notoriously known for its illogical and Draconian gun laws that do little more than make felons out of law-abiding gun owners.

Last week, the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the right to lawfully possess and hold a weapon for self-defense in the home, rejecting arguments advanced by the State that would treat a citizen like a criminal for simply answering an angry knock at his own door while holding an object that was legal to possess.

The case, Montalvo v. State, arose out of a commonplace neighborhood dispute. Daleckis, downstairs of Montalvo, banged on the ceiling to let Montalvo know he was upset about the noise from upstairs. Montalvo then knocked on the Daleckis front door, and, getting no response, threw a table off their shared porch, which he acknowledged was a “stupid” thing to do. Shortly after, Daleckis went to the Montalvo apartment to confront him over the broken table. Montalvo and his wife claimed Daleckis was not just knocking but angrily kicking and slamming on their door. Uncertain of what to expect, Montalvo took the precaution of picking up a machete – used in his work as a roofer and kept with other tools – before opening the door. In the exchange that followed, Daleckis said Montalvo pointed the machete at him, while Montalvo testified he held the machete down the entire time. Both agreed, though, that Montalvo never stepped outside of his own apartment.

By the time the police arrived, the quarrel had fizzled out (Daleckis ultimately refused to provide a statement to police). Montalvo was arrested on charges that included two weapon possession offenses. The first count, possession with a purpose to use the weapon unlawfully, requires an intent to use the weapon against another’s person or property. The second was a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(d) (knowingly possessing the machete “under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have”), which prohibits possession of a weapon other than a firearm where the defendant has not yet formed an intent to use the object as a weapon, but possesses it under circumstances in which it is likely to be so used. This second count became the focus of the litigation.

Because New Jersey law defines a “weapon” as “anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury,” Section 2C:39-5(d) criminalizes possession of ordinarily lawful objects (scissors, razors, kitchen knives) in circumstances where the possession is not “manifestly appropriate” for lawful use, regardless of the actual intent of the possessor. This offense is a fourth degree crime, punishable by between three and five years’ incarceration on conviction.

At Montalvo’s trial, the model instructions to the jury directed that only three elements were necessary for a Section 2C:39-5(d) conviction: a weapon, possessed “knowingly,” in circumstances where a reasonable person would agree the object was likely to be used as a weapon. In response to the jury’s questions about self-defense, the judge advised that self-defense could not justify possession unless the defendant had armed himself as a “spontaneous” response to repel an immediate and compelling danger – anticipatory self-defense did not qualify. So instructed, the jury found Montalvo guilty of the Section 2C:39-5(d) offense but acquitted him on the first charge, and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

In his appeal, Montalvo argued the jury had been misdirected on self-defense, and that his conviction criminalized the possession of an otherwise legal weapon in his home in violation of the Second Amendment. After an appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence, Montalvo launched a further appeal to the state’s highest court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey. 

The Attorney General of New Jersey took the unusual step of filing a “friend of the court” brief in the appeal, arguing that, while citizens are entitled to possess lawful weapons in the home for self-defense, the State is concurrently authorized to regulate the manner in which these weapons are possessed. “Everyday objects, which are entirely lawful to possess in their own right, even a pencil, can be used as weapons. The Legislature did not issue a wholesale prohibition on such lawful objects, but rather sought to regulate only the circumstances under which such objects may be possessed.” (Emphasis added.) This brief, consistent with the submissions by the prosecution, claimed the Second Amendment could not apply because Montalvo’s “disproportionate” response, arming himself where there was no “actual threat,” exceeded the boundaries of the right of self-defense in the home. In furtherance of this extremely narrow interpretation, the Attorney General’s brief asked that the court modify the model jury instructions for use in future cases to clarify that weapons for active self-defense in the home could be used only if the person armed himself spontaneously to repel an immediate danger.

A unanimous Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected this outlandish approach as both unworkable and unsupported by U.S. Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago (extending to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms”).

Justice Fernandez-Vina, writing for the court, noted at the onset that the case did not demand “an extensive Second Amendment analysis. We need only observe that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess weapons, including machetes, in the home for self-defense purposes.” Montalvo’s possession of the machete was lawful and it made no difference “whether his possession was for roofing or for self-defense because either would qualify as a lawful purpose.”

The interpretation of the law promoted by the State and the Attorney General was inconsistent with the very core of this fundamental right. The right to possess a weapon in the home for self-defense would be almost useless “if one were required to keep the weapon out-of-hand, picking it up only ‘spontaneously’” when and if the circumstances made clear an immediate danger existed. Calibrating the right so exactly to the presence of an immediate danger made it impossible to hold a weapon in anticipation of such potential, but not yet imminent, threats. This did not mean Montalvo could threaten the use of a machete merely for the purpose of inciting fear in another, but it did mean he could answer his door simply holding a weapon.

The court reversed the judgment below confirming the conviction and remanded the case; at the same time, the court directed a review and revision of the jury charge for Section 2C:39-5(d) offenses. The revision language, as suggested by the court, would clarify that possession of a lawful weapon in one’s home could not form the basis of a conviction under Section 2C:39-5(d); that a person may possess, in the home, objects that serve multiple lawful purposes, including the purpose of anticipatory self-defense; and that a person who responds to the door of his home with a concealed weapon that threatens no one acts within the bounds of the law.

Although we welcome this common sense ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, this case affords yet another illustration of the importance of the courts and how dependent, in practice, the exercise of Second Amendment rights is on what any particular court considers to be the boundaries of the law. Since the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, there have been all too many judges that have concluded the right to keep and bear arms is some kind of second-class constitutional right.

Senator Rubio: ‘America is reaching out its hand to the people of Cuba’

Miami, FL – Speaking ahead of President Trump’s announcement regarding changes to Cuba policy, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) praised the new terms, saying they will empower the Cuban people instead of their oppressors in the Castro regime.

“A year and a half ago, a president, an American president, landed in Havana, to outstretch his hand to a regime,” said Rubio. “Today, a new president lands in Miami to reach out his hand to the people of Cuba.”

REMARKS OF SENATOR MARCO RUBIO:

The Sunday after the presidential election, I was at Dadeland Mall, I was in the parking lot of Dadeland Mall, and I called President-elect Trump on his cell phone to congratulate him on his victory.

And one of the first things he said to me is, “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people?”

A few weeks later, I had the honor of flying with him to Central Florida on Air Force One, and he again, in the midst of that conversation, asked, “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people?”

My wife and I had the opportunity to dine with him and the First Lady in the White House, and in the middle of that conversation he asked,  “what are we going to do to help the Cuban people, and the people of Venezuela who are also living under a dictatorship?”

Six weeks ago in the Oval Office, the president of the United States, gathered with the members of his cabinet, made a very clear decision: we are going to do whatever it takes to empower the Cuban people, so that they can be free and live in a democracy and have economic and political liberties that they deserve, like everyone else in this hemisphere deserves. And he has not faltered in that commitment.

The cooperation, the hard work, the commitment that this White House and that President Trump has shown to this cause, I believe has no precedent, certainly in the modern history of this great cause.

We have been helped by many who have aligned with us, some who could not be here today. I do want to recognize Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González‏ of Puerto Rico, nuestra hermana de la isla de Puerto Rico que está junto con nosotros, that’s who’s with us on this issue.

But what I want you to know, is that in every single one of those instances in which the president spoke about Cuba, he also spoke about Brigade 2506.

Because a few weeks before the election, first the first time in decades, he went to visit their museum, where they endorsed him – meaning the first time in decades that they had endorsed a presidential candidate.

And there isn’t a single time that I have spoken to the president about Cuba that he has not mentioned the brigade.

And that strikes me because it reminds us that, almost 60 years ago, when they were young men willing to fight and to die for the freedom of their homeland, they made an extraordinary sacrifice. And perhaps some of them felt that the time to make a difference for them had passed. But I want them to know that almost 60 years later, they have made a difference. That meeting, and their efforts, I believe as much as anything else, has brought us to this day.

And we just landed at the airport, I had the honor of flying on Air Force One. They have the best M&Ms on the planet. And you can take red lights when you’re part of the motorcade that comes in, legally. Without those crazy cameras. Nevermind, I don’t want to talk about that. [Laughter] Get rid of the cameras, yeah.

And it struck me as the plane landed and we were getting into the cars that brought us here, and we look at the president coming down the steps, he was greeted by dissidents, by freedom fighters, by people, some of whom and on the island of Cuba have suffered greatly in the hands of this repressive regime. And less than a year and a half ago, an American president landed in Havana, greeted by a regime.

A year and a half ago, a president, an American president, landed in Havana, to outstretch his hand to a regime. Today, a new president lands in Miami to reach out his hand to the people of Cuba.

And I close with this. I close with this. Many will characterize this as an effort to punish the Cuban regime. And it will punish the Cuban military that oppresses its people and helps Maduro oppress their people in Venezuela. But more than anything else, this change empowers the people of Cuba. Not the government, not the regime, but the people. So that they can enjoy the freedom and the liberty, with a very clear message: America is prepared to outstretch its hand and work with the people of Cuba, but we will not, we will not empower their oppressors.

And you mark my words. And you mark my words. Whether it’s in six months, or six years, Cuba will be free. And when it is, and when it is, and when it is, I believe that the people on the island and history will say, that perhaps the key moment in that transition began on this day, here in this theater, with each of you, and with a president that was willing to do what needed to be done so that freedom and liberty returns to the enslaved island of Cuba.

Voy a ser bien breve, voy a ser bien breve que es muy difícil para un Cubano y para un senador ser breve pero lo voy hacer porque quiero mandarle un mensaje al pueblo de Cuba. Y este es el mensaje: que antes teníamos un presidente que le daba la mano al régimen que lo oprime. Pero ahora tenemos un presidente Americano que le da la mano a ustedes, el pueblo Cubano. Que los días en cual la politica exterior de este pais ayuda al régimen se están terminando y los días en que la política norteamericana ayuda al pueblo Cubano para que ellos puedan tener la libertad, la democracia y los derechos que se merecen que Dios le ha dado. Y cuando ese día llegue, que Cuba será libre por fin yo les aseguro que este día que estamos aquí hoy, la historia va decir hoy que es el principio del fin de este régimen. Gracias a un presidente llamado Donald Trump que hizo lo que tenía que hacer para que la democracia y la libertad regresa a la isla de Cuba.

Muchísimas gracias. God bless you. Thank you.

President Trump Strengthens U.S. Policy toward Corrupt Castro Regime

Manuel Artine Buesa (center) is pictured with President John F. Kennedy.

President Donald Trump on Friday, June 16th, 2017, announced a ban on doing business with Cuban military during a trip to Miami, from the Manuel Artíme Theater and signed a Presidential Memorandum to deal with the Communist regime before returning to Washington, D.C.

The theater is named after Manuel Artíme Buesa who was a Cuban physician. Artíme was a Cuban-America and fierce anti Communist.

According to HistoryofCuba.com:

Artíme was born in Cuba on January 29, 1932. Before embarking on a career of politics, Artime received a degree in medicine, and may have served as a medic in the war against Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista (although this is often denied by Castro supporters).

After moving to the U.S. in opposition to Castro (with Tony Varona, Rafael Quintero, Aureliano Arango and Jose Cardona) he helped establish the Movement for the Recovery of the Revolution.

At the 1960 Democratic National Convention, Artíme met future president John F. Kennedy.

Artine became the leader of the failed U.S. supported Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. Artine was later ransomed from his Cuban jail for $500,000.

Dr. Artine died of cancer in Miami, Florida on November 18th, 1977 at the age of 45.

RELATED ARTICLES:

We welcome President Trump’s new Cuba policy

How Dissidents Are Responding to Trump’s Change in Cuba Policy

My Visit to Cuba — An American in Havana

God is Alive in Cuba!

Principled U.S. policy can help Cubans overcome Castro’s legacy

Trump Lists His Demands for the Castro Regime

Statement of Support for President Donald Trump on U.S. Policy Towards Cuba

National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba

Section 1.  Purpose.

The United States recognizes the need for more freedom and democracy, improved respect for human rights, and increased free enterprise in Cuba. The Cuban people have long suffered under a Communist regime that suppresses their legitimate aspirations for freedom and prosperity and fails to respect their essential human dignity.

My Administration’s policy will be guided by the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, as well as solidarity with the Cuban people.  I will seek to promote a stable, prosperous, and free country for the Cuban people.  To that end, we must channel funds toward the Cuban people and away from a regime that has failed to meet the most basic requirements of a free and just society.

In Cuba, dissidents and peaceful protesters are arbitrarily detained and held in terrible prison conditions.  Violence and intimidation against dissidents occurs with impunity.  Families of political prisoners are not allowed to assemble or peacefully protest the improper confinement of their loved ones.  Worshippers are harassed, and free association by civil society organizations is blocked.  The right to speak freely, including through access to the internet, is denied, and there is no free press.  The United States condemns these abuses.

The initial actions set forth in this memorandum, including restricting certain financial transactions and travel, encourage the Cuban government to address these abuses.  My Administration will continue to evaluate its policies so as to improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy in Cuba.

Sec. 2. Policy.

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:

(a)  End economic practices that disproportionately benefit the Cuban government or its military, intelligence, or security agencies or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people.

(b)  Ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

(c)  Support the economic embargo of Cuba described in section 4(7) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (the embargo), including by opposing measures that call for an end to the embargo at the United Nations and other international forums and through regular reporting on whether the conditions of a transition government exist in Cuba.

(d)  Amplify efforts to support the Cuban people through the expansion of internet services, free press, free enterprise, free association, and lawful travel.

(e)  Not reinstate the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy, which encouraged untold thousands of Cuban nationals to risk their lives to travel unlawfully to the United States.

(f)  Ensure that engagement between the United States and Cuba advances the interests of the United States and the Cuban people.  These interests include: advancing Cuban human rights; encouraging the growth of a Cuban private sector independent of government control; enforcing final orders of removal against Cuban nationals in the United States; protecting the national security and public health and safety of the United States, including through proper engagement on criminal cases and working to ensure the return of fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government; supporting United States agriculture and protecting plant and animal health; advancing the understanding of the United States regarding scientific and environmental challenges; and facilitating safe civil aviation.

Sec. 3. Implementation.

The heads of departments and agencies shall begin to implement the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum as follows:

(a)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate and in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations regarding transactions with Cuba.

(i)    As part of the regulatory changes described in this subsection, the Secretary of State shall identify the entities or subentities, as appropriate, that are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel (such as Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), its affiliates, subsidiaries, and successors), and publish a list of those identified entities and subentities with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.

(ii)   Except as provided in subsection (a)(iii) of this section, the regulatory changes described in this subsection shall prohibit direct financial transactions with those entities or subentities on the list published pursuant to subsection (a)(i) of this section.

(iii)  The regulatory changes shall not prohibit transactions that the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of State, determines are consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this memorandum and:

(A)  concern Federal Government operations, including Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and the United States mission in Havana;

(B)  support programs to build democracy in Cuba;

(C)  concern air and sea operations that support permissible travel, cargo, or trade;

(D)  support the acquisition of visas for permissible travel;

(E)  support the expansion of direct telecommunications and internet access for the Cuban people;

(F)  support the sale of agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices sold to Cuba consistent with the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) and the Cuban Democracy Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq.);

(G)  relate to sending, processing, or receiving authorized remittances;

(H)  otherwise further the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States; or
(I)  are required by law.

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall initiate a process to adjust current regulations to ensure adherence to the statutory ban on tourism to Cuba.

(i)    The amended regulations shall require that educational travel be for legitimate educational purposes.  Except for educational travel that was permitted by regulation in effect on January 27, 2011, all educational travel shall be under the auspices of an organization subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and all such travelers must be accompanied by a representative of the sponsoring organization.

(ii)   The regulations shall further require that those traveling for the permissible purposes of non academic education or to provide support for the Cuban people:

(A)  engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities; and

(B)  meaningfully interact with individuals in Cuba.

(iii)  The regulations shall continue to provide that every person engaging in travel to Cuba shall keep full and accurate records of all transactions related to authorized travel, regardless of whether they were effected pursuant to license or otherwise, and such records shall be available for examination by the Department of the Treasury for at least 5 years after the date they occur.
(iv)   The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Transportation shall review their agency’s enforcement of all categories of permissible travel within 90 days of the date the regulations described in this subsection are finalized to ensure such enforcement accords with the policies outlined in section 2 of this memorandum.

(c)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall regularly audit travel to Cuba to ensure that travelers are complying with relevant statutes and regulations.  The Secretary of the Treasury shall request that the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury inspect the activities taken by the Department of the Treasury to implement this audit requirement.  The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall provide a report to the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, summarizing the results of that inspection within 180 days of the adjustment of current regulations described in subsection (b) of this section and annually thereafter.

(d)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the Department of the Treasury’s current regulation defining the term “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” so that, for purposes of title 31, part 515 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it includes Ministers and Vice-Ministers, members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub–Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).

(e)  The Secretary of State and the Representative of the United States to the United Nations shall oppose efforts at the United Nations or (with respect to the Secretary of State) any other international forum to lift the embargo until a transition government in Cuba, as described in section 205 of the LIBERTAD Act, exists.

(f)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall provide a report to the President assessing whether and to what degree the Cuban government has satisfied the requirements of a transition government as described in section 205(a) of the LIBERTAD Act, taking into account the additional factors listed in section 205(b) of that Act.  This report shall include a review of human rights abuses committed against the Cuban people, such as unlawful detentions, arbitrary arrests, and inhumane treatment.

(g)  The Attorney General shall, within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, issue a report to the President on issues related to fugitives from American justice living in Cuba or being harbored by the Cuban government.

(h)  The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall review all democracy development programs of the Federal Government in Cuba to ensure that they align with the criteria set forth in section 109(a) of the LIBERTAD Act.

(i)  The Secretary of State shall convene a task force, composed of relevant departments and agencies, including the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and appropriate non-governmental organizations and private-sector entities, to examine the technological challenges and opportunities for expanding internet access in Cuba, including through Federal Government support of programs and activities that encourage freedom of expression through independent media and internet freedom so that the Cuban people can enjoy the free and unregulated flow of information.

(j)  The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to discourage dangerous, unlawful migration that puts Cuban and American lives at risk.  The Secretary of Defense shall continue to provide support, as necessary, to the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security in carrying out the duties regarding interdiction of migrants.

(k)  The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall annually report to the President regarding the engagement of the United States with Cuba to ensure that engagement is advancing the interests of the United States.

(l)  All activities conducted pursuant to subsections (a) through (k) of this section shall be carried out in a manner that furthers the interests of the United States, including by appropriately protecting sensitive sources, methods, and operations of the Federal Government.

Sec. 4.  Earlier Presidential Actions.

(a)  This memorandum supersedes and replaces both National Security Presidential Directive-52 of June 28, 2007, U.S. Policy toward Cuba, and Presidential Policy Directive-43 of October 14, 2016, United States-Cuba Normalization.

(b)  This memorandum does not affect either Executive Order 12807 of May 24, 1992, Interdiction of Illegal Aliens, or Executive Order 13276 of November 15, 2002, Delegation of Responsibilities Concerning Undocumented Aliens Interdicted or Intercepted in the Caribbean Region.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.

(a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable laws and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d)  The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Europeans Are Paying to Subsidize Jihadists by Barry Brownstein

Does the European welfare system promote hate by allowing people to avoid learning the lessons of mutual dependence and cooperation that the workplace teaches?

All Men Are Brothers

Consider for a moment how little we can do for ourselves. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the fuel we burn are mostly obtained through the efforts of others. Would we not perish in short order without what Rose Wilder Lane calls the “brotherhood of man”?

Rose Wilder Lane was the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Rose played a crucial role in bringing her mother’s Little House on the Prairie books to life. Lane’s deep understanding of the human condition shines through in her classic book, The Discovery of Freedom.

Since we cannot survive on our own, Lane explains, “All men are brothers, of one blood, of one human race. They are brothers in one imperative desire to live, in one desperate necessity to combine their energies in order to live.” Thus, “The brotherhood of man is not a pretty phrase nor a beautiful ideal; it is a fact.”Lane adds pointedly, “Men who behave as if the brotherhood of man were not a fact, are alive to do so only because it is a fact.”

In other words, those who harm others are themselves able to thrive only because the efforts of others.

Work is one way through which we learn to create value for others. At work, we are unlikely to succeed if we don’t experience the common humanity we share with our colleagues and customers.

Become a Stranger to Humanity

Now, consider the consequences when able-bodied individuals are paid to not work.

When we don’t work because taxpayers are supporting us, it is easier to lose touch with our common humanity with others. Without creating value for others, we may never develop the facility to appreciate the “brotherhood of man” that keeps us alive.

When individuals no longer must cooperate with each other to thrive, they have perverse incentives to act against the natural brotherhood of man. In Europe, jihadists and potential jihadists are paid to separate themselves from the brotherhood of man.

Consider these facts:

  1. According to The Telegraph, the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi “is understood to have received thousands of pounds in state funding…even while he was overseas receiving bomb-making training.” Abedi never held a job in his life.
  2. Danish citizens who have been granted a “disability” pension have gone to Syria to fight on behalf of ISIS. Other Danish jihadists are receiving unemployment benefits.
  3. When the German newspaper Bild “ran an analysis of the 450 German jihadists fighting in Syria, it found that more than 20% of them have received benefits from the German state.”
  4. Before the notorious radical Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary was convicted and jailed on terrorism charges in 2016, taxpayers in England had funded his hate-filled sermons for over two decades. Choudary had been receiving more than 25,000 pounds a year in benefits and was living in a home worth over 300,000 pounds. (Note, the English pound is worth more than the U.S. dollar.)
  5. Choudary encouraged his followers to not work and instead to live off government benefits: “The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-believers]. You [the kuffar] work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar.” In Choudary’s warped world, he and his fellow jihadists are entitled to live off the labor of others.

Undermining the Brotherhood of Man

A basic economic law is that you get more of what you subsidize. The more you pay a person to not work, the more isolated, the more alienated that individual can become.

Are subsidized and alienated individuals more receptive to messages of hate? If the subsidized embrace hatred, their thoughts of hatred may go unchallenged by the realities of work life that demand cooperation, not conflict, with others.

If we understand our existence depends on our brothers, we understand the truth of Lane’s observation: “Any man who injures another, injures himself, for human welfare is necessary to his own existence.”

The jihadist living off the sweat of others has no such understanding. Jihadists may believe God is on their side, but radical jihadism is at odds with the truth of the brotherhood of man.

The great divide is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The great divide is between those who respect the brotherhood of man and those obsessed with hatred.

Why is Europe undermining the brotherhood of man by subsidizing those who hate?

Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. He delivers leadership workshops to organizations and blogs at BarryBrownstein.com, and Giving up Control.