cnn nbc sarin gas mask

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer right about Syria, Sarin Gas and the Nazis

Daily we are bombarded with fake news. The latest is about what White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said about the use of sarin gas in Syria and the Nazis. You would think that by now the fakestream media would know about Google search and the internet.

While Hitler did use Zyklon B, a cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s, to kill millions of Jews and other enemies of the Nazis, he did not use Sarin gas during the war.

But there is a connection between Assad’s Ba’ath party and the Nazis.

al-AssadGeorge Kerevan in an article titled The Syrian-Iraqi Baath party and its Nazi beginnings reported:

In Arabic, baath means renaissance or resurrection. The Baath Arab Socialist Party, to give the organisation its formal title, is the original secular Arab nationalist movement, founded in Damascus in the 1940s to combat Western colonial rule. But since then, the Baath Party has undergone many chameleon-like twists in belief and purpose. Even the young men in Iraq who today claim its discredited banner might be surprised at the party’s real origins.

[ … ]

But the rise of German fascism also played a role. Many in the Arab world saw Hitler as an ally. In 1941, the Arab world was electrified by a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad. At that time, Iraq was nominally independent but Britain maintained a strong military presence. An Arab nationalist by the name of Rashid Ali al-Kailani organised an army coup against the pro-British Iraqi monarchy and requested help from Nazi Germany. In Damascus, then a Vichy French colony, the Baath Party founders immediately organised public demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali.

[ … ]

Like the Nazi and Communist parties, the Baath is organised through small cells in a rigid hierarchy. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Like Zyklon B, Sarin gas was created by a German. The Times of Israel reported on April 8th that sarin gas was discovered in Nazi Germany and was the chemical agent was used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in 1988.  The Times of Israel stated:

Originally conceived as a pesticide, sarin was used by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in the northern town of Halabja in 1988.

[ … ]

“Sarin is 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas. Just a pinprick-sized droplet will kill a human,” according to the World Health Organization.

[ … ]

The name sarin comes from the [German] chemists who discovered it by chance: Schrader, Ambros, Ruediger et Van der Linde. The scientists had been trying to create stronger pesticides but the formula was then taken up by the Nazi military for chemical weapons.

adolf hitler

Adolf Hitler

In a column titled Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why. by Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald notes:

Adolf Hitler gassed and killed 6 million Jews during World War II — a genocide that makes his reluctance to use sarin against his military adversaries an enduring mystery.

[ … ]

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on April 11 said Adolf Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons during World War II. Hitler’s regime exterminated millions of Jews in gas chambers. (Reuters)

And it wasn’t because Hitler didn’t have sarin. A German scientist had stumbled onto sarin while experimenting with compounds in an attempt to kill beetles. The German military built a sarin factory in 1943. Officers pleaded with Hitler to use it.

He didn’t.


Over the years, historians (armchair and scholarly) and psychologists have speculated that maybe Hitler didn’t use sarin because he was a victim of a mustard gas attack in 1918, during World War I, and knew the misery of such weapons.

“He and several comrades, retreating from their dug-out during a gas attack, were partially blinded by the gas and found their way to safety only by clinging on to each other and following a comrade who was slightly less badly afflicted,” Ian Kershaw wrote in his critically acclaimed Hitler biography.

Read more…

It is also important to note that the United States and Great Britain planned on using mustard gas during WWII. According to

Both the USA and Great Britain planned and meant to use gas during WWII. Germany as a consequence of the Versailles dictate of 1919, was forbidden to produce and import any kind of gas or liquids that could be used to produce such gasses, Article 171.

The Reich kept strictly to the requirement of the Versailles dictate regarding chemical warfare equipment. Even the Weimar Republic kept to the dictate. During the Sea Disarmament Conference, 1921/22, in Washington, the following nations did not agree to gas or any chemical weapons being dangerous weapons: USA, England, France, Japan and Italy. The use of chemical weapons were discussed, but without an agreement being signed.

In June 1925 in Geneva the question was once again discussed, one reached the so-called Geneva Gas-War Protocol. Out of the 44 nations attending the Geneva conference 38 had, by the end of 1935, signed the protocol. 21 nations took reservation, 17 were reluctant. By the end of 1935, 28 nations had ratified the convention. But 10 refused, among those were USA, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, and various nations in South America. The Reich signed without any reservations.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: Nazi poison gas: Gas, Gas, Already yet! FAEM April 1995


A 1,389 Year-Old ‘Phobia’? by Raymond Ibrahim

A direct correlation exists between Western ignorance of history and Western ignorance of Islam’s “troublesome” doctrines. It is this connection that allows Islam’s apologists to get away with so many distortions and outright lies meant to shield Islam.

Take Reza Aslan, CNN’s resident “cannibal”: he recently claimed that “Islamophobia” — defined by CAIR and others as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — was created by a few “clowns” in 2014.

To be sure, Western fear of Islam is something of a recent phenomenon in modern times. Because the world was a much bigger place a few decades ago, and Islam was oceans away, the average American hardly knew anything about Muhammad’s creed. However, as the world has become smaller — as Muslims have grown in numbers in Western societies, as modern technology has made it possible for the weaker to terrorize the stronger, and then broadcast it for the world to see (via Internet) — so has the Western world been hearing, seeing, and experiencing more and more of Islam.

But Aslan’s lament is not that people were once ignorant but now are wise to Islam. Rather, he accuses a number of writers and activists — the aforementioned “clowns” — of manufacturing a menacing image of Islam, which, in turn, has prompted Western people to develop an “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — or, in a word, “Islamophobia.”

Such a claim relies on an obscene amount of historical ignorance. The fact is, Western peoples, including some of their luminaries, have portrayed Islam as a hostile and violent force from the very start — often in terms that would make today’s “Islamophobe” blush. And that wasn’t because Europeans were “recasting the other” to “validate their imperial aspirations” (to use the tired terminology of Edward Said that has long dominated academia’s treatment of Western-Muslim interactions). Rather, it was because, from the very start, Islam treated the “infidel” the same way ISIS treats the infidel: atrociously.

According to Muslim history, in 628, Muhammad summoned the Roman (or “Byzantine”) emperor, Heraclius — the symbolic head of “the West,” then known as “Christendom” — to submit to Islam; when the emperor refused, a virulent jihad was unleashed against the Western world. Less than 100 years later, Islam had conquered more than two-thirds of Christendom, and was raiding deep into France. While these far-reaching conquests are often allotted a sentence, if that, in today’s textbooks, the chroniclers of the time, including Muslim ones, make clear that these were cataclysmic events that had a traumatic effect on, and played no small part in forming, the unconquered portion of Christendom, which became Europe proper. As Ibn Khaldun famously put it after describing incessant Muslim raids for booty and slaves all along Europe’s Mediterranean coasts during the ninth and tenth centuries, “the Christians could no longer float a plank on the sea.” They took to the inlands, and the Dark Ages began.

But it wasn’t just what they personally experienced at the hands of Muslims that developed this ancient “phobia” to Islam. As far back as the eighth century, Islam’s scriptures and histories — the Koran, hadith, sira and maghazi literature — became available to those Christian communities living adjacent to, or even under the authority of, the caliphates. Based solely on these primary sources of Islam, Christians concluded that Muhammad was a (possibly demon possessed) false prophet who had very obviously concocted a creed to justify the worst depravities of man — for dominion, plunder, cruelty and carnality. This view prevailed for well over a millennium all over Europe (and till this day among “Islamophobes”); and it was augmented by the fact that Muslims were still, well over a millennium, invading Christian territories, plundering them, and abducting their women and children. The United States’ first brush with Islam — the early nineteenth century Barbary Wars — came by way of Muslim raids on American ships for booty and slaves in the name of Allah.

Here is a minuscule sampling of what Europeans thought of Islam throughout the centuries:

Theophanes, the Byzantine chronicler (d.818):

He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy — or being slain by the enemy — entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual — orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort, and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.

Thomas Aquinas, one of Christendom’s most influential philosophers (d. 1274):

He [Muhammad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us …. and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants [i.e., his “proof” that God was with him is that he was able to conquer and plunder others]….  Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Marco Polo, world famous traveler (d. 1324):

According to their [Muslims’] doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the [Mongol] powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens.

When the Mongol Khan later discovered the depraved criminality of Achmath (or Ahmed), one of his Muslim governors, Polo writes that that the Khan’s

attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined.

Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and philosopher, best known for Democracy in America (d. 1859):

I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill, a leader of the Allied war effort against Hitler during WWII (d. 1965):

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [Islam] lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Lest it seem that these and other historic charges against Islam are simply products of Christian/Western xenophobia that cannot tolerate the “other,” it should be noted that many of Islam’s Western critics regularly praised other non-Muslim civilizations, as well as what is called today “moderate Muslims.”   Thus Marco Polo hailed the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons.” And despite his criticisms of the “sect of the Saracens,” that is, Islam, he referred to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice,” and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody.”

Winston Churchill summed up the matter as follows: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Apologists such as Reza Aslan can say whatever they want; they can claim that Islam is forever and perpetually “misunderstood,” and can bank on Western ignorance of its own history to get away with it. But fear and dislike of Islam has been the mainstream position among Christian/Western people for nearly 1,400 years — ever since Muhammad started raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving non-Muslims (“infidels”) in the name of his god; and it is because his followers, Muslims, continue raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving “infidels” that fear and dislike of Islam — what is called “Islamophobia” — exists to this day.


Egypt: Muslim man sexually harasses, cuts throat of Christian woman on busy street

Hugh Fitzgerald: Prester John in the Forbidden City?

men don't beling in girls bathrooms

Will you share this with just one person?

We are VERY close to reaching the 1.5 million signature goal on the Target boycott. Your help is critical as we approach the one-year anniversary since we launched the boycott.

At the time I send you this email, 1,484,630 people have pledged to boycott Target until it reverses its dangerous policy of allowing men into women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. You can see the very latest count here. Once we reach 1.5 million, I will personally deliver the signatures to Target’s headquarters in Minneapolis, MN.

Just how dangerous is Target’s policy to its customers? Just last month, a man was allowed inside a Tennessee Target store dressing room without any restriction at all.

According to the police report, “the suspect had been in and out of the dressing room for over an hour before he was caught taking photographs of the victim. I [the officer] observed around 5 or 6 other women enter the dressing room during this time, with each time the suspect entering the dressing room and exiting a short time after the females leave.”

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

Please, please….forward this email to just ONE FRIEND who you think should know that Target allows men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. Forwarding it to just one friend will help us reach our goal of 1.5 million pledges.

When you forward it, please consider changing the subject line to a personal note from you. Here are a few samples:

  • Have you heard about what happened at Target?
  • I’m boycotting Target…and you should too!
  • Target is not a safe place for women and children.

Secondly, reach more friends by sharing this on your Facebook page.

Thirdly, if you haven’t signed the boycott pledge, please sign it today!

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our 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.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

RELATED ARTICLE: The Target boycott cost more than anyone expected — and the CEO was blindsided

jesus abundance

On Abundance

Allegory of the Eucharist by Alexander Coosemans, c. 1680 Musée de Tessé, Le Mans

The dominant contemporary “feeling” is that we live in a parsimonious world. Nature is running out of gas. Natural resources are scandalously being “used up,” never to be replaced. Besides, too many people exist on the planet, consuming everything in sight. Species of birds and bugs die out. “Consumerism” knows no bounds to desires. The great enemy of mankind is man himself. He is out of control. Survival prospects for even a small number of gaunt human being are grim. We must act now, decisively, before it is too late.

This doomsday scenario is found in schools, media, governments, churches, and businesses. In the minds of its advocates, its validity is stronger than any faith. To question its tenets approaches blasphemy. Mother Earth is finally unveiled as a cruel goddess. Many find meaning in this collective panic over presumed decreasing resources. It provides an urgent mission. We can now venture forth in a mighty cause to save the world from itself. Evil is now defined not by sins, but by our greedy use of spare resources. Governments are empowered with the welcome task of controlling man by drastically limiting the goods needed for his long-term survival down the planetary ages.

Is there an alternative vision? Why doesn’t the evidence incline us to look at the world’s extraordinary abundance? How is it possible that already so much was available to us for so long? The word “abundance” means overflow, plenty. It comes from the Latin word for wave (unda). When a wave crashes over itself, the sea is filled, full, surging with overflowing waters. The more puzzling thing about the world is not that it contains too little for its purposes, but, astonishingly, way too much, as if it had another purpose in mind.

The initial question is not: “How many resources do we have?” But, “Do we have sufficient and more than sufficient resources for the purpose of our existence on this earth?”

Calculations about what might be needed and what is given have little direct relation to the reason why man exists on this planet. No reason can be found to think that, when man ends his stay on this planet, resources to support him will have run out at the same time

Click here to read the rest of Father Schall’s column . . .

James V. Schall, S.J.

About James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. Among his recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, and, new from St. Augustine’s Press, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught.

supreme court gavel

A Response to Media Biases Against Restoring Checks and Balances

NOTE: Several liberal Florida newspaper columnists responded without research or thought to Rep. Julio Gonzalez’s proposal to create judicial accountability and restore governmental balance of powers. They were predictably snide and shallow. Some were just factually wrong. Here is Gonzalez’s response to one specific column— which they could have had if any had even called him for an interview.

By Representative Julio Gonzalez

This morning, I awoke to the displeasure of reading Tom Lyons’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune piece on my proposal for a legislative override of a judicial opinion, otherwise known as a Notwithstanding Clause.

I was displeased, not at learning that Lyons disagreed with my proposal, as a robust discussion representing all sides of such an important matter is of central importance to the continued existence of a vibrant republic, but because of the shear negligence, disingenuousness, and ignorance displayed in Mr. Lyons article.

For starters, Lyons purposely fails to inform his readers that it was not I who first identified this problem, but Thomas Jefferson. 

Looking to Jefferson

In 1820, Jefferson wrote a letter to Jarvis Williams regarding a series of essays Williams wrote where he mentioned the judiciary’s role in overturning laws it found to be unconstitutional.  Perfectly on point, Jefferson said, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Moreover, Jefferson pointed out that the situation was made even more dangerous, “as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

As with so many other issues, Jefferson’s thoughts on this matter were prescient.

Lyons also neglected sharing that Canada has such a provision in its Constitution that has been working seamlessly since 1982.

This information and so much more was available to Lyons, but he failed to disclose it to his readers. Fortunately, the facts he did not present are available in an article I wrote and published at and in my book, The Federalist Pages.

The fact is that Americans have been concerned over the courts’ plenary authority when speaking on constitutional issues for decades. They recognize that in a system characterized by checks and balances, there is no check on the Supreme Court. Contrary to Lyons’s ill-informed opinion, any serious constitutional law observer will tell you of the courts’ increasing activism over the past 100+ years. And it is an issue that was discussed at length in law school.

Recognizing the threat that giving plenary authority on any matter to a branch of government represents to a republic, Canada enacted a solution. And other variations exist in England, Israel, and Australia, among others, none of which are mentioned by Lyons.

It’s time we have the same discussion about our own system

Whether Florida, and indeed our nation, ought to implement a judicial override is a very serious matter, and if it is in anyway forehead-slap-worthy as Lyons states, it’s in the astonishment that it fell upon the physician/lawyer son of a Cuban immigrant who haphazardly landed in his state’s legislature to suggest it nearly 200 years after the problem was first identified.

Let a thoughtful debate begin 

The Notwithstanding Clause is not a radical proposal, as Lyons calls it, nor is it the result of partisan strife as his article feeblemindedly suggests.

No. The Notwithstanding Clause is a serious proposal designed to address a quintessential threat to our American system of government and a loophole in the system of checks and balances the Framers built. And once again, I cannot take credit for identifying the threat, as George Washington spoke about it in his farewell address. He called such an intrusion into another branch’s function usurpation and said, “though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

I hope Floridians, and Americans in general, shut out the sophomoric rants from irresponsible and under informed pseudopundents like Lyons and learn more about this very important topic. Doing so will place them on a path of discovering more about our great foundational documents and of the people who proposed them. Once they do, I bet more than 60% of the people will agree with Jefferson, Washington, and countless others on the necessity and wisdom of an American Notwithstanding Clause.


Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon, lawyer and State Representative for South Sarasota County, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages, available at or at Amazon.  He is available for speaking engagements and can be reached at

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


The Case Against Legalizing Unknown Millions of Illegal Aliens

At least as far back as the administration of Jimmy Carter, the immigration debate has been waged by globalists who have, over time, succeeded in hijacking the language and terminology applied to immigration.

Consider that Jimmy Carter: Orignator of the Orwellian Term “Undocumented Immigrant,” understood that by removing the term “alien” from discussions about immigration he could, over time, subvert the debate by confounding the public’s understanding about the entire immigration issue.

Carter insisted that INS employees immediately stop using the term “Illegal Alien” to describe aliens who were illegally present in the United States but refer to them as being “undocumented aliens.”

Today many politicians and journalists claim that illegal aliens who run America’s borders, thereby evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry, have entered the United States “undocumented.”

In actuality, aliens who evade the inspections process enter the United States without inspection.  This creates a huge threat to national security and public safety, after all, Entry Without Inspection = Entry Without Vetting.

Additionally, aliens who enter the United States through ports of entry but then go on to violate the terms of their admission, depending on the category of visa they used to enter the United States, certainly are not making “undocumented” entries.

However, to the globalists and immigration anarchists, these facts are merely speed bumps that need to be overcome so that they can craft their false narrative.

One of America’s most cherished symbols is the Statue of Liberty that is equated with America’s rich and diverse immigrant heritage.  Over time his strategy of altering the terminology succeeded in convincing huge numbers of Americans that anyone who would interfere with the flow of “immigrants” into the United States was acting against America’s culture and traditions.

The media was quick to jump on the bandwagon and identified to immigration anarchists who oppose secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement as being “Pro-Immigrant” while branding advocates for effective immigration law enforcement as “Anti-Immigrant.”

Of course if honest and accurate nomenclature was used the two sides should be referred as as “Immigration Anarchists” vs “Pro “Immigration Law Enforcement.”

However the agenda is to eradicate America’s borders which, to the globalists, are impediment to their wealth and political power.

Not being content to alter the language of the debate, the immigration anarchists have concocted a false narrative about the nature of illegal aliens and the way that the immigration crisis can be fixed since, they claim, “The immigration system is broken.”

We can find adherents to this madness in both political parties, however, the Democrats are clearly leading the charge.

Of course, in reality, what has traditionally been “broken” is the lack of resources and political will to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.  President Trump is certainly sending a clear message that this situation will be finally remedied by hiring many more ICE agents and Immigration Judges and taking the gloves off the agents by stating that there will no longer be any category of illegal aliens who may not be arrested, as was the Obama administration’s policies.

But I am compelled to address an issue that is of great concern.

While many journalists and politicians have agreed that aliens who have serious criminal convictions should be deported, but insist that since the millions of illegal aliens who are present in the United States cannot all be arrested, it is reasonable to provide them with lawful status, especially if they are working and paying taxes.

Of course our immigration laws are not about aliens paying taxes and not only are illegal aliens prohibited from working but aliens admitted under certain categories of visas are also prohibited from working.  This is about protecting the jobs and wages of American workers.

This sort of “reasoning” is never applied to any other area of law enforcement whether we consider the law enforcement response to drunk driving, texting while driving, tax fraud or other crimes.  Yet this supposed solution, is no solution at all, just a thinly veiled effort to meet the demands of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association and a laundry list of industries and special interest groups who make monumental campaign contributions seeking to get “the best government money can buy.”

Additionally, the true number of illegal aliens is unknown and unknowable but the media and many “think tanks” claim that there are between 11 million and 12 million such illegal aliens present in the United States.

During the Reagan administration it was estimated that the Amnesty of 1986 would get roughly one million such aliens “out of the shadows.”  That amnesty eventually enabled more than 3.5 million aliens to acquire lawful status.

immigration-chaos-millions-of-visa-overstays-add-to-illegal-alien-problemIn 2007 the CBO estimated that there were 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States.

Given those factors and others, it is likely that any massive amnesty program would likely provide tens of millions of illegal aliens with lawful status.

The numbers would be so huge that there would be no way to interview these aliens and no way to conduct any field investigations of these millions of aliens who evaded the United States surreptitiously without inspection.

What is not understood by most folks is that an adjudications officer can approve and application in mere minutes but would require days or weeks to deny an applications since it must be expected that when an application is denied the alien will, through his/her attorney, file an appeal of that denial.  Therefore before and application for legalization is denied the adjudicator would likely require an investigator conduct a field investigation and the subsequent denial would have to be reviewed by a government attorney to make certain it meets minimal standards to withstand any legal challenges.

Consequently, it is likely that well over 90% of these applications will be approved.

Since no field investigations could be conducted, there would be no way to determine who many of these aliens actually are.  There would be no way to ascertain when these aliens actually entered the United States.

It would be simple matter for aliens to claim to have entered the United States prior to whatever cutoff date would be established to meet the statutory requirement.  As more and more aliens succeed in gaming the system more and more aliens will be encouraged to enter the United States and make similar false claims about entry data and other pertinent facts, thereby creating a vicious cycle of fraud.

The 9/11 Commission found that immigration fraud played a major role in the ability of terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves.

twin towersThis was my focus in my article, Reflections on 9/11’s Vulnerabilities.

Most terrorists have not had criminal histories.

Terrorists, not unlike spies and other “Sleeper” agents seek to maintain a low profile.

Indeed, it is believed that at least four of the 9/11 hijackers had been encountered by police officers for motor vehicle violations.  The police officers simply treated their motor vehicle violations as routine matters and permitted them to go on their way.

On January 9, 2002 BBC reported, Hijacker ‘pulled over by police’ as did CNN, Another hijacker was stopped for traffic violation.

Clearly aliens who have serious criminals histories or established involvement in gang or other criminal activities should be deported.

I would also strongly recommend that illegal aliens who frequent places of criminality such as brothels or locations associated with the drug trade should be arrested and deported (removed) in an effort to combat these criminal enterprises.

So-called “collateral” arrests are essential to imbue the immigration law enforcement program with integrity so that aliens understand that we are serious about our immigration laws.

This helps to deter aliens from entering the United States illegally.

Additionally, under the law enforcement principle known as “randomness” by arresting illegal aliens during the course of routine field work, it is to be expected that ICE agents will stumble across serious crimes and intelligence concerning major criminal organizations and even potentially uncover terrorists and aliens who support terrorism.

My very first assigned fraud investigation, as a brand new agent in 1976, led me to uncover a terror plot in Israel that was, thankfully averted.  The investigation began with a young man from Israel who attempted entry in the United States with and altered visa.

No one expected this mundane and routine assignment to trigger a major international investigation.

Finally, aliens who are provided with lawful status are entitled, under our immigration laws, to immediately petition to have their spouses and all of their minor children to be admitted into the United States.

Families in Third World Countries tend to have many children.  It is entirely possible that a massive amnesty program would enable more minor aliens to be granted visas than the number of illegal aliens who would be granted lawful status.

The impact of admitting tens of millions of children who would immediately be enrolled in school systems across the United States would be devastating to already beleaguered school districts across the United States.

President Trump’s immigration policies are already having the desired impact of deterring illegal immigration as reported by the Border Patrol.  It is important that he stay the course he has wisely plotted, America and Americans will benefit from his courageous leadership.

school room blackboard

DUMP ACCESS ISLAM: The U.S. Department of Education must remove Islamic indoctrination program

The taxpayer-supported Department of Education (DOE) is funding an Islamic indoctrination program in America’s public schools in grades 5 through 12, Christian Action Network has learned.

Students are taught to learn Islamic scripture, give the meaning of that Islamic verse, and explain how they can use it in their daily lives.

“How can this be anything other than indoctrination?” said Martin Mawyer, president and founder of Christian Action Network (CAN).

The DOE offers no similar lesson plans for Christianity, Mawyer added. “There is absolutely no balance in the curricula offered. Only Islam is given a full course of study.”

"Access Islam," from the PBS web site, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

“Access Islam,” from the PBS web site, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

The Islamic education program, funded by the DOE, is primarily disseminated through PBS LearningMedia and the Educational Broadcasting Corporation.

The curriculum is called “Access Islam” and includes such lessons as:

  • The Five Pillars of Islam, in which students in grades 5 through 12 explore and understand the basic beliefs of Islam, as well as “the Five Pillars that guide Muslims in their daily life … students will create posters about the Five Pillars for classroom display.” Students also learn the proclamation of Islamic faith — which is akin to learning the Christian “prayer of salvation.” (More information here)

The U.S. Department of Education's funding of an Islamic indoctrination curricula is the topic of a new video produced by Christian Action Network.

The U.S. Department of Education’s funding of an Islamic indoctrination curricula is the topic of a new video produced by Christian Action Network.

  • Salat: Prayer in Muslim Life, in which students in grades 5 through 12 learn “the importance of the Quran in daily worship.” The students are asked, “What do you see and hear when Muslims pray? How do the words sound? What is the purpose of praying five times a day?” (More information here)
  • Quran: Sacred Scripture of Islam, in which students in grades four to six are taught that the Quran “is considered the word of Allah.” Students must review quotes from the Quran and Hadith.  They must then to present one of the Islamic quotes to the teacher and “describe the passages practical application…” (More information here)

“Can anyone imagine The Lord’s Prayer recited in a classroom?” asked Mawyer. “Or students taught that the Bible is the inspired, infallible final Word of God? Or displaying the Christian cross in the school classroom? Or lesson plans that encourage students to pray to Jesus Christ? It’s out of the question! Christ, the Bible, the cross and Christian prayer were thrown out our public schools decades ago.

In one DOE funded video, students are introduced to a man who has converted from Christianity to Islam.  The Muslim man tells students that Islam “is the true worship of God.” The man then instructs children to “submit yourself” to Allah.

Mawyer said he was so shocked when he learned that the Islamic curriculum was funded by the DOE that his organization fired off a legal “Letter of Demand” to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos demanding that the Islamic program be defunded and removed from access to the public schools of America.

dump access islamIn the Five Pillars of Islam lesson plan, students are told to “focus on learning about the core duties of Muslims” and to “read about what it means to proclaim faith or belief as a Muslim.”

“As I scanned through the information online, it became obvious to me that the material is much more like a Sunday School lesson plan than a proper educational lesson on Islam,” said Mawyer. “These lessons are teaching our children and grandchildren how to be, act and live like Muslims. It’s outrageous! And every Christian and Jewish parent in America should be appalled at how our children are being indoctrinated into the Islamic belief system and lifestyle.”

Students are taught in detail how to pray like a Muslim in the lesson plan “Salat: Prayer in Muslim Life.”  The lesson plan includes prayers that can be recited by students, descriptions of how and when to pray, and refers students to the web site “” to get more information about Islamic prayer times around the world.

In this same study students are told to memorize the following prayer from Quaran 96:1-5:

“In the name of thy lord who created man from a clot. And thy lord is the most generous who taught by the pen, taught man that which he knew not.”

Mawyer noted that students are NOT taught that Jesus is Lord, but they DO learn that Allah is God.

Preview for CAN’s latest film “Islam In The Schools A Quick Look”. To order the full version and learn more about this topic visit us at

“I am calling on all Americans to demand the Department of Education dump this program,” said Mawyer. “This is an outrageous abuse of our taxpayer dollars, and an affront to the rights of parents to teach their children the religion of their choice.”

As well as the DOE video, CAN has also released a video that takes a broader look at Islam in the Schools. It can be viewed here.

Download Christian Action Network’s letter of demand to the Department of Education here.


Muslim artist hides anti-Jewish and anti-Christian messages in X-Men comics

QS 5:51, that is, chapter 5 verse 51 of the Qur’an, says: “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.”

Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.”

The word translated above as “allies” and frequently as “friends” is awliya, which means friend and protector, i.e., someone entrusted with another’s safety — hence the extrapolation that this verse means that “Muslims should not appoint the Jews and Christians as their leader” is not unreasonable.

In any case, why is Marvel allowing Ardian Syaf to do this? Would they allow a Jewish or Christian cartoonist to draw subtle messages criticizing Islam? To ask the question is to answer it.

“Marvel Artist Ardian Syaf Hid Anti-Christian And Jewish Messages In This Week’s X-Men Comic,” by Rich Johnston, Bleeding Cool, April 8, 2017:

In Indonesia, 212 is the number used to denote a specific mass protest from 2nd December last year. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims marched against the Christian governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as Ahok,, [sic] over allegations of blasphemy regarding his use of the Qu’ran [sic] in campaigning against opponents. The march was organised, in part, with the National Movement to Safeguard the Indonesian Ulema Council’s Fatwa. It was pretty hardline conservative and the protest demanded the government prosecute and jail Ahok based on the council’s fatwa, declaring him to be a blasphemer. This year, a 212 2.0 march with similar aims was held on the 21st of February.

Ahok caused a great deal of controversy in Indonesia after he referred to a verse in the Qur’an while campaigning, specifically the verse Al Maidah 5: 51 and said that people should not believe Islamic leaders who claim it forbids Muslims from being led by non-Muslims. He has since repeatedly apologised for his statements, but it hasn’t stemmed the protest.

The verse translates into English as “O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are, in fact, allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.”

A more common Indonesian translation of the verse, however, states that “Muslims should not appoint the Jews and Christians as their leader”. So. What has this to do with comic books?


The number 212 and 51 appears in a scene of X-Men Gold #1 by Indonesian artist Ardian Syaf, published last Wednesday, with comic book character Kitty Pryde addressing the crowd. Let’s zoom in.

That would be the Jewish character Kitty Pryde, in a scene talking about being the new leader of the X-Men….

Later in the comic, on Colossus’ shirt, we see the letters and numbers QS 5:51 referring to that verse. QS stands for Qur’an Surah, with Surah meaning chapter.


RELATED ARTICLE: New Jersey: Muslim group harassing and intimidating private citizens for opposing mosque

trump fist up

President Trump Is Real

So much has been happening lately. I am probably not alone in trying to keep up with all that has been going on. Let me try to connect just a few dots.

Obamacare: Some people have been gloating, thinking that President Trump failed to get a new plan in place. This was a test run because Obamacare will fall all by itself. I believe that President Trump now knows very well who his real friends are, and House Speaker Paul Ryan is NOT one of them. Ryan’s smugness and chicanery will have consequences that Ryan will not like.

President Trump, the businessman got rich by being a smart, competent, wise negotiator who dealt successfully with hundreds of people turning deals into win/win situations where each side benefited and made money.

Working with the House of Representatives is a different ball game that President Trump will ultimately grasp and win. He has been on a learning curve and now understands that the Congress is not about win/win, but about lose/win. How else does such an organization sustain a 10% approval rating? Some suspect that Paul Ryan engineered this defeat of the Obamacare overhaul in order to put President Trump in his place, a power play. Ryan assuredly will ultimately face consequences not to his liking. Ryan is a part of the so called ‘establishment’ aligned against the President. The “Freedom Caucus” of about twenty hard core conservative Republicans (100 percenters) are a part of what hurts the Republican movement.

My friend, Congressman Duncan Hunter once explained what 100 percenters are:

Many hard-core conservatives are 100 percenters. A 100 percenter is a pouting, foot stomping tantrum throwing immature and irresponsible character who wants the whole shebang (100%) and if they don’t get it will go totally negative. They can’t deal with winning 90% on an issue. Win/win is not in their lexicon. That is what the ‘Freedom Caucus’ is, mean spirited knee jerkers unwilling to work the deal no matter what.

Of course, there are hard-core 100 percenters on the left as well. Nancy (Loopy) Pelosi is one who cannot countenance compromise with Republicans. Chuckie Schumer is another. With Democrats, the deal is “we do the talking and you just follow along like good little lap dogs.” That’s why Schumer led the Democrats in the Senate’s 100% opposition to now Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thanks to former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid’s ‘nuclear’ option which was employed in securing Gorsuch’s confirmation. The months long dance by the Democrats demanding that Gorsuch be dropped and then their useless filibuster charade simply stunk.

I believe that President Trump has brought in an honest, decent Supreme Court Justice who will make his determinations based on the Constitution, not on ‘feelings’. Newly minted California Senator Kamala Harris was critical, that Gorsuch would follow the Constitution and not make decisions on wishy-washy whim, something that Harris preferred.

There is a chasm between the Republicans and Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Islamists in the Congress – indeed all over the country. This is bad, and wherever a vacuum, a void exists something will come in to fill it. A third party? A party focused on win/win for the benefit of the American people would really be great.

California is a sad, sorry example of what California politics has devolved to. Elections are basically rigged for one side to win. I’ve seen this in countries that had one-party rule where people were given a couple of names on a ballot determined up by the government in power, and the candidates campaigned in a popularity contest, not based on issues and concerns affecting the people. Somewhat sane and reasonable, I believe that Loretta Sanchez would have been a far better Senator than Kamala Harris. California is a Communist realm dependent on illegals who are allowed, even encouraged to vote.

Where totalitarian rule prevails, revolution soon follows.

Will governor Moonbeam agree to establishing statewide sanctuary for criminals? Will a great wall be built along the Arizona/Nevada/Oregon borders to keep us out of the greater United States? Things in California will be going down, guaranteed. Will we become the Venezuela of the North, or will the legitimate citizens of California come to their senses?

President Trump has great, competent people appointed and confirmed to jobs in high places. Not all of them are what or who he truly needs.

Two are a mixed bag. Both are former generals. Secretary of Defense Matti’s, and National Security Council Director McMaster earned their well-deserved stripes as military strategists, as leaders of warriors. [Nevertheless, neither holds a candle to General George Patton who was not just a war strategist, he studied his foes and came to know and understand them and their motivation better than they did themselves and then soundly defeated them.]

When General Mattis ran the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base prior to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, a friend and colleague and I were asked to speak to senior Non-Commissioned Officers and regular combat officers about what they could expect to encounter regarding Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mattis heard about what we taught and we were subsequently dis-invited from further programs. That was a cowardly PC determination which left our soldiers lacking in preparation for facing the enemy. Some may have suffered because of Mattis’ decision to deny them information they needed for survival. Mattis was a puppet echoing President Bush who declared that Islam was peaceful, and anyone saying anything counter to their ignorance was not welcome. This is what I mean when I said (above) that Mattis was not in the same class as General Patton, and Mattis remains so today, limited to his accomplished warrior specialty, but otherwise ignorant about the foes that we face.

National Security Director, Former General McMaster is also an accomplished military strategist. As a grand strategist of the Patton class of warriors, he is lacking. He has also echoed Bush and Obama in claiming that Islam is a peaceful ideology. That’s a dangerous self-limiting “tilt”

The ouster of Steve Bannon from his position on the National Security Council was not good for President Trump or the American people. We desperately need someone with the knowledge, understanding, competence, and wisdom of Bannon on that Council to balance the limitations of McMaster. McMaster may not like this, but he is NOT the President.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is one of President Trump’s best moves. SecState Tillerson is being criticized because he is reportedly isolating himself from most of the members of the State Department. I laud his doing the right thing in this regard. He really cannot have confidence with his established State Department subordinates who are mostly liberals intolerant of President Trump and his team. Let’s be reminded of the day that Trump won the election when the floors of the State Department ran with the copious shedding of tears and the halls echoed with the shrieks and whines of dismay and horror?

Those liberals have an agenda at sharp variance with President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson. Those liberals really need to use their feet, the door, and move on down the street. With over 500 Ambassadors on staff and about 175 diplomatic missions needing an ambassador, there is a 60%+ surplus of Ambassadors. Secretary of State Tillerson needs to cut the surplus loose. The same holds true for thousands of the senior and mid-level echelons, most of whom can take their retirement and be moved out.

Traditionally, the State Department (and CIA) have recruited heavily at liberal ivy-league educational institutions which has caused this great imbalance between elitists and the needs of the real American people (such as President Trump and Tillerson).

It would be very good for the hiring/recruiting practices to start working to establish a balance. This can be achieved with a quota system. For example, if the State Department and CIA hire 1000 people in a given year, the recruits should come from the fifty states evenly, i.e. 20 new hires from university or college graduating classes of each of the fifty states (not someone from a given state graduating from some joint like Harvard). This would be fair, equitable, and serve the American public well with representation from each state.

The Foreign Service and their union have long been highly critical of Presidential appointments to Ambassadorial and equivalent high and mighty positions. They preach that only seasoned Foreign Service Officers are truly qualified to serve as Ambassadors. Balderdash!

I have served abroad for over a quarter of a century in nine embassies, and have been called on to perform duties at many more embassies. I’ve had dealings with dozens of Ambassadors during my career.

Some were good and some were bad. It had no bearing on whether they were political appointees or career types. Some of the biggest failures as ambassadors were career FSO’s chosen for assignments for the wrong reasons, or who were simply incompetent. One led to a war which I discussed in my book, EXPERIENCING ISLAM. I served under a seriously egregious political appointee who ought to have spent some time in the slammer, but because of his political status got a free pass.

President Trump has a great team working for him and with a little augmentation here or there, things will only improve.

french flag eifel tower

The French Presidential Campaign — Deuxième Partie

Part 1 [partie un] may be found here – click.

The Interior Minister sniffles, Valls gives Macron a peck on the cheek, France 2 throws Fillon into the lion’s den, a book spills the beans on Hollande… And: whither the Jewish vote


The last time we saw acting Interior Minister Bruno Le Roux he was at Orly airport, solemnly declaring the “suspect had tried but failed” to get the soldier’s gun. This was followed shortly by a photo in the Figaro of the dead suspect lying on the floor with the Famas assault rifle still slung across his chest. Deliberately misleading? Honestly misinformed? No one seemed to care publicly. But LeRoux was forced to resign last week…for a different reason.

How, in the absence of any discernible competence, did the deputy get to be Interior Minister? Musical chairs. François Hollande waited to the last minute to announce he would not be running for re-election, Prime Minister Manuel Valls could finally resign and throw his hat into the Primary ring, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve was bumped up to the PM slot, and Le Roux became a low-key Interior Minister in the twilight Hollande government.

Last week Le Roux went out in a sniffle. Looking like the fall guy meant to knock over François Fillon. Deputy Le Roux hired his teenage daughters as parliamentary assistants over a 7-year period with 24 different temporary contracts for a total salary of €55,000. Cross-checkers produced damning evidence. Not only were the teenies overpaid, they were apparently moonlighting for their father while simultaneously holding other jobs, studying, traveling, etc. Of course le Roux was allowed to deny any wrongdoing before resigning. The Greek chorus media chanted “Le Roux resigned why not Fillon?”

Candidates for President of France.

Valls pecks Macron on the cheek.

Defeated in the primaries, the former PM, who has shown integrity and valor in some of the worst moments of jihad violence, had nowhere to go. He could not decently respect the good sport promise to defend the victor, Benoît Hamon, one of the “frondeurs,” an informal caucus of far Left deputies that persistently hounded the Hollande-Valls government. Hamon’s last ditch socialism is outplayed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s eloquent extravagance.  The centerpiece of Hamon’s primary campaign was a shiny universal salary promise, based on a post-employment theory: in our modern economy, jobs don’t need people, people don’t need jobs, so the government will give them salaries and their purchasing power will boost the economy. No one ever asked him why a small businessman or a CEO would work days, nights and weekends to produce the wealth that would be distributed like Care packages.

Hamon had gadflied the socialist party; Mélenchon opted out years ago and created a far Left conglomerate that repeatedly splinters and regroups. Today he runs on his personal ticket –La France Insoumise. The “insoumise [= that does not submit] has nothing to do with the Islamic concept of submission; it’s about the 99% not submitting to the 1%.  Reeking of authenticity, dressed in corduroy casual, the earthy showman makes outworn class struggle rhetoric seem new. But pollsters say he gets only 13% of the working class vote, with 51% going to Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon delights in punishing the privileged classes. Under his regime, doctors won’t be allowed to apply surcharges (paid, it should be noted, by the patient). The GP that takes €50 for a consultation today would have to be satisfied with the health system rate of €25.

Mélenchon’s solution for world peace is to exit NATO and the “logic of war.” The people’s army he intends to create by reestablishing the draft is more a public works project than a defense measure. Awkward attempts by Hamon to create a united Left by swallowing up Mélenchon’s candidacy have failed miserably, as Mélenchon’s fortunes rise and Hamon’s sink

[Go to to see photos by Jiro Mochizuki]

Valls pecks Macron on the cheek

Manuel Valls, the unashamed Social Democrat announced he will vote for Emmanuel Macron on the 1st round. Yes but Emmanuel Macron, who served as Minister of the Economy in the Valls government, wants to be the new face, the new way, the new name, the very image of the never-before- better -than- ever. Not old Socialist Party wine in trendy new bottles! In a press conference hastily organized on the eve of Valls’s announcement, Macron gave En Marche a St. Paul touch: Neither Jew nor Greek, neither Socialist nor Républicain and not even Modem; the multitudes that came to him must drop their former affiliations and become En Marcheurs. No matter how many ministers, deputies, advisors and supporters of the outgoing team join En Marche, including Hollande waiting in the wings, they’ll give up their labels and abandon hopes of cushy jobs in Macron’s Brand New World.

Emmanuel Macron’s post-politics is enticing. Brimming over with boisterous benevolence for modern multicolor France, he promises success for one and all, with balanced doses of IT, startups, and social engineering. Problems aren’t addressed-that creates anxiety-they’re swooped into Bright New World projects that leap from the banlieue to the depressed hinterland and across the Mediterranean all the way to the Cape of Good Hope. His government will invest in ecology and all that’s renewable, offer culture to the rich & poor, recycle the jobless with modern skills, solve conflict with love not hate, welcome immigration with hospitality not rejection of the Other. Cut & paste plagiarizer, Macron takes bits & pieces of Fillon’s security measures…and then claims his rival doesn’t have a program.

Fillon in the lion’s den

The French must have a passion for politics because the media are serving it in an unending flow, to the exclusion of everything else happening in the outside world. The level of discourse varies but it is sometimes meaty and quite fascinating. Last week’s Emission Politique (Political Broadcast) on the France 2 channel of al Dura blood libel fame was vicious. François Fillon was pummeled, speared, mocked, scorned, berated, wracked and cracked…no holds barred.

Journalists, specialists and invited guests did not act as individuals challenging a candidate; they were a mob unleashed on a caricature of guilt. Not a living breathing human being, not even a punching bag, François Fillon was a sheet of newspaper blackened with accusations, he was the front page of Le Canard Enchaîné. And they felt free to grind him into the muddy gutter.

Is he too corrupt to be president? No matter his program, his lucidity, his mastery of details and context, his experience and skills and, now, his exceptional resistance to low blows, no matter the expectations of the majority of voters that correspond to Fillon’s offer, no matter the perception that the welfare and security of the nation depend on getting government out of the hands of François Hollande and his suite, is François Fillon so corrupt that he should have been dumped?

Deputies are allotted a budget to pay their assistants. There is no job description for parliamentary assistants. Unless I’m mistaken, this hasn’t been an issue of public concern. Deputies also dispose of a “discretionary” fund that they use in their circumscriptions. Questions have been raised about petty favoritism and donations to shady associations linked to the underground economy and/or Islamic subversion. Hush money, so to speak, doled out in the interests of keeping the ‘hood quiet.

Le Canard Enchaîné managed in the space of a few hours to brand François Fillon with the scarlet letter of Corruption. Subsequent revelations piled on. Fillon, who cuts an elegant figure, had accepted the gift of two or more expensive tailor-made suits from a friend. Aha! Other devoted friends have given him expensive watches. But it was the initial thunderbolt that blasted his campaign. With rare exceptions, the media and pollsters relay the accusations, reinforce the guilty verdict without trial, and assume that Fillon will be eliminated on April 23rd.

François Fillon had the same budget as any other deputy. Along with more than a hundred of his fellow deputies, he chose to employ family members, his wife (1996-2013) and, briefly, his adult children. Whether they worked a little, very much, or not at all, the allotment didn’t vary. If he had hired a stranger who did or didn’t work, the budget wouldn’t vary. Did Penelope Fillon deserve her €3,600 (net) monthly salary more or less than President Hollande’s coiffeur who is paid €10,000 (gross) a month?

David Pujadas, host of Emission Politique, had no qualms about hitting François Fillon right between the eyes: “Do you like money?” he asked, maliciously. Does David Pujadas like money? Some sources say he earns €18,000 a month, others a more modest €12,000. A large percentage of French employees earn the minimum monthly wage of €1,143 net.

Economist François Lenglet came into the ring challenging Fillon on his economic program that “favors the wealthy.” Graphic simulations of the candidate’s tax cut showed benefits in the hundreds for low earners, in the thousands for high earners. “Are you a Marxist?” asked Fillon, and then went on to explain that heavy taxes account for the dearth of French investment capital, leaving companies in the hands of foreign pension funds and Qatari sovereign funds. (N.B. the same Lenglet is denounced by a Mélenchon supporter as a darling of the money grubbers!)

The lowest point of the low class broadcast was an obscene diatribe vomited onto Fillon by a mediocre writer whose name doesn’t need to be mentioned.

Though it might matter, in the absolute, to know if François Fillon is more or less gluttonous for power, money, luxury goods and privileges than any or all of his fellow politicians, the real question is how did so much private information get into the public sphere at this crucial moment in the presidential campaign? The moralizing purificators that have been hammering away at the unspeakable scandal of a few bespoke suits are curiously indifferent to the perversion of the police, the judiciary and the media to destroy political rivals that imperils our democracy.

A book spills the beans on Hollande

Emission Politique coincided with the release of Bienvenu Place Beauvau, an exposé by one former and two current Canard Enchaîné journalists. Cutting through the tangled underbrush of nicknames, acronyms, anecdotes, rumors, bile, and citations from anonymous sources, I dimly perceive the intent to show that François Hollande was unfortunately unable to moralize the security and intelligence apparatus left by his predecessors. Incidentally, by amateurism rather than malice, President Hollande ended up using the police, the courts, and the media to hack away at his rivals.

This inside info confirms what we had deduced from the outside. Shortly after losing the 2012 race, Nicolas Sarkozy was hit with damning revelations and a series of thirteen or more lawsuits.  Guilty, too, of liking money, Sarkozy was accused of squeezing millions from the trembling hand of heiress Liliane Bettencourt , engaging in shameful intercourse with Qatari think tanks, falsifying the accounts of his 2012 presidential campaign, peddling influence, and a variety of other crimes and misdemeanors. His phones were tapped, his confidential communications with his lawyer were tapped, he and his lawyer were pursued, investigated, searched & seized and, on one occasion, the ex-president was convoked by a judge in the middle of the night. So far every case has ended in acquittal.

I think it would be fair to say that Nicolas Sarkozy’s chances of running for president in 2017 were destroyed. Manuel Valls, Hollande’s PM and expected rival for the socialist nomination, was poked and pinched, bonked with nasty rumors, and thrown a variety of banana peels. And so on and so forth.

Paralyzing the lions with his steady gaze on that fateful Emission Politique evening, François Fillon accused President Hollande of orchestrating the campaign of delegitimization aimed at him since January. Shocking! The authors of the exposé don’t know where to put themselves. Having convincingly described Hollande’s machinations, they explicitly deny that Fillon is a victim of same. But a document I received last month describes in detail how the LR [Les Républicains] candidate was tracked, exposed, bagged and dragged through the media streets, victim of the exact procedures described in the book: secret information is sucked out of Tracfin, police searches & interrogations, wiretaps, etc. and  funneled up to President Hollande; the police are used as henchmen, specific media chosen to disclose biased information and inquisitional secrets, handpicked judges are named to prosecute & persecute.

Top LR brass has combed through the exposé and reportedly found at least 40 infractions that they duly reported to the same authorities that launched the Fillon investigation. If these courts are truly the expression of a public demand for ethics in politics and not, as some might think, President Hollande’s hatchet men, they will soon be announcing a slew of investigations.

Obviously relieved, Fillon vigorously pursues his campaign, buoyantly self-confident, focused on the issues. Traditional pollsters keep him at an anemic 19% 3rd place, in danger of being overtaken by Jean-Luc Mélenchon who’s roaring down the fast track.  And if it should turn out to be true, as the Right insists, that Macron is a Hollande remake, why not go for broke with a Mélenchon-Le Pen final round? Lawd have mercy! That feisty showman promised, in the 2012 legislative election, to drive the wicked witch into the ditch at Hénin-Beaumont. He lost. Marine Le Pen won.

Left-leaning Libération (owned by Macron backer, the French-Israeli cable & media mogul Patrick Drahi) snickers at the Filteris big data analysis results published by Right-oriented Valeurs Actuelles, consistently showing Fillon at the top of the heap. Proper pollsters, invited like yeast to raise the dough of big-audience political broadcasts, unanimously deny the possibility of a hidden Fillon vote. We do our polls via the Net, they say. No shaming face-to-face confrontation.

The shame, my friends, lies not in your pollsters…. Fillon voters chased away by the shock & awe campaign face their own conscience. Can they tell themselves “He cheated and now he’s lying, he’s guilty and claims to be innocent, I’m scrupulously honest and he accepts lavish presents, but I’m going to vote for him because he has the best program?” Yes, when push comes to shove, they will vote Fillon. Because they have nowhere else to go. Marine Le Pen? Why trust her to clean up the Islamization mess when Fillon has gone further than any candidate in diagnosis and treatment? He outlined his approach in Vaincre le totalitarisme islamique [Defeat totalitarian Islam]. He is competent, serious, level-headed, determined, and capable of governing. Marine-for-president straddles an antiquated isolationist welfare state economic program and an Islamo-neo Nazi back office. She is a decoy, a magnet for frustrations that would worsen if her program were ever applied. A Macron-Fillon runoff would be a logical confrontation of two distinctly different approaches to the life and death challenges of the 21st century.

The Jewish vote

It shouldn’t count for anything. But it does. Numerically insignificant, the Jewish vote weighs significantly in a democracy.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, according to a March 25, 2017 post on the Parole 2 Paix Ismael site, promises to recognize the Palestinian state, impose sanctions on Israel, and abrogate the Alliot-Marie decree recommending legal action against supporters of BDS.

The “Israel” wing of the socialist party has pulled out of Benoît Hamon’s campaign because of his pro-BDS positions and advisors, including BDS activist Salah Amokrane and close associate Alexis Bachelay who declared that Israeli persecution of Palestinians is far worse than what the South African apartheid government did to Blacks.

Emmanuel Macron’s right hand man, Richard Ferrand, denies accusations (by a site reportedly aligned with the “Identitaire” movement) of supporting BDS. In fact, he gave a financial contribution to a regional branch of France Palestine Solidarité, an association that enthusiastically supports BDS.

François Fillon has ruffled feathers with his longstanding opposition to BDS. The BDS-allied BNC objects to his disapproval, claiming that BDS promotes “justice and universal rights.” Hugh Fitzgerald expands on Fillon’s forceful opposition to BDS and denunciation of the French votes in support of the UNESCO resolutions that deny the eternal bond between Judaism and Jerusalem. Contrary to the official French position, Fillon is opposed to international pressure for a solution to the conflict between “Israel and the ‘Palestinians’.”

According to the Animal politique collective, cited in Libération, Marine Le Pen, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Jacques Chemiade, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon are unambiguously opposed to halal and kosher slaughter. Benoît Hamon hedges. Though Libération claims François Fillon, too, insists that the laws of the nation supersede religious laws [his position in 2012] he now favors derogation for halal and kosher slaughter.

Who are the CRIF’s best friends?

I attended talks by two presidential candidates under the auspices of Les Amis du Crif, the event-organizing branch of the Jewish community umbrella organization. François Fillon received a standing ovation from a packed audience of 700, chanting in unison “Fillon president, Fillon president.” Ten days later, Emmanuel Macron arrived a half hour late, the audience was restless, lukewarm, sometimes audibly in disagreement. Quite a few people left before the end. Fillon was relaxed, warm, and personable. Macron had none of the charisma he exhibits at rallies. Fillon was at home with this particular audience. Macron is more excited by the other diversity, the kind he celebrated from the top of his lungs at a recent rally in Marseille, shouting “This is France, these are the French,” and then naming more than a dozen countries of origin, Algerians, Armenians, Comorians…through to Senegalese, Tunisians…

Much more could be said about their respective programs but I must conclude now, 3 hours before the chockfull debate on BFM TV featuring all 11 candidates. Yes, there are 11 candidates, most of them to the Left of Mélenchon. Readers will thank me for not reviewing the full spectrum!


Sunday April 1st: despite protests from a variety of individuals and organizations, and concerns expressed by Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo, a “pro-Palestinian” demonstration was authorized at Place du Châtelet. The original BDS and anti-Semitic slogans-demanding separation of “CRIF and State”-were toned down but the message was clear. Approximately 200 people showed up. A counter-demonstration of some 100 Zionists was kept at a distance.  No clashes were reported.

Photos at

French Presidential Campaign Part 2 UPDATE

5 April 2017

I drop in to the Shir Hadash Bookstore on rue des Rosiers at the end of the day. Madame Magnichever comes in, pale and troubled, and whispers to me: “A dear friend… we’ve known her for 40 years…she was assassinated… an Islamist pushed her out the window.”

Reports of the incident came out first in Jewish media, then it was picked up by a few two generalist sites: A Jewish woman in her mid-sixties was pushed out of a third (in U.S. 4th)-floor window by a 27 year-old Muslim neighbor who, according to some accounts, had recently become radicalized. He had frequent run-ins with the police for violence and “petty” crime. According to testimony of a  neighbor who witnessed the crime, the assailant who shouted allahu akhbar as he pushed the victim out the window. He is in police custody, undergoing psychiatric examination. Police sources say he made “incoherent statements” (we’ve heard that before).

Detail will follow in Part 3 of the ongoing series.


A Kosher Stamp for Marine Le Pen?

‘Pinkwashing’ populism: Gay voters embrace French far-right

wilders deislamize

America as the Last Man Standing

Let us not forget those who warned us of the threat to our Constitutional Republic, our culture and Western Civilization. The greatest threat to the free world – the massive global Muslim migration.

The below speech by Geert Wilders, given in New York City in 2008, is prophetic.

Democrats and their allies in the courts are fighting to keep the Muslim migration flowing in the name of social justice, while those with vision see what is happening in Europe with growing alarm. There are two elections to watch in the coming months. The first in France and then in Germany. If the populists win in these two countries, then the free world wins. If not, Europe is doomed.

As Dr. Andrew Bostom wrote:

… liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.

All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

wilders i fight for freedomGeert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands

Speech at the Four Seasons, New York

September 25, 2008

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

RELATED ARTICLE: Another French Jew murdered in Paris by Muslim neighbor “screaming “Allahu Akbar.”


EDITORS NOTE:  To learn more about Islam please visit:

muslim migration eu

EU tells Hungary and Poland: Accept mass Muslim migration or leave

France and Germany, along with a host of up to 21 other countries, are set to demand Hungary and Poland either accept migrants under the quota system or leave the European Union.

The European Union is set to be a fragmented jumble, plagued by crime and broken economies, and it is all due to the reckless leadership of corrupt politicians who flung open the doors of their borders to unvetted Muslim refugees, at the expense of their own citizens. Based on the stance of the leaders of Hungary and Poland, those countries appear to be ready to thumb their noses at the EU and leave it.

Hungary has been detaining migrants and sending them back. Hungarian leader Viktor Orban angrily lashed out at Angela Merkel, warning her that the Muslim migrant crime problem in Germany would spill over into neighbouring countries, and stating that Hungary would not pay for Merkel’s error. Hungary also recently opened a military base at its border to stop migrants; Orban has declared 2017 “a year of rebellion” to “make Hungary great again,” and has rightly stated that “Europe is not free” because “freedom begins with speaking the truth.”

And in Poland:

Poland’s conservative Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość – PiS) swept to victory in 2015, partly due to voter anger over the previous government agreeing to take migrants under the quota system.

Back in January, riots erupted in Poland when Muslim migrants stabbed a local youngster to death after rumors that he had thrown a firecracker inside a Kebab diner.

Just hours after the initial riots took place at the crime scene, clashes between police and rioters in the neighbouring Polish town, Lublin, occurred as vandals sprayed anti-Muslim graffiti on a kebab shop that read: “F*** Islam and f*** ISIS.”

“European Union Tells Hungary and Poland To Accept Mass Migration Or Leave”, by Virginia Hale, Breitbart, April 4, 2017:

France and Germany, along with a host of up to 21 other countries, are set to demand Hungary and Poland either accept migrants under the quota system or leave the European Union (EU).

The two nations have ignored Brussels’ insistence that they take migrants presently residing in great numbers in Italy and Greece. Public opinion in Hungary and Poland is also strongly against being forced to accept thousands of migrants from non-European cultures.

Poland’s conservative Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość – PiS) swept to victory in 2015, partly due to voter anger over the previous government agreeing to take migrants under the quota system.

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been a vocal opponent of the scheme from its conception, asserting that forcing member countries to take a compulsory quota of migrants is unlawful and will “spread terrorism around Europe”.

Later this year, the two countries will be given an ultimatum and have to decide whether they are willing to maintain an anti-mass migration stances if it puts their membership of the EU at threat, a senior diplomatic source from one of the bloc’s six founding member states told The Times.

The source said: “They will have to make a choice: are they in the European system or not? You cannot blackmail the EU, unity has a price.”

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is expected to hold a hearing on the legality of migrant quotas in the coming weeks, with a judgement — widely expected to be in favour of the scheme — likely by the end of the year.

“We are confident that the ECJ will confirm validation,” the source said. “Then they must abide by the decision. If they don’t then they will face consequences, both financial and political. No more opt-outs. There is no more ‘one foot in and one foot out’. We are going to be very tough on this.”

Hungary challenged the court, insisting that it is culturally and constitutionally unreasonable to impose asylum seekers on unwilling member states.

In December, referring to policies of importing large numbers of people from the third world, Orbán stated that Hungary and other countries in Central Europe “have had the opportunity to learn from Western Europe’s mistakes”.

“Hungary is a stable island in the turbulent western world because the people were consulted on their opinions here, and we defended the country against illegal immigration.”

In 2015, when European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans demanded Eastern and Central EU nations undergo similar demographic transitions as in Western Europe, Hungary was singled out for special mention.

“Any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future — that’s the future of the world,” Timmermans said. “So [Central European countries] will have to get used to that. They need political leaders who have the courage to explain that to their population instead of playing into the fears as I’ve seen Mr Orbán doing in the last couple of months.”

Breitbart London reported that the European Union is to open asylum processing centres in west Africa and countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean because the continent “needs six million migrants…..


Sweden: Muslim school segregates boys and girls, makes girls enter bus at the back

San Francisco police officer fired for private “anti-Muslim” text messages

truth matters

What Is Truth?

Time magazine’s cover for the April 3 issue posed the provocative question, “Is Truth Dead?” It followed up with the corollary article, “Can Trump Handle the Truth,” which itemized all the untruths emerging from Trump’s allegations and tweets, and floating around in his administration.

By contrast, Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the  New York Times, after the “shocking defeat” of Hillary Clinton (who the Times predicted shortly before the election to have a 90-plus percent chance of winning) apologized sotto voce for alleged bias in its coverage of the 2016 presidential election. He assured  readers of the “Newspaper of Record” that:

We aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.

Having rededicated itself to honesty, the newspaper is currently sending out advertisements for subscriptions to college students and others, emphasizing that the Times is the place where they can get real truth – i.e., “all the news that’s fit to print.”

But it’s going to be difficult. The TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes on March 26 interviewed professional purveyors of “fake news” who boasted of the immense profits they have made from advertisements, as their often outrageous news “scoops” proliferate exponentially in Facebook and other social media. 60 Minutes noted that the most avid consumers, contrary to expectations, are not the “less educated,” but the college-educated public, who happen to be overwhelmingly political liberals.

But the renewed attention to truth is welcome, and at least may result in some new insights or “rededications.”

Click here to read the rest of Professor Kainz’ column . . .


Howard Kainz is emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University. His most recent publications include Natural Law: an Introduction and Reexamination (2004), Five Metaphysical Paradoxes (The 2006 Marquette Aquinas Lecture), The Philosophy of Human Nature (2008), and The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct (2010).

free speech bus tour

#FreeSpeechBus Tour Successful, Reveals Violence and Hate of LGBT Extremists

LGBT extremists did everything in their power to prevent us from completing the #FreeSpeechBus tour to promote a national conversation on the biological nature of gender – including engaging in violence, property damage and acts of intolerance, as well as coordinating with anarchist groups – but I’m pleased to say that we overcame them and completed the tour this morning in Washington, DC.

NOM joined with CitizenGO and the International Organization for the Family (IOF) to sponsor the tour as a way of provoking a national discussion about the biological truth of gender and to hit “pause” on the headlong push by the left to redefine gender based on “identity” and “feelings.” Throughout the tour we encountered the ugly side of the LGBT movement, which repeatedly engaged in violence and assault, and inflicted substantial property damage, in a failed effort to derail the bus tour.

Shockingly, we also discovered the deep coordination that exists between Democratic politicians, LGBT groups and extremists, including anarchists who are bent on destroying civil society.

As you may remember, within hours of launching the tour, the bus was attacked by two LGBT activists while parked near the United Nations in New York City. They assaulted the African American bus driver and destroyed several of the bus’s windows with a hammer, while also using graffiti to cover the bus with militant “trans liberation” messages. After repairs, the bus continued the tour to Boston, New Haven, Philadelphia, and concluded in Washington, DC. Along the way, it was frequently met by an angry mob of LGBT extremists and anarchists.

One of the major developments uncovered by the tour was how closely prominent Democratic politicians are in coordinating with LGBT extremists and their active participation in promoting activities that result in violence and hate.

In Philadelphia, Mayor Jim Kenney’s office was deeply involved in organizing the violent demonstrations against us, which were attended by anarchist groups that are closely watched by the FBI. The mayor’s Office of LGBT Affairs proudly referred to themselves as ‘an accomplice’ in organizing protests which turned violent, with attacks on the bus and on police officers by gay activists and anarchists. At least one of them was arrested and we were prevented from speaking, an act of intolerant bullying the Mayor’s office takes pride in. Meanwhile, while we were being prevented from engaging in a discussion with these protestors, the mayors of both Philadelphia and Boston ordered LGBT/transgendered flags to be flown at City Hall.

What we encountered throughout the bus tour was a sustained, violent, coordinated attack designed to shut us down and force us to just go away. They failed to stop the tour or silence us, and, ironically, in the process made our very point that they don’t want to debate the issues and instead will use force and political power to silence Christians and all Americans who understand that biology determines gender.

Sadly, this kind of behavior is not limited to public demonstrations such as promoting our bus tour. Average Americans are routinely subjected to acts of intolerance whenever they speak up in defense of the obvious truth that gender is determined by biology and that nobody can change their gender.

The #FreeSpeechBus tour demonstrated in clear and stark terms why it is essential for Congress to move forward immediately to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, legislation which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against people of faith based on their views of gender, marriage and similar matters. No American should be subjected to discrimination or harassment by the government simply for standing by their deeply held beliefs about marriage, gender and human sexuality.

NOM will continue to work to counter the dangerous gender ideology of the left, and stand for the truth that we were all created male or female, and that gender is based on biology, not “identity” or emotions.


Brian S Brown


LGBT movement’s other goal: Lower age of consent to 10 years old for psychiatric therapy – without parents’ knowledge or consent!

Trump Affirms Human Rights, Ends U.S. Funding for the UN Population Fund

VIDEO: San Francisco Bans Free Speech on Buses, Subways

EDITORS NOTE: The #FreeSpeechBus tour was a taxing and expensive undertaking. Readers may make a financial contribution to help NOM recoup and replenish their resources.

making a difference

How Your support is making a difference: April 2017 Progress Update…

Florida Family Association is taking action across America on several issues thanks to your support.  We have some good news to share with you.

Rollins College has reinstated Christian student Marshall Polston after Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari had him suspended for challenging her Islamist viewpoints. Florida Family Association sent out email alerts on and after March 29, 2017 that encouraged thousands of people to send emails to a dozen trustees urging them to reinstate student Marshall Polston and reprimand Professor Areeje Zufari.  We have since launched more email alerts that urge Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to terminate Professor Areej Zufari based upon her defamatory actions toward Mr. Polston, grossly unprofessional conduct and filing false reports to the college and police.

Our campaign continues to urge judges on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Maryland federal court order that halted President Trump’s travel ban.  It is encouraging to see the thousands of emails going to these judges urging them to make public safety a priority over politics.  There could be a ruling as early as April 5, 2017 when all parties’ documents are due for the court to consider a stay on the temporary restraining order.  Oral argument is scheduled for May 8, 2017.  We plan to continue the online email campaign until the court’s final ruling on or after May 8, 2017.

Fifty six (56) out of sixty eight (68) companies have stopped advertising at since Florida Family Association started contacting advertisers in February 2017.  Eighty two (82%) of the companies stopped advertising as of March 31, 2017.  The first report on this effort last month contained ten companies that should not have been included in the contacted total because they were being given more time to be categorized as “stopped advertising” or “continuing to advertise.”  There are several advertisers that cannot be traced to a company or corporate officials that are reselling ads to many companies.  We have started contacting the companies to which these sites are reselling their advertising space.

Three hundred sixty nine (369) out of three hundred ninety eight (398) companies have stopped advertising at since Florida Family Association started contacting advertisers in April 2016.  Ninety three percent (93) of the companies stopped advertising as of March 31, 2017.   Three new advertisers appeared in March that cannot be traced to a company or corporate officials.   These three new advertisers are, and  They make up ten percent (10%) of the total companies continuing to advertise.  We have started contacting the companies to which these three sites are reselling their advertising space.  Progress has slowed slightly because Florida Family Association has devoted more email alerts to other issues.  However, we plan to keep contacting advertisers for as long as it takes.  We have six ongoing email campaigns that target companies who are advertising at

We have published an article which reports the Islamist nexus between the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera.  This article reports why Florida Family Association is committed to urging Corporate America to stop supporting these two websites with their advertising dollars.  We hope to send the article out by email next week.

Florida Family Association’s project calling on President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to consider designating the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a terrorist group continues strong.  Thousands of people have already sent emails, letters, Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets urging President Trump and AG Sessions to conduct an investigation to determine if the Council on American Islamic Relations should be designated as a terrorist organization based upon their terror-linked history.  We plan to continue to encourage thousands more people to send messages to the president and attorney general for the next four years or until they respond.  At a minimum this effort will inform the president and attorney general that there are many people who believe CAIR is an organization to hold at arm’s length.

Our campaign continues to thank the Texas Attorney General for challenging a high school’s use of a classroom for Muslim prayer.  The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to bully Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with erroneous reports that have since added to the fake news epidemic in America.

Our campaign to counter Nike’s plans to launch a special branded Hijab continues strong.  The Independent in the United Kingdom first reported:  Nike is launching a high-performance hijab for Muslim athletes.  The brand aims to inspire women and girls who face barriers in sport.  Thousands of people have sent emails expressing to Nike officials that the hijab is a symbol of oppression that is pushed by strict adherents of Sharia law.

We hope that you will consider making a donation to keep our efforts strong.  To make your confidential and tax deductible donation by credit card, debit card, checking account or PayPal please click here or mail your gift to Florida Family Association (FFA), PO Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105.  If you would like to support our efforts monthly with a small donation but don’t want the inconvenience of taking the time to do so each month please consider selecting Yes for monthly donations at the top of our donation web page.


David Caton
Florida Family Association