pbs logo

DEFUND: The Dazzlingly Bad Idea of Government-Funded Media

There are bad ideas, and then there are really bad ideas.

Government-funded national media resides in the realm of really bad ideas. Make no mistake, this is precisely what NPR and PBS are — government-funded media, an idea totally inimical to the founders’ concept in the First Amendment of a free and unfettered media.

President Trump is dead-on in wanting to defund this, as are many conservatives.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was formed in 1967, embedded in the Great Society years that have proven so disastrous on so many levels — from locking in generational poverty to facilitating the disintegration of the family to diminishing labor participation rates.

A side note to the terrible Great Society ideas was the creation of public radio and television. Because in addition to the federal government becoming a nanny to every American’s needs and desires, government also decided they knew best what types of media were essential for Americans to consume. No, Americans could not possibly choose this appropriately on their own.

Who knows what sort of disdainful, low-brow choices they would make? Elvis Presley and the The Beatles? Paintings that don’t look like something a five-year-old spilled? National Review? Rush Limbaugh? No thank you. The federal government could not possibly allow that to be their only intake. They would ensure that all Americans could listen to — and be forced to pay for — classical and jazz music, plus the endless ultra progressive prattling of the news side.

Public media thinks very highly of themselves

As befitting the high-brows they are, the CPB see themselves as essential to the betterment of every American. Here is how the organization describes their mission:

“Public media creates and distributes content that is for, by and about Americans of all diverse backgrounds; and services that foster dialogue between the American people and the stations that serve them. In addition to providing free high-quality, educational programming for children, arts, and award winning current affairs programming, public media stations provide life-saving emergency alert services.”

There are so many problems with that single paragraph, and they all point to the operational blinders on the CPB.

  • “…for, by and about Americans of all diverse backgrounds;” This is not true, but it does mimic the mainstream media and progressive penchant for thinking that people who look different create diversity even if they all think alike. I’ve never met a public broadcast news person who was not liberal. Oh sure progressives consider a black liberal, a white liberal, an Hispanic liberal, a gay liberal and a female liberal a rainbow of diversity. But when one is producing news content, the outcome is essentially no difference among them.
  • “…services that foster dialogue between the American people and the stations that serve them.” Not true again. I know few conservatives who interact with public broadcast, for reasons ranging from philosophic opposition to government-funded media to frustration with their worldview being under constant fire with their own tax dollars. The dialogue, such as there is, is among the center to left who imbibe the doctrine and like music not popular in the broader culture.
  • “In addition to providing free high-quality, educational programming for children, arts, and award winning current affairs programming…” I think we’ve already established it is not “free.” It is just befuddling how the liberal mind thinks that if government provides something, it is magically free. To understand how “award-winning” journalism works to only benefit the liberal progressive worldview, please read this.
  • “…public media stations provide life-saving emergency alert services.” Okay, so technology has just passed this one by. It’s like saying they provide buggy whips. Not a strong selling point.

This government-funded media reaches more than 98 percent of the U.S. population. That means it has far more reach than any independent news organizations, and maybe as much as all of them put together. Not good.

But, but Big Bird! The arts!

A common misunderstanding used in defense of this bad idea is that it provides such popular programs as Sesame Street. This has long been just a silly argument as Sesame Street is hugely popular — so much so that it actually is first-run now on the HBO premium channel before being re-run on PBS.

But the truth of the matter is that the loss of public funding will not kill any of these PBS stations. In fact, it’s probably totally unnecessary in the age of high-speed internet and unlimited data plans on smart phones.

Most of the federal funding for these entities supports the distribution network of 1,400 radio and television stations and only a small — and now superfluous — amount goes to support programming.

Actual public programming, such as Sesame Street, Frontline, Fresh Air, All Things Considered and others would in no way be affected by cutting federal funding because they are popular. They would continue on and be profitable — as evidenced by HBO buying first-run rights to Sesame Street.

So when you see hashtags such as #SaveBigBird, you’re seeing a display either of ignorance or a dishonest appeal to emotions. Big Bird, Elmo and the rest will thrive without any federal money. In fact, it is likely driving a ton of cash into PBS.

During an ABC panel I was on, a consistent argument for saving taxpayer-funding of public radio and television is that it supports “the arts” and provides at least audio arts opportunities that would not otherwise be available in rural areas with small, spread-out populations.

You could make that argument before — although the government doing it would still be a huge obstacle — but not now. I held up my iPhone and said all those options and many, many more, are available through Spotify, Pandora and other apps via streaming.

If proponents really wanted to give rural and poor people a wider variety of musical arts opportunities, they should probably argue for grants to Spotify and others where listeners can be exposed to literally hundreds of times more options than whatever is playing on NPR that afternoon. I would oppose such funding, but at least it makes more sense than the 1960s model now being used.

A media love affair

In briefly researching Trump’s proposal to eliminate government funding of one media source, every media outlet I saw opined on the “need” for public broadcasting: The Washington Post, Newsweek, CBS News, The Hill, Vox, and so on. Those just showed up near the top of a Google search.

It is a universal truth in the mainstream media — which is to say that it is a universal truth of modern American liberalism — that government-funded media is essential to the welfare of Americans. It’s hard to get past the “government knows best” specter of this.

But then, that goes to a core of the liberal progressive mindset: government can and should do more and more things to improve our personal lives.

Vox does yeoman’s work trying to portray how mean Trump is by playing the rural card and the now common canard that Trump keeps doing things that hurt his own voters.

The digital media outlet wrote that Trump’s “proposed defunding of CPB is yet another way that a policy proposed by Trump seems as if it will have the most adverse effect on those who voted for him.” That’s because a lot of federal funding goes to pay for PBS and NPR programming in rural areas. While major metro areas may make up lost tax revenues through donations and grants from foundations, rural areas may lose their “beloved” government-funded stations.

But is that because they are poorer and donate less? Remember, the costs of running the stations in uncongested low-cost rural areas is also considerably cheaper than in major metro areas. Or is it because the high-brow snobbery generated on a lot of the stations just isn’t that popular in rural America and those people have no interest in supporting it — or the adjoining liberalism of the news side?

PBS and NPR are not going anywhere as entities. They have enough programming that enough people like that they are viable without federal funds. But without taxpayer funds is exactly what they should be, because there is no place for government-funded media in the United States.

Ever.

We cannot defund this bad idea soon enough.

RELATED ARTICLE: PBS Lesson Plan Teaches Kids to Sympathize with Muslim Suicide Bombers

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

oil pumps

VIDEO: 1st Anniversary of My Debate with Senator Barbara Boxer on the use of Fossil Fuels

“I’ll never forget this hearing.” — Senator Barbara Boxer

One year ago today, I testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

My five minute presentation was called “the best five minutes of defense of fossil fuels I have ever seen” by prominent meteorologist, Joe Bastardi.

image

But the most memorable part of the day was my interaction with Senator Barbara Boxer.

Senator Boxer is a notorious bully of guests she disagrees with. However, she has never tried to bully anyone who a) knows the moral case for fossil fuels and b) has a robust framework for one-on-one communication. (A reminder to get our free Constructive Communication tool at the end of this email.)

Here’s the video of my appearance. If you want to get to my interaction with Boxer, go right to the 7:20 minute mark.

And if you agree with me that the message of this video is still relevant today, please share this video on Facebook, Twitter, or just forward this column!

advantages of fossil fuelsALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this article and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

PS: I got this feedback in response to a workshop the other week: “It is very encouraging to receive useful tools to help us deal with all-too-common situations we find ourselves in that make us feel very uncomfortable and that we know are just not right…the Constructive Conversation Formula…is fantastic. Doing the role playing and providing examples was absolutely essential”.

Miami-Dade-Public-Schools-Logo corruption

19,000 teachers sue the School Board of Miami-Dade for $60 million

Why would 19,000 teachers sue the School Board of Miami Dade Public Schools for $60 million in lost salaries?

Because a law passed by the Florida Legislature in 2011 required that as of July 1, 2014, whatever salary schedule was in place would thence forth be frozen in time, or, as the statute phrased it, grandfathered.  But the school district just didn’t do it.

The term grandfathered goes back a long way.  During the Jim Crow era, grandfather clauses were used by seven southern states to exempt those who already possessed the right to vote prior to 1866 (end of the Civil War) from new laws imposing educational, property or tax requirements for voting.  The grandfathered laws had the effect of disenfranchising freed African Americans who did not gain the right to vote until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870.  But grandfathering allowed impoverished and illiterate whites to continue to vote as before.  They had been grandfathered.

The current law (Fla. Stat. §1012.22) was intended to prevent further annual increases to district salary schedules for teachers hired before July 1, 2014.  Teachers hired after that date would receive performance pay, which would be calculated or derived from the greatest increment between levels of the grandfathered schedule, depending upon a teacher’s effectiveness.  In theory, performance pay would quickly out-pace the frozen schedule forcing veteran teachers to relinquish their tenure to join the new comers.

However, M-DCPS just kept on bargaining new schedules to attack the higher end salary steps for teachers approaching retirement.  It was something like knocking off West Virginia mountain tops for the benefit of coal companies.  And not incidentally, for two years, the District did not award any performance pay whatsoever.   The damage to teacher salaries is estimated at $20 million per year.

“Wait a minute,” you say.  “How did the District get around grandfathering?”  The District’s position was that the grandfathered salary schedule was any schedule they “designated as such.”  Wonder how they interpret a 70-mph speed limit?

soros warren

Soros-Funded Group Chaired By Elizabeth Warren’s Daughter Fighting Voter Integrity Lawsuits

George Soros and his henchmen are determined to make sure that the American people do not wrest power from the political and media elites that he bankrolls. They are doing their best to make sure that America never, ever becomes great again.

“Soros-Funded Group Chaired By Elizabeth Warren’s Daughter Fighting Voter Integrity Lawsuits,” by Joe Schoffstall, Washington Free Beacon, April 11, 2017:

An organization funded by liberal billionaire George Soros and chaired by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s daughter is fighting lawsuits brought forth by election integrity groups in a number of cities.

Demos, a New York City-based progressive public policy organization, is assisting unions in pushing back against election lawsuits filed in North Carolina and Florida. The group is also writing letters of interest in another lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Amelia Warren Tyagi, Warren’s daughter, chairs the board of Demos.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an Indiana-based legal group that litigates to protect election integrity, filed a lawsuit against Wake County, N.C., on behalf of Voter Integrity Project NC, a research organization dedicated to fair elections, after the county had failed to accurately maintain their voter rolls.

The county also failed to provide records related to the maintenance of their voter rolls and possible noncitizen voting, as required by federal law.

“According to publicly-available data, Wake County has more registered voters on the rolls eligible to cast a ballot than it has citizens who are alive,” PILF wrote. “The complaint states that ‘voter rolls maintained by the Defendant for Wake County contain or have contained more registrants than eligible voting-age citizens. The number of registrants in Wake County, North Carolina has been over 100 percent of eligible voting-age citizens.”

A motion to dismiss the lawsuit was filed February 21 by the Wake County Board of Elections and three attorneys. Senior U.S. Judge W. Earl Britt ruled in favor of the Voter Integrity Project and denied the request.

Cameron Bell, a legal fellow at Demos, is assisting the attorneys on the case. One of the main goals of Demos is to reduce the role of money in politics and to guarantee “the freedom to vote,” according to its website. Demos received hundreds of thousands in funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Individuals from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a progressive nonprofit in North Carolina, are also assisting on the lawsuit. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice has also received funding from Soros.

PILF filed a separate lawsuit in Broward County, Fla., against Brenda Snipes, the county’s supervisor of elections, for violations of federal roll maintenance. PILF brought the lawsuit forward on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, an Alexandria, Va.-based legal group that has been described as the conservative ACLU.

Broward County, like Wake County, has more registered voters on their rolls than the number of eligible citizens who can vote in 2014, PILF said.

Cameron Bell, the Demos attorney who is involved in North Carolina, also interjected in Broward County. In addition to Bell, Scott Novakowski and Stuart C. Naifeh, counsel from Demos, are involved in Florida.

Individuals from Project Vote, a nonprofit that formerly teamed up with the scandal-plagued and now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), are also in Broward County….

“Just like when leftist financiers tried and failed to block voter ID laws from coast to coast, the checkbooks are open again to preserve the status quo were poor record maintenance is concerned,” Logan Churchwell, PILF’s spokesman, told the Washington Free Beacon. “When you view vulnerability as currency, it must come natural to want to protect not only the weaknesses in a system, but the actors who exacerbate them.”

Democrats have scrambled to build up a massive network to counter voter integrity efforts after Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

Marc Elias, the former top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton, led challenges against voter identification laws in numerous states leading up to the 2016 elections. The effort was bankrolled by millions of dollars from Soros….

Last year, after documents from Soros’ Open Society Foundations were leaked, the Washington Free Beacondiscovered a memo that spoke of Soros’ goal of enlarging the electorate by 10 million voters by 2018….

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

Paris_Climate_Summit-01

UN Paris Accord ‘A Dead Deal Walking’ as $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears

Shocking news—the magic $100 billion climate fund appears not to be taking shape! First world donors have been busily relabeling other foreign aid as contributions to the climate kitty. For developing countries, this is a cheat — they expect $100 billion in new money. Or, to put it more accurately, they are not nearly stupid and naive enough to believe the lies Western diplomats tell when trying to bamboozle naive green voters at home that they are “Doing Something” about climate change. So they don’t really expect all that money, but hope to use these commitments to pry something out of the West. This, one notes, is the house of cards that the last Administration claimed was a big piece of its legacy. —The American Interest, 11 April 2017

China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialized countries to honor financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change, they said in a statement on Tuesday. Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the “BASIC” bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries “to honor their commitments and increase climate finance towards the $100 billion goal”, and said more clarity was needed to “track and account for” those pledges. —Reuters, 11 April 2017

Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions. But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.  “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. –Lucy Hornby, Financial Times, 11 April 2017

1) Paris Climate Accord Is A Dead Deal Walking As $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears
The American Interest, 11 April 2017

2) Emerging Nations Urge Trump Administration To Honour Obama’s $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
Reuters, 11 April 2017

3) No Consensus: G7 Energy Ministers Fail To Agree On Climate Change
Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

4) Trump’s Climate Demands Roil U.S. Allies
Politico, 11 April 2017

5) China’s New Coal Boom: China’s Coal-Conversion Plants Surge Back To Life
Financial Times, 12 April 2017

6) British Anti-Fracking Campaigners Lose High Court Battle
ITV News, 12 April 2017

G7 energy ministers have failed to agree a statement on climate change this afternoon because of ‘US reservations’, it has emerged. Top officials from the Group of Seven industrial nations gathered in Rome, Italy today amid growing concerns over the US administration’s moves to unravel policies aimed at stalling global warming. However, the US ‘reserved its position’ on the text about commitments made by G7 countries under the Paris accord, said Carlo Calenda, the Italian minister for economic development, who chaired the meeting in Rome. Lacking unanimity, Italy, which currently presides the Group of Seven, decided against proposing the joint statement, Calenda said. —Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

President Donald Trump’s abrupt turnaround on U.S. climate policy is fueling tension with several of America’s closest allies, which are resisting the administration’s demands that they support a bigger role for nuclear power and fossil fuels in the world’s energy supply. The dispute blew up at this week’s meeting of G-7 energy ministers, at which Trump administration officials pushed to include stronger pro-coal, pro-nuclear language in a proposed joint statement on energy policy. G-7 officials, led by the Europeans, refused to agree to stronger language touting fossil fuels without assurances from the United States that it would stay in the Paris climate change agreement, according to officials briefed on the discussions. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 11 April 2017Water-guzzling coal-conversion projects are springing to life in arid western China, setting the stage for the large-scale deployment of what was previously a niche industry. A three-year downturn in coal prices has revived projects that convert coal to motor fuel, petrochemical feedstock or gas, after many were shelved in 2008 because of concerns about water supply and pollution. Successful development in China opens the door to the export of coal-intensive technologies, undercutting international efforts to limit emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases. –Lucy Hornby, Financial Times, 12 April 2017

Fracking looks set to go ahead on a Lancashire site after campaigners lost a High Court challenge. Opponents urged the court to find a government decision approving planning for the site in Fylde either unfair or unlawful. But following a public inquiry, the planning inspector recommended the scheme. Environmentalists and local campaign groups reacted angrily to the decision, which they said went against the wishes of residents. —ITV News, 12 April 2017

1) Paris Climate Accord Is A Dead Deal Walking As $100 Billion Climate Fund Disappears
The American Interest, 11 April 2017

Shocking news—the magic $100 billion climate fund appears not to be taking shape! Even optimistic estimates sat the fund is $40 billion short, and developing countries say that understates the problem.

The Financial Times:

Climate ministers from Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa have gone to Beijing in recent weeks, hoping to sustain momentum from the Paris talks despite the Trump administration’s dismantling of US regulations meant to limit American emissions.

But discussions have quickly run up against the issue of financing.  “Developed countries have not met their commitments. In their reports a lot of their commitment is in the form of development aid. That doesn’t meet the commitment to contribute to new funds,” China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, told a briefing on Tuesday. “A lot of countries don’t want to chip in. I said to the European minister: that’s your problem as developed countries. It’s your responsibility to work together and sort it out.”

First world donors have been busily relabeling other foreign aid as contributions to the climate kitty. For developing countries, this is a cheat — they expect $100 billion in new money.

Or, to put it more accurately, they are not nearly stupid and naive enough to believe the lies Western diplomats tell when trying to bamboozle naive green voters at home that they are “Doing Something” about climate change. So they don’t really expect all that money, but hope to use these commitments to pry something out of the West. Also, since the West will certainly default on these bogus commitments, developing countries have all the justification they need to blow off their own commitments when the time comes.

This, one notes, is the house of cards that the last Administration claimed was a big piece of its legacy.

Full post

2) Emerging Nations Urge Trump Administration To Honour Obama’s $100 Billion Climate Funding Pledge
Reuters, 11 April 2017

China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialized countries to honor financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change, they said in a statement on Tuesday.

Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the “BASIC” bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries “to honor their commitments and increase climate finance towards the $100 billion goal”, and said more clarity was needed to “track and account for” those pledges.

Climate financing was a major bone of contention during negotiations to seal a new global deal to curb and reduce climate-warming greenhouse gases in Paris at the end of 2015, with China and other developing nations adamant that the bulk of the burden should fall to advanced industrialized nations like the United States.

As part of the Paris deal, developed countries agreed to make more funding available to a Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is designed to be used by poor and climate-vulnerable countries.

But the agreement has been plunged into uncertainty after U.S. President Donald Trump, who has questioned the scientific basis of global warming, last month proposed an end to payments to the GCF and signed an order to undo climate change regulations introduced by his predecessor.

At a media briefing after the Tuesday meeting, South Africa’s deputy minister of environmental affairs, Barbara Thompson, said recent changes in U.S. policy were “of major concern”.

But “the position of the U.S. is still very unclear to us”, she said, adding “we believe there are different views within the U.S. administration” on this issue.
At the same briefing, China’s chief climate envoy, Xie Zhenhua, insisted China remained willing to work closer with the United States.

Xie told Reuters after the briefing that he expected China and the United States to hold talks on climate issues, and that discussions were going on at multiple levels.

Joint pledges made by China and the United States, the world’s two biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases, helped bridge the gap between developed and developing countries and provided the momentum to seal the deal in Paris.

Full story

3) No Consensus: G7 Energy Ministers Fail To Agree On Climate Change
Daily Mail, 10 April 2017

G7 energy ministers have failed to agree a statement on climate change this afternoon because of ‘US reservations’, it has emerged.

Top officials from the Group of Seven industrial nations gathered in Rome, Italy today amid growing concerns over the US administration’s moves to unravel policies aimed at stalling global warming.

Environmental activists fear US President Donald Trump is dismantling Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants.

Greenpeace was holding a sit-in outside Monday’s meeting, calling on officials to maintain their commitments to reduce greenhouse gases under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

However, the US ‘reserved its position’ on the text about commitments made by G7 countries under the Paris accord, said Carlo Calenda, the Italian minister for economic development, who chaired the meeting in Rome.

The ministers’ agenda had called for discussion of energy security, policies to move away from coal, natural gas routes and supply, sustainable development of electricity sources, alternative fuel scenarios and energy access and investments in Africa.

Lacking unanimity, Italy, which currently presides the Group of Seven, decided against proposing the joint statement, Calenda said.

Full story

4) Trump’s Climate Demands Roil U.S. Allies
Politico, 11 April 2017

Documents show the administration pushed other G-7 countries to embrace larger roles for nuclear power and fossil fuels. They refused.

Andrew Restuccia

Fracking looks set to go ahead at Preston New Road. Credit: ITV News
Shale company Cuadrilla originally made an application to drill up to four wells at Preston New Road.

The plan was supported by Lancashire County Council officials but turned down by the planning committee.

But following a public inquiry, the planning inspector recommended the scheme.

Environmentalists and local campaign groups reacted angrily to the decision, which they said went against the wishes of residents.

Full story

marijuana

Since legalization export of Colorado marijuana increased by 1,700%

The latest Marijuana Report states:

The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area just released a supplement to its 2016 report titled The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact, Volume 4, September 2016.

The supplement includes several metrics, including seizures of Colorado marijuana the US Postal Inspection Service has made since 2009, when the state first allowed a commercial medical marijuana industry to emerge.

Then, no marijuana was mailed out of state. But by the time Colorado voters passed full legalization in 2013, almost 500 pounds that people tried to send to other states were seized. Three years after recreational legalization, that number tripled.

The report updates information about impaired driving, youth and adult marijuana use, emergency department and hospital marijuana-related admissions, and marijuana exposures reported to poison control centers.

Click here to read the SUPPLEMENT to: “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact,Volume 4, September 2016.” 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Study: Women in the U.S. Are Increasingly Using Pot During Pregnancy

Cartels are Growing Marijuana Illegally in California – and There’s a War Brewing

Legalizing Weed is Not the Answer

cnn nbc sarin gas mask

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ … ]

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

[ … ]

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

Read more…

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

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

[ … ]

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

[ … ]

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

adolf hitler

Adolf Hitler

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

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

[ … ]

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

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

He didn’t.

Why?

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

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

Read more…

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

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

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

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

Read more…

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

men don't beling in girls bathrooms

Will you share this with just one person?

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

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

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

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

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

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

yes we scan obama

Complicity & Negligence in Domestic Political Espionage

Below, is the latest edition of Chris Farrell’s On Watch.

Transcript:

I’m Chris Farrell . . . and this is “On Watch”

Keep your eye on the ball.  There are a lot of distractions and misdirection’s in Washington, D.C.  Some of them are deliberate, some of them are mistakes and errors exploited by political opposition and the media.  You’ve got to remain focused and not fall for the curveballs, change-ups and sinkers.

Today, I’m talking about a domestic political intelligence operation that dwarfs and trivializes Nixon’s Watergate.  It’s now clear that the Obama White House used national signals intelligence collection means to spy on political opponents.

Leftists are quite comfortable exercising all of the lever of the organs of the state. They come from a Franco-Germanic political philosophy that, historically, has always placed the state over the citizenry.  They derive their power and exercise it vigorously thru the state.

We KNOW that the Obama administration weaponized the Internal Revenue Service to obstruct and punish political opponents who had organized themselves as Tea Party groups.  It’s not an open question.

Through litigation, Judicial Watch obtained thousands of pages of material detailing the actions of Lois Lerner and others in a concerted operation to thwart the free expression of political opposition and organizing guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Were there any criminal prosecutions for this outrageous abuse of power and corruption?  No.  Why? Because the highly politicized FBI and Justice Department were complicit in the scheme.  After all, the IRS transferred 1.25 Million taxpayer files to the FBI so that they could thumb through them and look for anything “interesting.”

Now, we know that so-called “incidental collection” was the ruse exploited to target Obama opponents.  Even the use and emphasis of the term “incidental” has been manipulated to minimize and trivialize the unlawful exploitation of signals intelligence. After all, it’s just “incidental” – you remember the elementary school excuse used by children caught doing something “accidentally on purpose.”  That’s the insulting excuse you’re being asked to believe.

The Obama Administration National Security Advisor, and designated liar, Susan Rice appears to have orchestrated much of the unmasking  — that is — ordering the names and identities of US persons to be revealed.

With great irony, the American Left keeps crying wolf over Russia.  A few weeks back I dissected their false and misleading claims in a segment called “The So-called Hack” – I encourage you to go back and view that episode.  Russia has run Active Measures Campaigns against the United States since 1917 – sometimes with the active, witting assistance of people like NY Times reporter Walter Duranty and Senator Ted Kennedy.  To be frank – we’ve done the same thing – run various influence operations around the globe to encourage or assist various political factions.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Through all of the smoke, deflections and distractions – keep your eye on the ball concerning the Obama administration’s criminal abuse of national intelligence collection platforms and systems to spy on their political opponents.  There’s been nothing even remotely like it in the history of our country.

It is not just an abuse of individual rights – it’s an abuse of the power of the government and a crime against the Constitution.  The story will be frustratingly slow to develop, because many in government were either complicit or negligent in allowing it to happen.

Judicial Watch will pursue this corruption with every legal tool available to us.  You have my word.

I’m Chris Farrell . . . On Watch

RELATED ARTICLES:

76 Times Obama’s White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power as Documented by Ted Cruz

A Shoe Drops: Obama Administration Spied On Carter Page [Updated]

How did Susan Rice know which Trump campaign and transition surveillance intercepts to unmask?

Susan Rice unmasked

islam wilders quote

WATCHDOG WATCH: The Media’s Smiley Face Islam

ISLAM SMILEY FACE

Islam smiley face Imogen.

Smiley face Islam.

That seems to be how the media is determined to depict the face of Islam. The media has unacknowledged, and at times unknown agendas on multiple fronts. It’s the perfectly natural outcome when a large group of people have essentially the same worldview and their check and balance on that worldview is each other.

There is not going to be much of a check or balance. In a word, bias.

The bias in Muslim coverage seems to be ensuring that all Muslims are painted as exactly like every other American, and that Islam as a religion is depicted the same as any other religion. The truth is that Islam is a mixed bag in 2017 unlike any other religion. There are many productive, pro-American, peaceable Muslims in the United States. We probably have the most moderate Muslim population in the world, on a whole, and a majority fit into the American culture.

But while polls show that American Muslims are some of the least radicalized in the world, they also show that Islam worldwide does not fit the media narrative and hundreds of millions believe Sharia law, for instance, a legal system antithetical to American beliefs. And that raises questions of immigration.

Yet the media persists in describing Islam as an overtly peaceful religion that preaches tolerance, and the thousands of adherents to Islam that participate in atrocities are not really Muslims. No real reporting on the millions that support atrocious behavior, but do not participate directly.

So the truth is there really exists a smiley face Islam. But there also really exists a hateful, murderous Islam. Both are true, but the media highlights one.

The happy face example

An example that beautifully illustrates this bias was published a little over a year ago in a well-regarded Florida daily newspaper. In fact, this particular Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper helpfully directed readers with the headline, “The Face of Islam in Southwest Florida.”

Here is the lead:

“Imam Yousuf Memon is the face of Islam in Sarasota and Bradenton — and it’s a face that smiles constantly and is quick to laugh.

“Memon, only 24, shatters the stereotype of a Muslim cleric.

“Before services Friday, he was dressed in a trendy Abercrombie & Fitch hoodie, jeans and flip-flops.

“He admits he’s much younger than most Islamic clergy, but in the eight months since he became Imam of Sarasota’s diverse Muslim community, his efforts have drawn wide acclaim.”

The brave Imam — truly a brave young man — condemns violence in the name of Islam and says if he got wind of radicalized Muslims in his community, the first thing he would do is report them to the authorities. Here here! That is precisely the type of leadership many Americans hope for from Muslim clerics. So that’s all great and may God protect him.

What is missing journalistically

But as to the journalism…this story is one big promotional puff piece for smiley face Islam on Page 1 of a newspaper. Paid advertising is only mildly more overt. There are verrrrrrry long quotes (which you rarely see) by the Imam explaining that his view is true Islam and not the violent views of others around the world and occasionally in the United States. That’s legitimate, except that there is zero balance in the story.

What is missing? No normal journalistic push back. No context. No actual tough questions or topics, which are abundant with the Muslim issue. As a former journalist, I would ask some basics such as:

  • Do you believe in Sharia law?
  • Do you think it is safe to let in Syrians?
  • How have ISIS and others gained such huge followings in your religion, particularly when no other religion has anything like this going on?
  • Why do such large percentages of Muslims around the world support Sharia and even support terrorism and terror organizations in many instances?

That used to be basic journalism. But none of those were asked — or were not reported if they were asked, which seems unlikely. Instead, we got a happy face Islam promotional piece ignoring all the tough questions.

This type of coverage played out recently in President Trump’s 90-day ban on people traveling to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The first day of the ban, 109 people were detained because of it, out of 325,000 who entered the country that day. All were released within 48 hours. But the media reported chaos at the airports (which was caused in part by a major computer outage at Delta) and referred for a while to the “Muslim ban” (an absurd characterization) while endlessly quoting people about the inhumanity and civil rights violations and un-Americanism of it all.

This is a constant within media coverage, and driven by a monolithic worldview that sees Islam as peaceful, violence as not Islamic, and Christian extremists are an equal threat as Islamic extremists. This is done in two ways: One, equating maybe half a dozen terrorist acts attributed to Christians in the past 30 years, to literally thousands of acts attributed to Muslims in the past 10 years. The false equivalence muddies the waters and makes way for the second way, smiley face Islam the reality.

There are obviously Americans like Imam Yousuf Memon who is an important and productive part of his communities. If all Islam were like him, obviously there would be no conversation. But the data overwhelmingly demonstrates that is not the case.

You just won’t get that in most media reporting.

RELATED ARTICLE: 100% of Christians Face Persecution in These 21 Countries

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

ClimateGate6

Climategate Obstruction Challenged in Court 

Here in DC today it is terribly cold for early April.  The problem for the “climate change” crowd is that a plethora of cold days such as this have added to one long pause in global warming.  In other words, there hasn’t been any “global warming” for years.

This inconvenient truth is at the heart of new Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Department of Commerce to get all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration’s climate change policy and its backing of the Obama-pushed global warming alarmist agenda under the so-called Paris Agreement (Judicial Watch v. Department of Commerce (No. 1:17-cv-00541)).

We filed the lawsuit after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a component of the Department of Commerce, failed to respond to our February 6 FOIA request seeking:

All records of communications between NOAA scientist Thomas Karl and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren.

The FOIA request covers the timeframe of January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

Karl, who until last year was director of the NOAA section that produces climate data, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), was the lead author of a landmark paper that was reported to have heavily influenced the Paris Agreement.

Holdren is a former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and long-time proponent of strong measures to curb emissions.

According to The Daily Mail, a whistleblower accused Thomas Karl of bypassing normal procedures to produce a scientific paper promoting climate alarmism:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. …

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr. Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

[ … ]

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

This lawsuit could result in the release of emails that will help Americans understand how Obama administration officials may have mishandled scientific data to advance the political agenda of global warming alarmism.

Separately, we are suing for records of communications from NOAA officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models to justify the controversial findings in the “Pausebuster” study. The data documents had also been withheld from Congress. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)).

We previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, we obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

Forget about “fake news,” with the leftists that have been running our government for years – we have to worry about the potential of taxpayer-funded “fake science.”

truth matters

What Is Truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT HOWARD KAINZ

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

VOA_mike

America Has Lost Her ‘Voice’

Born during the life and death struggle against Nazism, the Voice of America recently turned 75. During her long years of service, she provided a beacon of hope to captive nations in Europe, and helped keep that hope alive during decades of Soviet occupation.

More recently, the Voice has provided hope to freedom-seeking peoples in the Far East, Central Asia, Iran and Africa. Companion services managed by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors have provided surrogate broadcasting into Russia and other countries that lack a free press.

But lately, the venerable Voice has been behaving with an immaturity, lack of vision, and unprofessionalism that have dismayed many of her dedicated, long-serving employees, who regularly critique the agency on the BBG Watch blog, as well as her supporters on Capitol Hill.

statue of liberty in flamesFrom “fake news” to the glorification of terrorists, the Voice has lost her way.

VOA’s charter, writ into law under President Gerald Ford, could not be more clear. VOA is supposed to “represent America… [and] present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.” Instead, the Voice has become an amateurish, partisan outset, which many recently-hired journalists and managers see as a taxpayer funded CNN.

The Voice of America – the same “Voice” that is supposed to hold high our nation as of the torchlight of freedom around the world – now compares America’s President to Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

Open the VOA’s main website on virtually any day and you will find stories and headlines that wouldn’t pass muster in any freshman journalism class.

The lead story on Monday, March 27, carried the headline, “Trump to Roll Back Obama Era Environmental Rules.”

“White House officials say President Donald Trump will sign executive orders Tuesday that would effectively dismantle Obama era environmental regulations, rekindling the highly-charged partisan debate about how human activity affects the earth’s climate, and deepening concern decades of work on global climate treaties may be unraveling,” it began.

If that were followed by a detailed explanation of what the President planned to do, and what practical implications his executive orders would have, one might be able to excuse the shoddy left-wing slant of that opening graph.

Instead, the next sentence is a quote from a global warming alarmist saying the president’s policies “would be disastrous,” and many more paragraphs of overheated rhetoric, not journalism.

On the same day, VOA noted that the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would be testifying before the Senate intelligence committee. That certainly qualifies as news. But the VOA headline, “Senate Panel to Question Trump’s Son-in-law on Russia meetings,” suggests that Kushner was compelled to testify, an impression buttressed by the core of the article.

It turns out that Kushner volunteered to testify, a fact missing from the VOA story. Even CNN correctly acknowledged Kushner’s offer to the Senate committee in their lead paragraph.

This type of misrepresentation occurs every day in stories from the VOA Central newsroom, despite hype by VOA Director Amanda Bennett to have reformed and improved its operations.

Even worse are stories that glorify terrorists.

A March 25 story exalted the memory of a Pakistani man who was sentenced to death and executed for murdering a liberal politician who defended religious freedom.

The murderer, Mumtaz Qadri, “is now being hailed as a hero in Pakistan,” whereas the man he murdered was criticized for his “soft stand” on Asia Babi, a Christian woman who allegedly “blasphemed” Islam. “For his followers, Qadri [has become] no less than a saint,” the story gushed.

The day after Somali pirates hijacked a commercial vessel earlier this month, VOA’s Somali service ran an uncritical interview with one of the pirates, titled, “Desperate fishermen?”

VOA Director Bennett proudly posted the reporter’s words to Facebook as if they were her own. “One of the men who seized an oil tanker off the Somali coast this week tells VOA he’s not a pirate,” she wrote. VOA later corrected the headline and toned down the laudatory tone of the piece after criticized on BBG Watch.

In December, VOA ran a long profile of a Turkish-born ISIS fighter who joined the jihad and died in Syria. Clearly intended to be a piece of showcase journalism, it was nothing less than the glorification of a terrorist.

On any given day, you can go to VOA websites and find example after example of shoddy journalism, fake news, misleading headlines, and slanted reporting.

VOA editors appear not to understand or not to care about the VOA charter, which also requires them to “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.” This mission has been dropped entirely.

U.S. taxpayers spend over $770 million/year on U.S. government broadcasting. This includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Marti, and other media outlets.

For most of her 75 years, the Voice of America has been a powerful tool in the war of ideas, showing by example the attractiveness of American openness, pluralism, compassion, and tolerance.

It’s time for President Trump to appoint new management, so she can be great again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Daily Caller.

sanctuary city quote 2

Partners in Crime: Mayors of Sanctuary Cities, Human Traffickers and Other Criminals

CartoonRamirezSanctuaryCityGunSFAdvocates for immigration anarchy known as “Sanctuary Cities” threaten national security and public safety in numerous ways. In point of fact, those municipalities should be referred to as “Magnet Cities” because they attract aliens who are criminals or terrorists or fugitives from justice in countries from around the world.

While it is obvious that Sanctuary Cities are extremely helpful to aliens who are illegally present in the United States, what may not be immediately obvious is that Sanctuary Cities support the smuggling activities of human traffickers who enable illegal aliens to enter the U.S. surreptitiously, thereby evading the vital inspections process conducted at America’s 325 ports of entry located along our nation’s northern and southern borders, at seaports and international airports.

Other smuggling activities also include criminals and criminal organizations that provide fraudulent documentation or opportunities for aliens to enter into conspiracies to defraud the visa process and enter through ports of entry.

The 9/11 Commission determined that such activities support terrorist entry into the U.S. In fact, on page 54 of the the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel, this excerpt under the heading, 3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot, is found:

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.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

During my 30-year career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), one of my most important tools was my ability to recruit illegal aliens to assist my investigations by providing me (and my colleagues) with actionable intelligence.

When appropriate, in arresting illegal aliens, we would offer them the opportunity to remain in the U.S. and be granted legal authorization to work, at least for a temporary period and possibly permanently, if they cooperated with investigations into criminal and/or terrorist organizations, including providing essential information about the smugglers who assisted them in entering the U.S. illegally or by procuring visas through fraud.

This enabled us to conduct successful investigations into such criminal organizations that ultimately resulted in the arrest of the criminals and the dismantling of criminal organizations and networks, among them those that engaged in human trafficking and narcotics smuggling. Many of our investigations could not have been conducted without the assistance of those aliens.

The bogus narrative of the mayors of Sanctuary Cities is that they are being “compassionate” by shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents. This concerted effort to vilify federal agents is unprecedented and is limited only to immigration law enforcement personnel.

Meanwhile, what is rarely if ever reported in the media is the nexus between immigration law enforcement and efforts to combat international terrorism. For example, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) operates under the aegis of the FBI and consists of law enforcement personnel from a broad array of law enforcement agencies on the local, city and state levels.

As might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of personnel to this important organization. Not often recognized is that agents of ICE are the second largest contingent  assigned to the JTTF and HSI (Homeland Security Investigations).

However, this aggressive campaign of deception by the mayors of Sanctuary Cities and other advocates for immigration anarchy discourages immigrants and illegal aliens alike to cooperate with immigration law enforcement personnel, thereby obstructing essential investigations.

This issue was the focus in my recent article, “Opponents Of Border Security and Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.” My follow-up article focused primarily on the latest and ever-expanding sanctuary policies promulgated by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Bottom line, to reiterate what was stated atop, mayors and other political officials who support harboring illegal aliens via Sanctuary Cities endanger national security and public safety.

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

list of top 12 sanctuary cities

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on CAPSweb.org.

making a difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

David Caton
President
Florida Family Association