The Next Scandal in the Church?

William Kilpatrick writes that the Church, because of its endorsement of unlimited immigration, is complicit in the rise of Muslim sex abuse in Europe.

In a recent article, Fr. James Schall, S.J. argues that “The only real way to eliminate the historic aggressiveness of Islam is to convert its believers.”  Yet if you had to bet, “the conversion of the world to Islam is, in the long run, more likely than its conversion to Christianity.”

From a purely human perspective, the conversion of Muslims is a tall order. It’s not just that Islam is a tough nut to crack, it’s also that some today – usually Catholics – have an aversion to conversion. (Even the pope had denounced “proselytism.”)  In good multicultural fashion, they don’t want to fiddle with the unique cultural identity of the “other.”

These fashionable ideas won’t attract many Muslims, and it has an alienating effect on Christians as well. The Church in the West has been losing members as a result of the impression it gives that other faiths are just as valid as our own. So before undertaking the conversion of the Muslim world, the Church needs first to do something about the deconversion of Christians.

Ironically, one of the factors that is driving people out of the Church is its response to Islamic terror. After every terrorist attack, the Vatican (or some prominent bishop) assures us that the violence has nothing to do with Islam, which we are told is a “religion of peace” – a response not a whit different from the politically correct, secular liberal response.

In fact, Church leaders often put secular leaders to shame in their advocacy for Islam. The Obama administration called for the admittance of 10,000 Syrian refugees; the USCCB called for 100,000. When European leaders began to admit that Muslim migration should be restricted for the sake of national security, Pope Francis responded by insisting that the safety of migrants was more important than national security.

There are no statistics about how many Catholics are leaving the Church because of its welcoming attitude towards Islam, but there is anecdotal evidence.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .

Why Americans Hate the Media

I’ll make this quick and easy. The mainstream media is not trusted by a large part of the country because they have an entrenched liberal worldview bias they refuse to acknowledge or make any attempts to ameliorate.

The mainstream media is hated by an also large part of the country because of the sharply different ways it covers Republicans and Democrats and now how it covers President Trump and everyone else…and a heavy dose of disconnected arrogance. This has resulted in abysmal trust ratings among Americans.

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found fully 37 percent said they trust the media “not at all.” Another 31 percent said they have “not very much” trust in the news media. But more telling is the worldview breakdown on “How much do you trust the media?”:

Worldview                    A great deal   A good amount   Not very much   Not at all

Very liberal – Liberal               15%               40%                 27%                   17%

Moderate                                   5%                25%                 40%                   28%

Conservative –                           5%                9%                   28%                   57%
Very conservative

So the more liberal a person, the more they trust the media and the more conservative the less they trust the media. Among moderates, more distrust than trust.

This trust goes to the brink of absurdity in this strange poll question by Fox News Poll, which was largely negative about Trump — so hardly biased. When asked who was a bigger threat to the country, white supremacists or the media, 47 percent of respondents said white supremacists, while 40% said the media and 9 percent said they were the same. So half of Americans say the media is an equal or bigger threat to America than white supremacists. That is absurdly close, and even 24 percent of non-whites said the media.

Yet, when you break it down by Republican and Democrat, 12% of Democrats said the media while 69 percent of Republicans said the media. Independents were split evenly, within the margin of error — about half with an opinion said it was the media. See the chart below for more

(Apologies for the stupid small chart.)

And yet, with these straightforward, shocking numbers staring them right in the face, the media still does not see it’s liberal media bias as a problem — or even a real thing!

This plays out obviously in news coverage — obvious unless you are liberal, as the data shows. So liberal media consumers — and journalists — are the only two groups that see no obvious issue. It’s like the final scales should be falling, and yet the media remains utterly blind.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Obama

In the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, we saw:

  • North Korea miniaturized its nuclear weapons and reached the point of delivering them on ICBMs, meaning they can reach at least half of the United States with nuclear weapons. Media yawned.
  • The creation of the worst treaty since Munich with the signing of the Iran nuclear accords and providing the avowed enemy of the United States with billions of dollars in cash — flown to them on an airplane! Media covered glowingly.
  • The precipitous and disastrous pullout from Iraq and red-line waffling in Syria that opened the door to the world scourge that is ISIS and the cleansing of Christians and Yazidis from the region. Media pointed out George W. Bush started the Iraq War and ISIS is really bad. Was Obama president then?
  • The weakening of the United States military through funding cuts and the emboldenment of Russian aggression in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, leaving the free West in an overall weaker position. Media reported that Russia is bad!
  • The worst economy since the end of World War II, a “recovery” that was so weak that virtually no one could feel it as wages were stagnant, jobs below population growth and a sharp rise in income disparity. Media reminded us how terrible things were when Obama took office and that Republicans blocked all these good ideas.
  • The ruination of the healthcare system in the country to the point that even Democrats know that Obamacare has failed and needs dramatic changes. Media reported how hard it was for people to get good healthcare. The system’s broken! Was Obama president then?
  • Scandals such as the IRS targeting conservative groups, a la Richard Nixon; Obama’s knowing about Hillary’s private and unprotected email server; Obama seizing AP reporters’ phone records; Benghazi; gun-running Operation Fast and Furious; and so many more were big yawners to the media. Nothing to see here.

For eight years, the coverage was soft and largely positive. Many press conferences were downright fawning.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Trump

But almost overnight, the media found its fangs again. Compare the Obama coverage to just the first few months of the Trump presidency.

  • Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! But the unending protests and favorable coverage seem to have one point: Undermine the President. The obvious agenda and funding behind the protests go unreported in the mainstream media. But any similar protests of an Obama presidency would have been greeted with racism, racism, racism. In fact, that is what the media turned the Tea Party image into: Racists.
  • Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Hysterical coverage of the longed for collusion between Trump and Russia has come up empty. Months of coverage and wild, irresponsible speculation meant to undermine the President has resulted in…the equivalent of finding Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. Lots of nothing.
  • Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! And of course the media hyper-focuses on a few hundred white supremacist Nazis and does everything possible to tie Trump to them, then all Trump supporters to them, then all Republicans. The media makes the overt attempt to delegitimize the President, his supporters and the Republican Party. At the same time, they call the violent, masked mix of Marxists and anarchists that make up Antifa the good guys. Why? Because they oppose Trump and his supporters. The fact that Antifa was being violent against conservatives long before Charlottesville, and before Trump goes largely unreported. The media only noticed them at Charlottesville and called them merely “counter-protesters.”

The media has played the biggest role in polarizing Americans and breaking our ability to communicate with each other — more than the two parties and even the protesters. And for that, a very large chunk of Americans hate them or simply dismiss them as untrustworthy.

Few options to the deep media damage

Major Garrett, now with CNN, recently said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that his colleagues need to cover the president straightforward and honest. Just report what he says and does, and avoid all of the opinionating and pontificating that has erupted since January.

Good for him. That’s true…as far as it goes. But the media needs to step back much further and choose to cover the same types of stories with the same news judgment as it did with, say, Barak Obama. Otherwise, the above comparisons show that even following Major Garrett’s recommendation, coverage would still be terribly slanted.

The traditional media may well have passed the point of no return on this front with their deeply entrenched biases, incapable of seeing both the error of their way and the damage it has done to their industry. (See poll results above.)

The hatred and distrust of the mainstream media will just continue to feed the division between a left-leaning media establishment and a right-leaning media establishment and Americans choosing which meal they will dine on.

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

Destroying Monuments and Lies About Race

While in Baltimore visiting my 89 year old black dad, I thanked him for filling me and my four younger siblings with the Word of God. I told Dad how I would hear a minister on TV begin reciting a verse from the Bible and find myself reciting the verse along with him. I wondered how I knew that verse from the Bible. Then, it dawned on me, Dad filled us with the Word of God when we were kids. Dad chuckled and told me a story.

Aunt Nee asked Dad to deliver a payment to the Christian book store for a book she ordered. While browsing the store, a thick book of Bible stories with beautiful illustrations caught Dad’s eye. An older white woman saw Dad’s interest in the book. She approached Dad and asked him questions about himself.

The book cost $5.95. Dad asked if he could put the book on lay-a-way. Overhearing Dad’s conversation with the store clerk, the white woman offered to pay for the book. Dad said back then, he was not much of a reader, only comic books. Dad’s voice cracked and his eyes welled up when he told me this next part of his story. He told the white woman, “If you’re kind enough to buy me this book, I promise to read it.”

Dad read his five kids bedtime stories from that book which filled us with the Word of God. Dad said that book turned him into an avid reader which led to him becoming Dr. Reverend Lloyd E. Marcus, author and pastor of numerous churches. Dad also became Baltimore City Fire Department’s first black Chaplin. Dad’s encounter with the kind white woman in the Christian book store happened over 50 years ago. Seeing him get emotional while telling me about the incident surprised me.

In the early 1960’s, our school bus of black students from neighboring Pumphrey was the first to integrate Brooklyn Park Jr/Sr High School in Maryland. At my 50th high school reunion, I learned that white coach Mangum regularly brought black athletics to his home on weekends for his family’s cookouts and mentoring. I never knew blacks and whites socialized outside of school.

I am confident most of you could share wonderful tales of interracial friendships, acts of kindness and people overcoming their differences. Leftists are the ones who seek to keep the racial divide going.

Leftists love to promote rare incidents of racism while purposely ignoring the normalcy of Americans getting along.

By voting for Obama, white America clearly hoped to end our racial divide and apologize for slavery. Meanwhile, Leftists relentlessly promote their lie that America has not changed racially since the 1950s. Leftists say the only way to make things right (fair) in America is for government to control every aspect of our lives, get rid of the Constitution and force us to behave according to their socialist/progressive beliefs (anti-Christian, anti-America and anything goes morally). This is why Leftists cheered every time Obama overrode the Constitution with an illegal executive order that repealed another of our Constitutional rights.

During my Baltimore visit with Dad, several relatives stopped in to say hello. They were sympathetic to Colin Kaepernick who started the movement to dis our flag. They also sided with the thugs who are destroying Confederate monuments. Every black relative I spoke with was doing well, living their American dream. And yet, their anti-America and anti-Trump mindsets felt like an impermeable black cultural thing. Fake news media feeds their negative views of America and Trump. All my truths in defense of America and Trump fell on deaf ears. I felt like a stranger in a strange land, a voice of truth crying in the wilderness.

Jesus instructed his disciples,

“If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”

This is the approach I’ve taken with my relatives who refuse to believe the truth about the greatness of America and Trump striving to make her great for all Americans. I move on spreading truth elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I am hearing news reports of more American institutions, churches and so on getting rid of confederate symbols and monuments. All this mayhem over historical monuments is bought and paid for by George Soros. I hate seeing Americans surrendering to Soros’ hired evil hit squads. Leftists have launched their minions to wreck havoc in our streets because they cannot tolerate having a president in the White House who has America’s best interest at heart. Pure and simple.

I long to see a John Wayne American who will say, “Screw you, we’re not taking down historical monuments.” Bullies are typically cowards. All we need is people willing to stand up to them.

Clorox Company lies to defend ads on Huffington Post — Take Action by sending them an email.

Clorox blatantly lies to defend its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com.

Florida Family Association sent out email alerts the week of September 18, 2017 which reported that Clorox was a top advertiser at Huffingtonpost.com.  Thousands of people sent emails to encourage Clorox to stop supporting HuffPost’s propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Denise Hahn, Clorox Consumer Affairs Operations Manager responded to the emails it received with the following email message:

Thank you for reaching out to The Clorox Company about our advertising. We appreciate receiving feedback from our consumers and want to thank you for taking the time to share your opinions. The Clorox Company and our Family of Brands set strict criteria and standards around where our ads are placed to ensure that the media environment and corresponding content reflect our standards. For example, we do not advertise in or on politically focused programs, publications or websites, etc. While we do advertise on Huffington Post, we don’t place our ads in any of the political sections. But in this digital age, it can be difficult to track where our ads may appear. We would welcome you letting us know if you do see one of our ads in an inappropriate context.

However, Clorox is LYING to the public about placement of its ads at Huffingtonpost.com.  The following photos of Huffingtonpost.com on a mobile device prove it.

This photo of a cell phone taken on September 21, 2017  8:57 PM shows Clorox’s Liquidplumr at the top of the home page which includes ALL of Huffingtonpost.com’s political trash and social propaganda.

And this cell phone photo was taken two minutes later in the middle of the home page just above a political attack article.

There were several more Clorox ads posted on the home page that were not photographed.

Furthermore, AdChoices does not give advertisers the flexibility to choose to opt out of articles with specific content.

Clorox’s above statement is a blatant lie.

Seventeen examples of Huffington Post’s Islamist propaganda articles are posted at the bottom of this article.

Clorox certainly has the right to advertise in whatever forum it chooses.  You have the same right to voice concern regarding the content on such forums and choose to spend your money elsewhere

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Clorox directors to stop supporting  Huffingtonpost.com propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Click here to send your email to Clorox.

This email will open in your email browser unlike most email campaigns.  This is because Clorox is blocking emails from Florida Family Association’s email delivery server. If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below.

Cannot believe that Clorox is lying to defend advertising support of Huffingtonpost.com propaganda.

Suggested content:

I was very disappointed to learn that Clorox is blatantly lying about its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com who calls American military racists, fundraises for CAIR, defends the Muslim Brotherhood and publishes Islamist propaganda.

Please stop supporting Huffington Post propaganda with Clorox advertising dollars.

Email addresses:

Officers

Benno Dorer, Chairman and CEO
benno.dorer@clorox.com

Stephen Robb, CFO
steve.robb@clorox.com

Eric Reynolds, CMO
eric.reynolds@clorox.com

Directors

Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S.
Vice Chairman, Canyon Ranch
richardcarmona@canyonranchinstitute.org

Spencer C. Fleischer
Managing Partner, FFL Partners
sfleischer@fflpartners.com

Esther Lee
Executive Vice President – Global Chief Marketing Officer, MetLife, Inc.
estherlee@metlife.com

Russell J. Weiner
President, Domino’s USA
russell.weiner@dominos.com

Students Rake in Extra Credit After Taking Quiz on Their White Privilege

Students at San Diego State University can earn extra credit by taking a quiz that gauges their level of “white privilege,” according to a Tuesday report.

Professor Dae Elliott offers this extra credit in a sociology class, reported The College Fix. Her “White Privilege Checklist” asks students to peruse a list of 20 statements and check the ones that they think apply to them.

dcnf-logo

“The following are examples of ways white individuals have privilege because they are white,” states the quiz, which goes on to assert that white people have privilege because they can be around people of their race the majority of the time, can see people of their race “widely represented” in the newspaper or on TV, and can find “music of [their] race” in a music shop.

“I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk with the ‘person in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race” reads one statement on the quiz. Another says, “I can take a job or enroll in a college with an affirmative action policy without having my co-workers or peers assume I got it because of my race.”

After responding to the statements, the quiz informed students of other alleged privileges of class, religion, sexual orientation, and gender and asked students to respond to a series of reflection questions.

“[The quiz] asks my students to step out of their subjectivity, extend their understanding, and begin to be a conscious part of understanding and hence gaining more power and agency to effect change,” Elliott told The College Fix. “In a society that values fairness, our injustices that are institutionalized are often made invisible.”

“This is another attempt by the left, and professor Elliott, to divide America,” Brandon Jones, president of the university’s College Republicans, told The College Fix. “The left’s political goal is to ensure that minorities in America perpetuate that their primary problem is white racism.”

Racial curriculum at San Diego State University also came under scrutiny earlier in September with media discovery of the school’s “Black Minds Matter” course, which trained future educators to teach Black Lives Matter ideology.

“[The quiz] is an excellent prompt to get the students discussing issues around how institutions work,” Elliott told The Daily Caller News Foundation. She noted that the seemingly objective, authoritative phrasing of the concept of “white privilege” “is for the students to broach in the discussion.”

“[My class] is actually listed as one of the favorites as the ensuing discussions do exactly as intended and help my students see things from multiple perspectives,” said the professor. “I have no intention of censoring liberal or conservative thought in my class but encouraging engagement using reason and evidence.”

San Diego State University did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation in time for publication.

Rob Shimshock

Rob Shimshock is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ShimshockAndAwe

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

More than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: “[The quiz] is an excellent prompt to get the students discussing issues around how institutions work,” a professor says of a “white privilege” quiz her students take. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Gun Control Lobby Seeks to Thwart SHARE Act with Hysteria, Fear Mongering

Earlier this month we reported on the introduction of H.R. 3668, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) ActWithin weeks of its introduction, the bill had a hearing before the House Natural Resource Subcommittee on Federal Lands and passed out of the full Committee on Natural Resources. The panic is now starting to set in amongst the gun control lobby, which is desperately searching for ways to smear a bill that has been around for years in various forms without attracting much attention from the usual anti-gun extremists.

The true reason for their discontent is not so much the bill’s content – concerned as it is with hunting, land access, and law-abiding gun owners – but with how the bill’s success threatens to expose as lies the narratives they’re pushing about the current administration and America’s attitude toward guns. Trump has been a disaster for the gun industry, they crow. The NRA is a paper tiger, they insist. America is over guns, they exclaim.

None of it, of course, is true. 

Nor is most of what the media has said about the bill’s content accurate or enlightening.

As is typical when pro-gun legislation is on the move, newspaper writers who in many cases have never owned or shot a firearm conjure up indignant talking points about subject matter of which they have no understanding.

That’s why, for example, you had Dana Milbank of the Washington Point making claims about suppressors that the fact-checker of the very paper that employs him had already contradicted. And it’s why Gail Collins of the New York Times is shocked that long gun ammunition with non-lead projectile components (which she refers to as “armor piercing bullets”) is already on the market.

Even people who should know better are displaying their ignorance … or maybe just their opportunism to latch onto lucrative anti-gun consulting agreements.

A former ATF agent turned gun control lobbyist insisted at the bill’s recent hearing that several provisions of the SHARE Act would endanger law enforcement officers. Some of the same policy initiatives that he cited, however, were endorsed by ATF’s current second ranking official as opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens “without significantly hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety.”

A writer who claims to have been a park ranger also criticized a portion of the bill that seeks to standardize rules for carrying firearms on certain federal waterfront recreational areas with those already in place at national parks and national forests, among other federal lands. “Why does a hunter need to carry a firearm on Hoover Dam or Lake Mead, which gets 7 million visitors a year?” he asks. “Are there really good hunting opportunities on a lake filled with thousands of recreational boaters?”

The provisions in question, however, are aimed at carrying for self-defense, not hunting, which is already allowed on many of the areas that would be affected by this portion of the bill. That’s why the title he cites (and apparently didn’t bother to read) is captioned, “RECREATIONAL LANDS SELF-DEFENSE ACT.”

The same writer goes on to claim: “And then there are the provisions eliminating all restrictions on the purchase of silencers, eliminating restrictions on armor-piercing bullets, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms across state lines.”

The bill doesn’t do any of these things. Under the SHARE Act, the purchase of suppressors would remain subject to the same federal regulations as firearms themselves. Regulations on “armor-piercing bullets” would remain on the books but focus more clearly on the handgun ammunition that most threatens law-enforcement officers. And the bill does nothing to change rules about “carrying” firearms across state lines. It merely makes a current law protecting the transport of secured, unloaded firearms enforceable against anti-gun states and localities that have openly defied it.

But the primary concern of pro-gun Americans should not be the usual elites who are predictably criticizing legislation they don’t understand, but members of Congress who need to understand that law-abiding gun owners support it.

Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW and ask him or her to vote YES on H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office, or you can send an email using our Take Action tool.

Your representative needs to hear from you TODAY to ensure the momentum building behind this historic legislation continues to grow.

Ask Your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act.

Please contact your U.S. Representative NOW and ask him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 3668, the SHARE Act. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

City Abruptly Eliminates Police Chief Finalist for Supporting Immigration Enforcement

A highly qualified and respected veteran law enforcement official with impressive credentials was precipitously eliminated as a finalist to be police chief in a U.S. city after officials discovered he endorsed immigration enforcement. Judicial Watch is investigating and has filed a public records request to obtain details about the troublesome case in which the support for the rule of law served as a disqualifier for a candidate hired to enforce the rule of law. It also marks yet another example nationwide of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness and the negative impact illegal immigration is having on taxpayers.

The unbelievable story involves the northern Colorado city of Ft. Collins’ search for a new police chief. Steve Henry, a former chief deputy for the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in central Arizona applied for the position. The 55-year-old law enforcement veteran spent nearly two decades at PCSO, an agency with a $39 million budget that patrols a county the size of Connecticut. Henry is a U.S. Army veteran who obtained his undergraduate degree at Arizona State University and graduate degree at Northern Arizona University. He also holds a degree from the Harvard JFK School of Government and attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. He has 23 years of continuous and stellar law enforcement service.

Henry was among 65 applicants for the Ft. Collins police chief job and was recently notified that he was one of six finalists. He was invited to travel to Ft. Collins to interview with city officials, specifically the city manager, who oversees the police chief. Henry’s offer was abruptly rescinded, according to a source closely involved with the selection process, because he publicly supported an Arizona law (SB1070) that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and bans “sanctuary city” policies. The measure also allows local law enforcement officers throughout the state to inquire about suspects’ immigration status. “Three of the top six candidates were dumped for a public stance on one issue or another,” Judicial Watch’s source said. “Political correctness is destroying America when a city government does not want a chief who supports the rule of law.” Judicial Watch reached out to Ft. Collins City Manager Darin Atteberry for comment but an assistant named Rachel left Judicial Watch a voice message saying Atteberry had “back-to-back meetings” for days and would not be available. Judicial Watch also sent Atteberry questions via electronic mail to his official city address (datteberry@fcgov.com) but he did not return them.

A California-based company called Ralph Anderson and Associates that provides cities, counties and state agencies with executive search and consulting services is handling the search for Ft. Collins police chief. The city hired the firm after its police chief resigned in May following a series of scandals, including the use of excessive force in several instances and a $425,000 settlement to two officers who claimed the department discriminated against them based on their race. The Ft. Collins Police Department has 327 employees, 213 of them sworn officers and an annual budget of $46.5 million. Nestled against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Ft. Collins is the state’s fourth largest city with a population of about 157,000. It’s home to Colorado State University, the state’s flagship public college, and local government supports offering illegal immigrants sanctuary. Ft. Collins Mayor Wade Troxell said in a local newspaper report that the city is an open, inclusive and friendly community and that “all people matter.” Members of the city council have consistently said they support diversity and want the city to be a welcoming place for all people.

Henry was informed by a Ralph Anderson and Associates official that he was eliminated as a candidate after the discovery of two news stories in which Henry was quoted supporting Arizona’s immigration control measure, SB1070. The Anderson and Associates official said the articles made Atteberry, the Ft. Collins city manager, leery about hiring Henry because, among other things, the city is a university town. With the city refusing to explain what happened, the chain of events indicates that a highly qualified candidate got eliminated from the final six police chief applicants due to his support for the rule of law. There was no crime, misconduct or character flaw on his part, just support in his capacity at Pinal County for Arizona’s commitment to assist federal law enforcement in an effort to secure borders and implement federal trespassing statutes. As for the Ft. Collins public officials, it never looks good when they dodge the hard questions involving questionable decisions.

Totalitarianism, Anarchism and Our Growing Discontents

David Carlin on the rising forces of the American Left: they begin as Democrats, then become anarchists, and, as history proves, will end up as totalitarians.

Given the history of Communism in Russia, China, and elsewhere, we have good reason to fear that political leftism will have totalitarian tendencies, even when the leftists in question happen to be Americans. That’s so, but there’s a further danger beyond the threat of tyranny. Please bear with me as I try to explain.

There’s an odor of totalitarianism in the many efforts being made by leftists nowadays to repress certain manifestations of free speech and freedom of conscience. We are told that “hate speech” doesn’t deserve the protections that are normally given to all other kinds of speech. For hate speech, unlike scientific speech and pornography (allegedly), does harm.

We are also told that when somebody engages in racist hate speech, this does serious harm, both direct and indirect, to African-Americans and other “persons of color.” And this harm is more serious than the harm done by, let’s say, pickpockets.  The same goes for homophobic hate speech. If we can ban pickpocketing, why can’t we ban hate speech?

Our leftists would agree, at least as an abstract proposition, that freedom of conscience is an excellent thing. But if your conscience tells you, a member of the KKK, to beat up a black man, should the rest of us, should the law, respect your freedom of conscience? Of course not.

But if your conscience tells you not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding celebration, is that any different?

Some of us (myself, for example) think we detect embryonic forms of totalitarianism in this leftist crusade against hate speech and freedom of conscience. Others (leftists) think people like me are moral dinosaurs, trying to block a wonderful movement that is “on the right side of history.”

Allow me to suggest, however, that totalitarianism isn’t the ultimate leftist aim. The ultimate aim is anarchism. Totalitarianism is an intermediate step between the dreadful present and the anarchist ideal of total freedom.

Click here to read the rest of Professor Carlin’s column . . .

David Carlin

David Carlin

David Carlin is professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Anarchists shopping in Seattle. © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

 

Nearly 30% of Public School Teachers Are ‘Chronically’ Skipping Classes, Study Says

Almost 30 percent of public school teachers are “chronically” skipping classes, according to a new study.

Over 28 percent of public school educators miss 11 or more school days each year, discovered a report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education policy nonprofit think tank.

dcnf-logo

The study, released Wednesday, found that public school teachers are three times more likely than their charter school counterparts to take more than 10 days a year off school for personal or health-related reasons.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute also revealed the average teacher takes eight days off per year. This figure is over twice as large as the three-and-a-half days missed by the average employee across industries nationwide.

Teachers employed by unionized charter schools were two times as likely as their peers to miss more than 10 days of school a year, the report revealed.

“When in doubt, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one,” David Griffith, the author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “And the simplest explanation for the teacher chronic absenteeism gap between charter and traditional public schools is that the latter are usually subject to collective bargaining agreements that are extremely generous when it comes to the amount of sick and personal leave that teachers are guaranteed.”

Griffith referenced Hawaiian teachers, who receive 18 paid sick leave days out of their 180-day school year. The study says that nearly four-fifths of Hawaiian teachers take advantage of at least 10 of these days.

“In general, the union response defends these sorts of provisions by arguing that teachers are more likely to get sick than workers in other industries,” Griffith said. He noted the statement likely bears some truth.

“There’s a very direct link between teacher attendance and student achievement; so if teachers are missing more than two weeks of school (which is how teacher chronic absenteeism is defined), then students are losing about two weeks of education. And that’s incredibly damaging to their long-term prospects,” Griffith said.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has advocated school choice and alternatives to public school, including charter schools and school vouchers.

Rob Shimshock

Rob Shimshock is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ShimshockAndAwe

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: “There’s a very direct link between teacher attendance and student achievement,” says the author of a Thomas B. Fordham Institute report. (Photo: iStock Photos) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Bernie Sanders’s 1960s worldview makes bad foreign policy

Bernie Sanders is exactly the type of Socialist Donald Trump had in mind when he explained the reasons for Venezuela’s failure at the United Nations earlier this week.

“The problem in Venezuela,” the president said, “is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

In a major foreign policy speech delivered from the same Westminster College campus where Winston Churchill gave his famous “Iron Curtain” speech more than 70 years ago, Sanders trotted out just about every shibboleth of the tired old Socialist left, with surprisingly little inventiveness or variation.

It was a speech of anti-militarist and anti-capitalist diatribe, sprinkled with attacks on President Trump and his supporters — just the type of thing that has made Sanders the darling of liberal arts college students.

Iraq was a disaster that left tens of thousands of Americans “wounded in body and spirit from a war we should never have started” Applause.

The U.S. “spend(s) more on defense than the next 12 nations combined, … (at the same time) they want to throw 32 million Americans off of the health insurance they currently have.” Applause.

Income inequality is the scourge of the past, present and future, in the world according to Sanders. “This planet will not be secure or peaceful when so few have so much, and so many have so little.” Applause.

With the exception of his insistence on the “crisis” of climate change, there was little in this speech that could not have been uttered in the 1960s, either by outgoing U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (whose famous “military-industrial complex” speech Sanders quoted at length) or by Timothy Leary.

You want to know America’s biggest problem? In the world according to Sanders, it’s America’s success.

To Sanders, our military power is a problem, a really big problem. “Partnership, rather than dominance,” should direct U.S. policy toward the world, not U.S. military solutions to problems. “We must rethink the old Washington mindset that judges “seriousness” according to the willingness to use force.”

Sanders believes that America’s unparalleled economic success is not just a problem, but a threat to the rest of the world. “There is no moral or economic justification for the six wealthiest people in the world having as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population – 3.7 billion people.”

But hey, don’t worry, Bernie will take care of that. He’ll just confiscate their wealth and redistribute it to the less fortunate so we can all be poor and miserable together.

Sanders really doesn’t like Donald Trump, in case anyone didn’t notice. Just like his friends in the national media, the senator thinks that Trump should give up on threatening Kim Jong un, and offer him more carrots than John Kerry offered the Iranians.

And just like that wonderfully successful Iran deal, that “advanced the security of the US and its partners, and it did this at a cost of no blood and zero treasure,” surely Rocket Man will see how generous and kind we are and will volunteer to give up his nuclear weapons and his ballistic missiles, because we promise to give him goodies.

To those of us brought up in the 1960s, it’s all depressingly familiar. Blame America first, abandon U.S. power and might and kowtow to a consortium of nations that despise us and seek our destruction — otherwise known as the United Nations — and the world will become a wonderful place.

While Bernie likes to contrast the Iraq war to the Iran deal — and no contrast better illustrates his worldview — it’s precisely here that his 1960s socialist vision breaks down.

The United States tried to woo Saddam Hussein. In 1989, under President George H.W. Bush, the United States was set to shower the Iraqi dictatorwith billions of dollars of U.S. high technology, most of it to be delivered on credits financed with taxpayer dollars.

But like any true dictator, Saddam wanted more. When he invaded Kuwait, even Bush 41 said enough was enough.

After another 12 years of crippling sanctions and the toughest arms control regime ever devised by the United States and its partners, Saddam still wasn’t ready to throw in the towel. Despite 17 UN Security Council resolutions condemning him, including multiple authorizations of force under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, it still took U.S. leadership and military might to force Saddam’s hand.

And even then, just as U.S. and allied forces were crossing the borders into Iraq, he had still been manufacturing outlawed ballistic missiles (Al-Samoud 2 missiles), according to the chief United Nations arms inspector, Hans Blix.

The lesson is simple, but it’s a tough one to accept if you’re a 20-year-old liberal arts major who might be subject to the draft: Some national security threats to our nation must be dealt with by force, and by force alone.

When Iran finally tests its first nuclear weapon — developed thanks to the Iran deal — Senator Sanders and his ilk will predictably blame the U.S. military-industrial complex and militarists in Congress for angering the Iranians.

Once again, it will be our fault.

And that is what’s fundamentally wrong with Bernie’s 1960s vision of the world. Far from being the source of all evil in the world, as Bernie thinks, America remains the world’s last bulwark against evil.

Who will you want to call when things go desperately wrong? Something tells me, for most Americans, it won’t be Bernie.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Lib Teacher Tries to Mx up Kids on Gender

It’s hard enough to raise kids these days without worrying if their teachers are working against you! Unfortunately, that’s exactly what seems to be happening in public schools these days, as elementary schools become even more brazen in their liberal indoctrination. We talked about what’s happening in Rocklin, California yesterday. Today’s threat is in Tallahassee, Florida, where a teacher was quite up front about her real agenda for the year.

In a letter to parents, Canopy Oaks Fifth Grade teacher Chloe Bressack warned homes that only politically-correct pronouns would be tolerated.

“One thing you that you should know about me is that I use gender neutral terms. My prefix is Mx. (pronounced Mix). Additionally, my pronouns are ‘they, them, their,’ instead of ‘he, his, she, hers.’ I know it takes some practice for it to feel natural, but in my experience, students catch on pretty quickly. We’re not going for perfection, just making an effort! …My priority is for all of my students to be comfortable in my classroom and have a space where they can be themselves while learning.”

What if a student is most comfortable being their actual gender (which, I assume in the Fifth Grade, would be the majority)? What if embracing this radical ideology (one the American College of Pediatricians calls “child abuse”) is uncomfortable and scary — as the kids in Rocklin expressed? Don’t their feelings matter? Local parents certainly think it should. Moms and dads are fuming about the policy, which they made quite clear on a Facebook group.

Unfortunately, Canopy Oaks Principal Paul Lambert has no intention of heeding families’ concerns — or common sense. “We support her preference in how she’s addressed, we certainly do. I think a lot of times, it might be decided that there’s an agenda there, because of her preference — I can tell you her only agenda is teaching math and science at the greatest level she can.”

How can a person teach science at the “greatest level” if she doesn’t understand basic biology? Or the English language? Apart from being outrageous, the plural pronouns “they, them, and theirs” are incorrect for addressing a single child. When pressed, Lambert did admit to reporters that the school had fielded a lot of calls from concerned parents who object to the reeducation of their kids. But even Superintendent Rocky Hanna refuses to intervene. In a tone-deaf statement to the Tallahassee Democrat, he insisted that “teachers in our district will not be allowed to use their influence in the classroom to advance any personal belief or political agenda. At this time, I do not believe that is the case in this instance.” Then what, exactly, is this — apart from a gross misunderstanding of a teachers’ role, scientific law, and the rules of grammar? How would they respond if a teacher in Mr. Hanna’s district sent a letter home saying they would only use the proper biologically correct pronouns in a classroom? Would they support that teacher as not promoting an agenda?

Stories like this one are cropping up in every corner of the country — and the only way to stop them is for parents to get involved before bad decisions are made! It’s time for more moms and dads to run for seats on the school board, where they can take back control of our classrooms. As my good friend, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) says, “We need to push back our vision as Christians to not just vote — but run for office or recruit other Christians to run. We should be just as focused on Filing Day as we are Election Day! Rather than being reactionary (as is often portrayed in article after article of Christians flooding school board meetings AFTER a bad policy decision and trying to convince school board members to change their minds), we should be proactive and purposeful in recruiting Christians to run for school boards in the first place and avoid the problem to begin with.”

She has a book that will help you do exactly that called, Running God’s Way. Pick up a copy and learn how you can start taking back your community!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 21 Washington Update:

For Senate: Life Begins at 50… Votes

On Adoption, Left Attacks Mich. Again


Previous Washington Update Articles »

California Poised to Provide ‘Sanctuary’ to Alien Criminals and Terrorists

On September 18, 2017, roughly one week after the 16th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the LA Times reported on California’s “sanctuary state” bill-SB 54 that would ostensibly “expand protections for immigrants” by preventing officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

To understand the ominousness of this measure, we must look back to the 9/11 Commission’s official “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” report, which focused on the multiple failures of the immigration system that enabled the 9/11 terrorists and other international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

This explicit paragraph explains how sanctuary policies that confound DHS efforts to enforce immigration laws undermines America’s counterterrorism operations:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

This is why each and every illegal alien, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a criminal record, must not be shielded from detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

However, commonsense regarding the need for proper immigration law enforcement is being overshadowed by the manipulations of proponents of immigration anarchy. The LA Times article’s very headline — referring to “immigrants” — highlights the insidious manipulation of language that has made honest discussions about immigration virtually impossible. The process was initiated long ago by the Carter administration, which demanded that the term “Illegal alien” be stricken from the lexicon of INS employees and replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.”

The removal of that single word — alien — from the vernacular has had a huge impact on the entire immigration debate, causing many decent and otherwise sensible Americans to be deceived into believing “sanctuary cities” exemplify altruism when quite the opposite is true.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term alien simply means, “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”  There is no insult in the term “alien” — only clarity. In fact, the title of the DREAM Act actually includes the verboten term “alien” (the DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act).

​Going back to the LA Times headline, in reality, lawful immigrants have absolutely no need for protection from immigration law enforcement officers. The only aliens who are at risk from adverse actions being taken against them by ICE agents are those aliens who either entered the United States illegally or, following lawful entry through a port of entry, either violated the terms of their admission into the United States or have committed criminal offenses in the United States.

Lawful immigrants do, however, have serious need for protection: they need protection from criminal aliens who lurk in their ethnic immigrant communities, plying their criminal trades. These individuals pose the greatest threat to the immigrants among whom they live irrespective of their ethnicities or countries of birth.

“Sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” such as California, which shield illegal aliens and the criminals and terrorists among them from immigration law enforcement authorities, create a life and death nightmare for the residents of the towns, cities and states that attract aliens who face deportation from the country.

During his administration, President George W. Bush attempted, fortunately without success, to create a “guest worker” program for millions of illegal aliens. Bush also played the “name game” and frequently called for “making immigrants legal” while he was, in actuality, calling for a massive amnesty program for unknown millions of illegal aliens.

Back then, Senate Bill S. 2611, legislation that would have created such an amnesty program, attracted the ire and concern of House Republicans who understood the dangers that such an ill-conceived program would create for America’s national security.  Consequently, on July 27, 2006 a hearing. called by the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims addressed the dangers inherent in such a program.

During my testimony at this hearing, I stated that any member of Congress who would vote to provide lawful status and identity documents to millions of illegal aliens should be given the “MVP Award” by Al-Qaeda.

Effective enforcement of our immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, not only helps to prevent terrorists from setting up shop in communities around the country, but similarly combats pernicious transnational gangs, as well as drug trafficking and human trafficking organizations.

The protection of law abiding US citizens, including lawful immigrants, is not a concern for illegal immigration extremists. Case in point: On September 14, 2017 the L.A. Times reported reported on how, under proposed legislation, the California Justice Department would oversee shared gang databases across the state.

Sharing such data is vital for effective law enforcement to achieve essential goals. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission report highlighted the lack of interagency cooperation to share data.  However, this news article reported that the proposed creation of a technical advisory council would, under a new amendment, make certain to shield the gang databases from review by immigration law enforcement.

This is nothing short of obstruction of justice.

Here is the relevant and infuriating paragraph:

The state attorney general also would establish a technical advisory council — comprising law enforcement officials, gang intervention experts and community members — to help ensure law enforcement agencies are following the statewide standards. New amendments would prevent agencies from sharing records from the database with federal authorities for the purpose of immigration enforcement, part of negotiations that also scaled back a separate “sanctuary state” bill in the state Senate

Hypocritically, the open borders/immigration anarchists insist that “Undocumented Immigrants” seldom commit crimes” yet members of the California government are concerned about providing information to ICE about aliens who are members of violent gangs.

Jails and prison are often optimistically referred to as “correctional facilities.”  The hope is that criminals can be reformed during their periods of incarceration.  Unfortunately, all too often convicted felons return to their lives of crime upon their release, victimizing still more innocent people.

Deportation (removal) is the best solution when we are dealing with criminal aliens and recidivism.  Therefore, orders of deporation are tantamount to orders of protection for Americans.

Furthermore, in the early 1980s I convinced then-New York Senator Al D’Amato to draft a bill that would impose a 20-year maximum penalty on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then unlawfully reentered the United States.  That bill was enacted and is an element of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1326.

The point is to deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States, thereby protecting their potential victims. Sanctuary cities and states shield such alien convicts from detection by ICE, thereby endangering the lives of innocent people including members of the ethnic immigrant communities that attract these violent criminals seeking to evade the long arm of the immigration law enforcement.

Today, members of international terrorist organizations and transnational gangs should give political proponents of sanctuary cities and states their MVP Award.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw from Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington, D.C.:  Today 45 national security experts, many of whom held senior positions in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw the United States from the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) using a comprehensive plan drafted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

The signatories believe President Trump was exactly right during the campaign when he said the JCPOA is one of the worst agreements ever negotiated.  They believe this agreement is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons while the deal is in effect, has extremely weak verification provisions, and ignores Iran’s increasingly destabilizing behavior.  Because of the enormous risks the JCPOA poses to American and international security and the impossibility of convincing Iran to amend the agreement, the signers believe the only option is for the United States to withdraw and initiate a new, more comprehensive approach that addresses all of the threats posed by Iran – including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism – with a broad alliance that includes Israel and America’s Gulf State allies.

The signatories endorse Ambassador Bolton’s plan to implement this approach by withdrawing from the JCPOA in coordination with America’s allies.  The signers believe the Bolton plan is the best way to reverse the damage done by the reckless concessions that Obama officials made to Iran to negotiate the JCPOA and to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from spinning out of control as North Korea’s nuclear effort has.

Some of the eminent individuals who signed the letter include:

  • Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
  • Ambassador Henry F. “Hank” Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director
  • Dr. Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
  • Mr. Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
  • Dr. William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
  • Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
  • Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories
  • Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

The full text of the letter is below.

September 21, 2017

The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC

Dear President Trump:

We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.

We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.

We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal.  Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor.  Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years.  In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.

We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.

In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement.  This has not happened.  To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened.  Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches.  There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget.  Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria.  Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.

Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.

We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA.  The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.  Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.

Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years.  A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it.  Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic.  Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation.  The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.

Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran.  This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran.  He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.

We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.

As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month.  It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.

ATTACHMENT: “Abrogating The Iran Deal: The Way Forward” By Ambassador John Bolton

Sincerely,

Winston Lewis Amselem
U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.)
Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper
Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

Stephen Coughlin
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst

Jack David
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy

Paula A. DeSutter
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance

Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia

Jessie Jane Duff
Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.)
Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research

Dr. Manfred Eimer
Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Fritz Ermarth
Retired CIA officer.  Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council

Douglas J. Feith
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Frederick Fleitz
Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

Daniel J. Gallington
Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks

D. Scott George
Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.

Dr. William R. Graham
Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament

Larry K. Grundhauser
Brigadier General, USAF Retired

Philip Haney
Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer

George William Heiser II
Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff

Richard T. Higgins
Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council

Peter Huessy
President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security

Ambassador Eric M. Javits
Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

Ambassador Robert G. Joseph
Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission

Morton A. Klein
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President

Dr. Charles M. Kupperman
Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament

Herbert I. London
President, London Center for Policy Research

Robert L. Luaces
Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs

Admiral James A. Lyons
U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.)
Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

Daniel Pollak
Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry
Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the
Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA

George Rasley
Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant

Major General Edward M. Reeder
U.S. Army (Ret.)

Ambassador C. Paul Robinson
Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories.  Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks

Nina Rosenwald
Founder and President, Gatestone Institute

Mark Schneider
Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy.  Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense.  Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.

Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret)
Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research.  Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative

Sarah Stern
Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

Kenneth R. Timmerman
President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

Victoria Toensing
Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee

Adam Turner
General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

J. Michael Waller
Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications

David Wurmser
Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney

ABROGATING THE IRAN DEAL: THE WAY FORWARD
By Ambassador John Bolton

I. Background:

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:

(i)  Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;
(ii)  Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;
(iii)  Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and
(iv)  Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –
(I)  appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and
(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.

U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.

Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.

The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.

We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

II. Campaign Plan Components

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:

1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.
3. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

1. Early, quiet consultations with key players

It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.

This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.

The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.

2. Prepare the documented strategic case

The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.

Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.

A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.

3. Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement

The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.

Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.

After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.

Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.

Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.

In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.

4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts

The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.

Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.

The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:

  • End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;
  • End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;
  • Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;
  • Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
  • Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;
  • Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;
  • Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;
  • Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

IV. Conclusion

This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

1. Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

The Female Jihadi

If one needed a convincing example of the damage done to the female psyche by a strict Islamic upbringing, look no farther than to Linda Sarsour.

The treatment of women is brutally degrading within Islam; they are raped and harassed daily, and “not worthy of protection.” Traditional gender roles provide that men are superior to women and the female is responsible for the family’s honor; hence, they must be obedient to the many prohibitions or punished – even murdered.

Islam should be considered a shame-honor religion as Arab and Muslim cultures are shame-honor cultures that provide a means of manipulation and control by the family or group.  It allows for no creativity and no autonomy.  When shame becomes a destructive force, it leads the victimized family member to seek revenge and spill blood.  It is brought by the families who migrate to the West, and further exacerbated if they observe traditional rigid regulations of surveillance, a key concept that leads to tension and crippling development.

The daughter (and the son up to age 7) spends her time with the devalued mother who was herself a deprived, distressed child who grew into a troubled adulthood, unable to nurture healthy children.  The girls especially do not develop independently but understand that they are like their mother and any other women who serve as wives to the authoritarian male head of household. The women live in dread of losing favor, of being beaten, abused, kept naked in isolation, or even annihilated. If the husband divorces her, by simply repeating the divorce mantra thrice, she is left with only the dowry provided by her parents at the time of her arranged marriage.

The child is injured by their strict sharia laws, and by the disharmony, rivalry and envy that exist within the Islamic household, not to mention the fear and anger caused by the intense political hatred found in the Koran and repeated in their prayers five times daily. The pre-adolescent girl is further traumatized and degraded by the physically and psychologically painful Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) that is performed on her without anesthesia, under non-medical conditions, that may well cause lifelong infection.

Children living under circumstances of neglect, abuse, and trauma grow up with defective bonding relations and stay forever connected to the mother, in a painful traumatic bonding or terror bonding. When the daughter is ultimately given in marriage to a man of any age, not of her choosing, she is programmed to replicate the life of her devalued mother.

A young Muslim in Gaza or Judea and Samaria (West Bank) would have experienced enough shame to be overwhelmed by rage and aggression, resulting in never developing empathy with others.  They are treated as objects from an early age and, thus, treat as mere objects real people with real needs.  Boys who are radicalized at an early age bond violently and aggressively to females, including to the mother; girls internalize that same male rage, also directing it against the female and eventually become pawns of male extremist groups.

So now we have Linda Sarsour, the oldest of seven children born to a Muslim family from Gaza and living among people of the same background in Brooklyn, New York.  She promotes herself by championing “cool issues,” but seeks leadership roles to promote Islam and Palestinian self-determination. She professes to stand for the feminist movement, but rejects all who support Israel and silences any who speak of Islam’s severe cruelty to women.

She spoke briefly of her ties to her mother when she said she had to attend the local school, her mother’s choice. No doubt, her spare time was spent assisting with the care of her six younger siblings at the expense of a typical American childhood, thus denied the opportunity to play and work through fantasy life.

Steeped in the Islamic ideology and the Palestinian narrative, Sarsour endured FGM and shuts down all who criticize the practice. She was limited to meeting young men and women of her own heritage and shared mentality and chose the hijab for further identification.  Given in marriage at age 17 to her parents’ preference, she bore three children by the time she was in her early twenties. Where she is duty-bound to repress her anger against her family about her own personal abuse, she directs her rage outwardly against Americans, women, and the President of the United States.  

She joined several Muslim organizations and labeled herself a “radical activist,” that is, a civilizational jihadist, an Islamic supremacist who, through multicultural coalitions, seeks to curry the favor of the public to accept Islam. She has joined rallies of Nation of Islam, Black Lives Matter and, more recently, the Women’s March. She is deeply involved with community, may seek a City Council candidacy and ponder the idea of mayor of New York City.

Islam is democracy’s sworn enemy because their belief system, their raison d’etre, is based on envy and hatred. The Koran contains 109 versus that decree war with Jews and Christians, commands all manner of torture and extermination, and warns that non-fighters for Allah will go to hell, because Mohammed was offended when the Jews rejected his religion. One of many such commands is “Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given. 9:29

A subtle proponent of the prescribed terrorism, Sarsour is a jihadi.  Pew Research estimates that 330 million Muslims believe in violent jihad, a number that exceeds that of the Nazis. Although not trained in armed warfare, Sarsour conducts her own war with lies and propaganda, and her cries of Palestinian injustice and suffering through social media and the Women’s March. She bears a strong odium for Israel, and was proud to share a stage with a convicted terrorist murder of two Jewish university students.

As she thwarts all comments about women’s oppression under Islam, she extols the benefits of FGM, by explaining it as a mere “cut.”  And it is here that we find her not trying to free her oppressed female co-religionists, but sanctioning their position of submission, their bondage, and the pathology of her severe jihadi hatred of women. She warns American Muslims not to assimilate. Of Brigitte Gabriel, Sarsour tweeted, “I wish I could take their (female sexual organs) away; they don’t deserve to be women.”  Of Ayaan Hirsi Ali she tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Sarsour is pathologically fused to, dependent on, and smothered by her mother.  While male jihadists attempt to cleanse and release themselves from the maternal bond by killing others, she has exposed a similar malignancy in her desire for bloody violence against her despised enemies, which include all women, Israel, and President Donald Trump. Unable or unwilling to join the physical war, she will continue seeking to inveigle the public through her multicultural activism, spewing hatred and finding her own path of perpetual rage as she works to make the misogynist sharia law, Islamic violence and destruction, legally part of our American way of life.

Acknowledgment: Kobrin, Nancy Hartevelt, PhD, (2016) The Jihadi Dictionary; Mamaroneck, NY, Multieducator Press.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Hampshire: Muslim refugee charged with inappropriate sexual contact with several young girls

Trump administration considering dropping Pakistan as an ally

Long overdue and much needed.

“US weighs dropping Pakistan as an ally,” by Katrina Manson, Financial Times, September 15, 2017:

The Trump administration is considering dropping Pakistan as an ally as it examines tough measures to quell more than 20 terrorist groups it says are based in the country.

Officials familiar with the Pakistan prong of Washington’s new “AfPak” strategy — which involves an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and praise for India — say it has yet to be fleshed out. But they have plenty of levers.

President Donald Trump last month promised to get tough on Pakistan, accusing it of “housing the very terrorists that we are fighting”. It was the most public breach yet in an often rocky relationship.

“No US president has come out on American national television and said such things about Pakistan,” said Husain Haqqani, former Pakistan ambassador to the US.

“US policymakers are at the end of their tethers about what they see as Pakistan not helping them while promising to help them.”

The administration has already put $255m in military aid on hold after Mr Trump announced the policy shift. It is eyeing an escalating series of threats, which include cutting some civilian aid, conducting unilateral drone strikes on Pakistani soil and imposing travel bans on suspect officers of the ISI, the country’s intelligence agency. It could also revoke Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally or designate it a state sponsor of terrorism.

The latter options would limit weapons sales and probably affect billions of dollars in IMF and World Bank loans, along with access to global finance….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer: Trump Is Right — Pakistan Is No Ally

Iran decries “cowboy” Trump’s “ignorant hate speech” at UN

EDITORS NOTE: According to the Center for Global Development, “The United States began providing economic assistance along and military aid to Pakistan shortly after the country’s creation in 1947. In total, the United States obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. The levels year to year have waxed and waned for decades as US geopolitical interests in the region have shifted. Peaks in aid have followed years of neglect. In several periods, including as recently as the 1990s, US halted aid entirely and shut the doors of the USAID offices. This pattern has rendered the United States a far cry from a reliable and unwavering partner to Pakistan over the years.” Read more.