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

islam arab and child bride

VIDEO: Michelle Malkin investigates the refugee crisis and child marriage in Islam

I appeared on Michelle Malkin Investigates to discuss the refugee rape crisis and child marriage in Islam. You can watch the full episode on crtv.com. Michelle’s page is here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

St. Petersburg: Suspected jihad-martyrdom suicide bomber had ties to the Islamic State

First image of St. Petersburg terror suspect indicates that this was an Islamic jihad attack

Judge Derrick Watson

Hawaii Judge uses fake news about a fake document to halt President’s travel ban

by John Hindraker, PowerLineBlog.com, March 28, 2017

At Breitbart.com, Michael Patrick Leahy has what strikes me as an explosive story: “Mystery Surrounds Leaked Leaked Draft DHS Document at Center of Controversial Travel Ban Decisions by Two Federal Judges.” Actually, though, it doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery.

On February 24, AP reporters Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell published an AP “exclusive”: “DHS report disputes threat from banned nations.” The story was based on an anonymous draft Department of Homeland Services document that was leaked to the Associated Press, presumably by someone at DHS. The document seemed to have been created for the express purpose of undermining President Trump’s travel order. Indeed, it likely was created for that purpose.

The document is here. It says:

DHS I&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.

The two judges who issued orders blocking implementation of the president’s travel ban relied explicitly on the AP story and the leaked DHS document. Judge Chuang, the federal district court judge in Maryland, wrote:

Among other points, they note that the Second Executive Order does not identify examples of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen who engaged in terrorist activity in the United States. They also note that a report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, concluded that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity” and that “few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West.” l.R. 158.

Emphasis added. The Hawaii judge, Derrick Watson, wrote:

The February 24, 2017 draft report states that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats against the United States and that very few individuals from the seven countries included in Executive Order No. 13,769 had carried out or attempted to carry out terrorism activities in the United States. …

According to Plaintiffs, this and other evidence demonstrates the Administration’s pretextual justification for the Executive Order.

Judge Watson was in error: the draft report, which was never approved or finalized by DHS, is neither dated nor signed. February 24 was the date of the AP story based on the leaked document. No one at DHS has taken responsibility for writing it.

The judges were wrong to base their decisions in part on the leaked document. President Trump had clear constitutional and statutory authority to issue the travel order, and whether the judges, or some anonymous person at DHS, agreed with his judgment is irrelevant.

But Leahy skillfully unpacks what happened here. The draft report came from DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which was headed by David Grannis, an Obama holdover bureaucrat. Grannis is a partisan Democrat who previously worked as a staffer for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman. A DHS spokesman “would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked document….”

How about the reporters? It pretty much goes without saying that AP reporters are Democrats. But Leahy also points out that Vivian Salama formerly worked for Rolling Stone, where she wrote that Yemen–one of the countries covered by the travel order–“holds a special place in my heart.” She has bitterly denounced U.S. drone strikes in Yemen.

So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president’s travel order.

Those orders should be viewed as purely political acts that have no basis in any valid judicial reasoning or authority.

Rachel Gilmer

Black Lives Matter Leader Rachel Gilmer: ‘Zionism at its core is white supremacy’

John Rossomando in an IPT News article “Panelists Prove Jewish Voice for Peace is Neither” reported:

jewish voices for peaceThere’s a simple way to end global oppression, racism and immediately create a world overflowing with “equality, dignity and human rights,” panelists agreed Saturday [April 1st, 2017] morning during a Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Conference in Chicago.

Simply eliminate Zionism from the planet.

“Arguing for a softer, less harsh, nicer version of capitalism, colonialism and racism won’t do it,” said Black Lives Matter leader Rachel Gilmer. “Many liberal Zionists believe that the problem with Israeli apartheid is simply a few bad policies, or Netanyahu, or the wall, but the problem is with the ideological foundation of the state itself: Zionism. Zionism at its core is white supremacy.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

So who is Black Lives Matter leader Rachel Gilmer?

The Canary Mission published a profile of Gilmer:

Rachel Gilmer is the chief of strategy for Dream Defenders (DD) and a supporterof the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

In May 2016, Gilmer participated in a DD trip to Israel in support of the BDS movement.

On August 2, 2016, Gilmer co-authored the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) Policy Platform which endorsed BDS and accused Israel of committing a “genocide” against Palestinians. The platform and DD’s defense of it are discussed further below.

But is gets worse. According to Canary Mission:

On May 16, 2016, Gilmer appeared in a photo wearing a t-shirt supporting the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a designated terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada, the United States and Israel.

The PFLP shirt featured a quote from the late PFLP leader Ghassan Kanafani stating: “Don’t die without being a rival.” The quote in Arabic — لا تمت قبل ان تكون ندا — is used by the PFLP and its supporters.

Gilmer wore the PFLP shirt while in the Dheisheh Refugee Camp (Dheisheh) near Bethlehem while on the May 2016 DD trip. Dheisheh is known as a PFLP stronghold.

On March 2016, DD produced an educational series that glorifies the PFLP. Intended for sixth to eleventh graders, the curriculum titled “Blacked Out History – Rebellion Curriculum Toolkit,” preaches violence under the euphemism of “struggle” (page 6).

The curriculum mentions various violent PFLP strategies (page 25) such as “hijackings, assassinations, car bombings, suicide bombings, paramilitary operations against civilian and military targets” and concludes “[t]hey want to be free from global imperialism. They want liberation. They want equal rights. Just like the Dream Defenders” (page 26).

Gilmer Supports Violence

On July 18, 2016, Gilmer shared a post defending two minors who stabbed a security guard on a Jerusalem train on October 10, 2015.

On November 7, 2016, Gilmer shared a post whitewashing attempted murderer Ahmad Manasra who joined his cousin in an Jerusalem stabbing attack over one year earlier. They critically wounded a 13 year-old Israeli boy and moderate wounded a 25 year-old man. Manasra admitted “I went there to stab Jews.”

These attacks came during a wave of religiously incited violence, known variously as the “Knife Intifada” or the “Stabbing Intifada” when Palestinian radicals across Israel stabbed scores of Israeli civilians. The attacks were sparked and fueled by the libel — often spread by Palestinian leaders — that Israel intended to desecrate the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

On September 9, 2016, Gilmer shared an article on Facebook defending violent agitator Issa Amro, who is known for attacking Israeli soldiers and vandalism.

What is ironic is that Rachel Gilmer was raised Jewish. 

Sam Kestenbaum in a column titled “How Did Black Lives Matter Come to Charge Israel with Genocide?” notes:

Rachel Gilmer, a 28-year-old African American who was raised Jewish, has long been involved in black-Palestinian solidarity work. Gilmer is associated with the activist group Dream Defenders, which has been on the forefront of recent black-Palestinian solidarity efforts, such as bringing high-profile delegations of African-American activists to Israel and the West Bank.

Born to an African-American father and a white Jewish mother, Gilmer was raised as a Jew and participated as a teen in Young Judaea, the Zionist youth group. There, she rose to become a leading member of her local group. But Gilmer later distanced herself from organized religion.

Read more…

Why do some Jews, like Gilmer, eat their own? Why did Gilmer become a Judenrat?

RELATED ARTICLE: BDS Activist at JVP Conference Urges ‘Guerilla Disobedience’ Against Israel

EDITORS NOTE: Here are Gilmer’s close connections: Ahmad Abuznaid, Nadia Ben-Youssef, Maria Castro, Jonel Edwards, Nyle Fort, Steven Gilliam, Kimberly Gonzalez, Janaya Khan, Ramah Kudaimi, Didier Ortiz,  Steve Pargett, Umi Selah, Ciara Taylor

china spying

State Department Employee Arrested for working with Communist Chinese agents

state_departmentA federal complaint was unsealed today charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents.

The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division.”

“Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided,” said U.S. Attorney Phillips. “As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments”

“Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts,” said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. “The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust.”

The FBI arrested Claiborne on March 28. She made her first appearance this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and arrest warrant, which was unsealed today, Claiborne began working as an Office Management Specialist for the Department of State in 1999. She has served overseas at a number of posts, including embassies and consulates in Baghdad, Iraq, Khartoum, Sudan, and Beijing and Shanghai, China. As a condition of her employment, Claiborne maintains a Top Secret security clearance. Claiborne also is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency.

Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claiborne’s USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Year’s gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.

According to the affidavit, Claiborne noted in her journal that she could “Generate 20k in 1 year” working with one of the PRC agents, who, shortly after wiring $2,480 to Claiborne, tasked her with providing internal U.S. Government analyses on a U.S.-Sino Strategic Economic Dialogue that had just concluded.

Claiborne, who allegedly confided to a co-conspirator that the PRC agents were “spies,” willfully misled State Department background investigators and FBI investigators about her contacts with those agents, the affidavit states. After the State Department and FBI investigators contacted her, Claiborne also instructed her co-conspirators to delete evidence connecting her to the PRC agents, the affidavit alleges.

Charges contained in a criminal complaint are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The maximum penalty for a person convicted of obstructing an official proceeding is 20 years in prison. The maximum penalty for making false statements to the FBI is five years in prison. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

At her court appearance today, Claiborne pleaded not guilty before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather. A preliminary hearing was set for April 18.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office is leading the investigation into this matter. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John L. Hill and Thomas A. Gillice for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Julie Edelstein of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

2017 03 29 Claiborne Complaint and Redacted Affidavit

RELATED ARTICLE: Candace Claiborne: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

oil wells

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Resource Curse’ by Tyler Bonin

The world’s newest country, South Sudan, is suffering one of the worst famines in history, with nearly a million South Sudanese on the verge of starvation, after having suffered through two years of civil war.

South Sudan falls within the bottom quartile of countries in per capita GDP, despite having the third largest oil reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This situation is mirrored in many countries. Economists have given it a name: the “resource curse.”  The “resource curse” maintains that countries with a profusion of natural resources will often suffer from low economic growth, weak democracy, and political violence.  Hence, developing countries with large natural resource reserves are doomed to a perpetual state of conflict and economic stagnation.

Is there any truth to this?

In a recent paper, Peter Kaznacheev argues that the quality of political and economic institutions (defined and measured by such things as rule of law, property rights, size of government, soundness of money, and trade/business regulation) is a strong determinant of economic growth and overall social development within resource-based economies.  In fact, resource-based economies with a high degree of economic freedom have achieved considerable economic growth and social development.

This is currently the case with Chile (the world’s largest exporter of copper), which has withstood commodity price fluctuations to both increase employment and make continued gains in sectors such as education and healthcare. Chile scores high on economic freedom indices.  Compare this with Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves but is suffering severe food shortages and civil unrest; Venezuela falls low on indices of economic freedom.

Freedom Is the Key

So what does economic freedom have to do with political violence?

In the World Bank’s World Development Report, centered on conflict and security, authors surveyed individuals in conflict-affected countries to determine why youth participated in political violence.  They found that “unemployment and idleness was cited as the most important factor motivating young people to join rebel movements.”

Thus, a situation of high unemployment (especially among youth) effectively reduces the opportunity cost of engaging in criminal or violent activity.  This is especially true of those who find a practical living in rebellion participation, as no other feasible livelihood opportunity exists.

John Garang, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, stated, “under these circumstances the marginal cost of rebellion in the South became very small, zero, or negative; that is, in the South it pays to rebel.”

Resource-based economies with weak institutions are catalysts for political violence.  Excessive government interference encourages rent-seeking. Regulatory barriers-to-entry invite corruption in relation to the extractive industries sector and, when combined with a lack of transparency, serve to further enrich the ruling elite.

Where property rights are weak, state expropriation occurs frequently.  Therefore, a weak rule of law – combined with regulatory burden and a lack of accountability and transparency – all serves to further entrench kleptocratic regimes.

It seems that the sequester of resource wealth by corrupt regimes most likely encourages rebellion and violence, especially if violence would provide a livelihood opportunity for unemployed youth, as well as offering rebels the opportunity to capture resource wealth.

The Iraq Case

For example, oil and gas sales from ISIS-seized refineries present the largest source of funds for the militant group. ISIS also pays salaries to its fighters; considering that post-war Iraq’s youth unemployment rate stands at nearly 20%, a violent militant job is at least a paying job, and thus presents a low opportunity cost.

A country’s possession of natural resource wealth does not mean that a country is condemned to perpetual civil unrest and war; rent-seeking and corruption does.

Increasing economic freedom in resource-rich developing countries means more economic opportunities. Cronyism and its attached corruption must be eliminated in favor of strengthening property rights and the rule of law, and by reducing regulatory and trade burdens that ultimately serve the interests of the political elite while reducing prosperity for the majority of citizens.

The “resource curse” should be called what it is: bad political institutions.

Tyler Bonin

Tyler Bonin

Tyler is a teacher at Thales Academy, a classical school in North Carolina.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

rand_amash_massie_mini

Why Is Trump Waging War on the Freedom Caucus? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Why is Trump attacking the House Freedom Caucus? He has tweeted that “we must fight them.”

My first thought: this is inevitable. Destiny is unfolding before our eyes!

There is the obvious fact that the Freedom Caucus was the reason the GOP’s so-called replacement for Obamacare went down to defeat. They fought it for a solid reason: it would not have reduced premiums or deductibles, and it would not have increased access to a greater degree of choice in the health-insurance market.

These people knew this. How? Because there was not one word of that bill that enabled the health care industry to become more competitive. Competition is the standard by which reform must be judged. The core problem of Obamacare (among many) was that it froze the market in an artificial form and insulated it from competitive forces.At minimum, any reform must unfreeze the market. The proposed reform did not do that.

Bad Reform

That means the reform would not have been good for the American people. It would not have been good for the Republican Party. And then the chance for real reform – long promised by many people in the party – would have been gone.

Trump latched on to the proposal without understanding it. Or, other theories: he doesn’t care, he actually does favor universal coverage even if it is terrible, or he just wanted some pyrrhic victory even if it did nothing to improve the access.

The Freedom Caucus killed it. And I’m trying to think back in political history here, is there another time since World War Two that a pro-freedom faction of the Republican Party killed a bill pushed by the majority that pertained to such a large sector and dealt with such a hugely important program?

I can’t think of one.

What this signifies is extremely important. We might be seeing the emergence of a classically liberal faction within the GOP, one that is self consciously driven by an agenda that is centered on a clear goal: getting us closer to an ideal of a free society. The Caucus isn’t fully formed yet in an ideological sense, but its agenda is becoming less blurry by the day. (And please don’t call them the “hard right wing.”)The old GOP coalition included nationalists, militarists, free enterprisers, and social conservatives. The Trump takeover has strained it to the breaking point. Now the genuine believers in freedom are gaining a better understanding of themselves and what they must do.

For the first times in our lives! Even in our parents’ and grandparents’ lives!

The Larger Picture

Trump is obviously not a student of history or political philosophy, but he does embody a strain of thinking with a history that traces back in time. I discussed this in some detail here, here, and here, among many other places. The tradition of thought he inhabits stands in radical opposition to the liberal tradition. It always has. We just remain rather ignorant of this fact because the fascist tradition of thought has been dormant for many decades, and so is strangely unfamiliar to this generation of political observers.

So let us be clear: this manner of thinking that celebrates the nation-state, believes in great collectives on the move, panics about the demographic genocide of a race, rails against the “other” invading our shores, puts all hope in a powerful executive, and otherwise believes not in freedom but rather in compliance, loyalty, and hero worship – this manner of thinking has always and everywhere included liberals (or libertarians) as part of the enemy to be destroyed.

And why is this? Liberalism to them represents “rootless cosmopolitanism,” in the old Nazi phrase. They are willing to do business with anyone, move anywhere, and imagine that the good life of peace and prosperity is more than enough to aspire to in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds. They don’t believe that war is ennobling and heroic, but rather bloody and destructive. They are in awe of the creation of wealth out of simple exchanges and small innovations. They are champions of the old bourgeois spirit.To the liberal mind, the goal of life is to live well in peace and experience social and financial gain, with ever more alleviation of life’s pains and sufferings. Here is magic. Here is beauty. Here is true heroism.

The alt-right mind will have none of this. They want the clash, the war, the struggle against the enemy, big theaters of epic battles that pit great collectives against each other. If you want a hilarious caricature of this life outlook, no one does it better than Roderick Spode.

Natural Enemies

This is why these two groups can never get along politically. They desire different things. It has always and everywhere been true that when the strongmen of the right-Hegelian mindset gain control, they target the liberals for destruction. Liberals become the enemy that must be crushed.

And so it is that a mere few months into the presidency of this odd figure that the Freedom Caucus has emerged as a leading opposition. They will back him where they can but will otherwise adhere to the great principle of freedom. When their interests diverge, the Freedom Caucus will go the other way. It is not loyalty but freedom that drives them. It is not party but principle that makes them do what they do.To any aspiring despot, such views are intolerable, as bad as the reliable left-wing opposition.

Listen, I’m all for working with anyone to achieve freedom. When Trump is right (as he is on environmental regulation, capital gains taxes, and some other issues), he deserves to be backed. When he is wrong, he deserves to be opposed. This is not about partisanship. It is about obtaining freer lives.

But let us not languish in naïvete. The mindset of the right-wing Hegelian is not at all the same as a descendant of the legacy of Adam Smith. They know it. We need to know it too.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Repeal Bill Left Too Much of Washington Power Grab in Place

sanctuary masked anarchist

Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules

It should be commonsense that a nation’s security begins and ends at its borders.

The primary mission of the military is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible.

There is a stirring Navy commercial “America’s Navy – The Shield” in which numerous members of the United States Navy from a wide array of divisions appear on screen and a voice says, “To get to you they’d have to get past us.”

Indeed, the valiant members of our armed forces from all five branches routinely go in harm’s way to defend America and Americans.

However, as we saw all too clearly on September 11, 2001, in this era of asymmetrical warfare, America’s enemies are likely to not come to our country in a warship but on an airliner.

Indeed, on that horrific day more than 15 years ago, 19 men from the Middle East carried out the deadliest terror attack ever mounted on American soil.  The casualties of 9/11 surpassed the number of casualties that the Japanese fleet inflicted on the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The 9/11 Commission was convened to determine the vulnerabilities that the terrorists successfully exploited to attack the United States.  Among the most fundamental vulnerabilities were those that pertain to the various components of the immigration system.

I addressed these issues in my article “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”

Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense:

To be clear, our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity but everything to do with preventing the entry of aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases or mental illness as well as aliens who are criminals, spies, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, war criminals and terrorists.

The federal government created the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of those terror attacks to better protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorism.  The enforcement of our immigration laws was moved into that new department because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the United States back-stops the efforts of the military to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and criminals in the United States.

You would think that across America our nation’s leaders, irrespective of party affiliations, would all be in agreement about the need to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.

You would think there would be universal agreement to prevent contraband such as narcotics and dangerous weapons from entering the United States in this perilous era.

It would also seem that these concerns would be of particular focus for the political leaders of New York City, the city that bore the brunt of the hellacious attacks of 9/11 especially when you realize that there had been a previous deadly terror attack committed at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and still other attacks in New York.

Certainly Mayor DeBlasio and New York Senator Chuck Schumer make frequent note of those terror attacks to demand that Washington provide additional funding to protect New York City from international terrorists.

However, over time, the nexus between immigration and national security has been, by design, gradually expunged from the narrative.

Over time, beginning with President Jimmy Carter’s strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, the term alien has been replaced by the term immigrant.

Any effort to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens is now met with accusations of racism, xenophobia, nativism and other such insults.

The complicit mainstream media has come to refer to anyone who calls for securing our borders against illegal entry as being “Anti-Immigrant” while immigration anarchists have been re-branded “Pro-Immigrant.”

By blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens has tragically conditioned many Americans to believe that the term “Immigrant” is synonymous with “law violator” when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Trump administration is not seeking to deport true “Immigrants” unless, of course a lawful immigrant commits certain serious crimes.

One progressive organization, Credo Action, posted this petition with the bogus premise: Senate Democrats: Block Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

The push for the deportation of illegal aliens must not be confused with the bogus narrative of the politicians who say that they will prevent President Trump from deporting immigrants.  The administration is not attempting to deport immigrants but is attempting to deport illegal aliens, especially when they have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety the same way that criminals living in public housing pose a threat to public safety.

Not content with simply declaring NYC a “Sanctuary City” DeBlasio has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with municipal identity documents that help illegal aliens embed themselves in NYC and provide them with a level of credibility they should not have.

After Donald Trump was elected president, ABC News reported, Mayor Says If Trump Tries To Deport Undocumented Immigrants He’ll Destroy IDNYC Data.

Following the attacks of 9/11 politicians from both parties stood in front of forests of microphones at news conferences and demanded to know, “Why did no one connect the dots?”

Now Mr. DeBlasio has unbelievably threatened to erase potential dots, thereby obstructing governmental administration in matters involving national security.

When I have attempted to explain immigration law enforcement in a way that most folks could relate to, I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and and illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

When I provided a deposition to the law firm retained by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to help in their defense against the Obama DOJ lawsuit over SB 1070 (Arizona’s immigration law that largely paralleled our federal immigration laws) I noted that “During the first four years of my career with the INS when I served as an immigration inspector at JFK International Airport in New York City, you could say that I had my eye to the peephole to America’s front door.”

I believe the analogy of comparing our homes with our nation and how reasonable people take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and their homes by locking their doors at night and being careful about letting strangers into their homes or apartments parallels the mission of immigration law enforcement for the United States.

That analogy works quite well and is worth considering today considering that on March 29, 2017 Spectrum News published a report, “NYPD and NYCHA Need to Do More to Remove Criminals from Public Housing, DOI Says.”

That report prompted me to do a bit of research on the issue of how, in New York City, residents of public housing become subject to eviction when they are convicted of committing certain serious crimes and may be excluded from living in public housing permanently.

I found a December 2015 New York Times article, “Report Details ‘Systemic Failures’ in Communication Between New York Police and Housing Authority” that contained a quote from none other than New York City’s Mayor DeBlasio.

Here is the pertinent segment of the news article:

The issue of excluding violent offenders from public housing gained new attention after the fatal shooting of Officer Randolph Holder near the East River Houses in Upper Manhattan on Oct. 20. The authorities have said the officer was killed by a man, Tyrone Howard, who should have been barred from public housing long before based on his criminal history.

Without mentioning the investigation or its findings, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office issued a news release last week promising improved interagency communication and strategies “aimed at quickly and accurately identifying individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety and taking appropriate action.”

“Improved N.Y.P.D. and Nycha communication and process will shorten eviction and exclusion proceedings from public housing to weeks, as opposed to months, for serious offenders,” Mr. de Blasio said in the statement.

This is absolutely stunning.

Mr. DeBlasio has shown commonsense about keeping criminals out of public housing the same way that DeBlasio’s mayoral predecessor and proponent of Sanctuary Cities, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, demanded that police officers patrol public housing and arrest anyone who would trespass on public housing because, he stated, such trespassers pose a threat to the safety of those who live in public housing.

However, while DeBasio is all for evicting criminals from public housing to keep the residents of those housing developments safe, he determined to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens from the United States.

The hypocrisy is startling. and provides evidence of Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

On March 15, 2017 Newsday quoted the Speaker of the New York City Counsel in an article, NYC’s Mark-Viverito: Trump deportation plan ‘ethnic cleansing.’

The term depravity come to mind in contemplating her reckless, incendiary and outrageous allegations.  Could you imagine if President Trump had said anything that even approached that insane statement?

In “Sanctuary Cities” public safety, law, reason, commonsense and morality are mere speed bumps to be overcome to create immigration anarchy.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Case Against Immigration | Foreign Affairs

RELATED INFOGRAPHICS:

 

Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Map of sanctuary cities and counties.

list of top 12 sanctuary cities

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

ryan ahca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faithfully Yours,

Congressman Louie Gohmert
First District of Texas

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Freedom Caucus Is an Ally, Not an Enemy in Draining the Swamp

After Trump Threatens to ‘Fight’ Freedom Caucus, Conservatives Vow to ‘Keep Promises’

Three-Pronged Approach to Repeal and Replace Obamacare | whitehouse.gov

trump obama spying

VIDEO: YES! We Spied on Trump!

In an interview with MSNBC, Evelyn Farkas admitted to having first hand knowledge the Obama administration spied on Trump’s transition team to gather “intelligence” for political use.

Zero Hedge reports:

According to Pentagon records, Dr. Farkas resigned in September of 2015.

So how did this non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, gain knowledge of intelligence regarding members of Trump’s team and their relations with Russia, when she was the senior foreign policy advisor for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton?

Farkas was the prime driver behind the anti-Russia phobia inside the Pentagon during the Obama years — shilling hard for the Ukraine — requesting that the President send them anti-tank missiles — which, essentially, would mean outright war with Russia.

Read more…

MSNBC FARKAS INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill [Democrat politicians], it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can – get as much intelligence as you can – before President Obama leaves the administration.

Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left; so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the Trump folks – if they found out HOW we knew what we knew about their, the Trump staff, dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.  We have very good intelligence on Russia; so then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to [Democrat politicians].

The New York Times confirms what Farkas said on MSNBC when it reported,

“More than a half-dozen current and former officials described various aspects of the effort to preserve and distribute the intelligence, and some said they were speaking to draw attention to the material and ensure proper investigation by Congress. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified information, nearly all of which remains secret.” 

Read more…

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Levin Questions How Evelyn Farkas Has Access to Trump Intelligence.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump

Obama Political Spying Scandal: Trump Associates Were Not the First Targets

How Many Countries Conspired Against Trump?

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

Oh My: Former Obama NSA Susan Rice Reportedly Directed Dubious ‘Unmasking’ of Trump Allies

Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team

If Evelyn Farkas Resigned in 2015, How Did She Have Access to Trump-Russian Intelligence?

Obama’s Defense Deputy ADMITS White House Spied on Trump, And She Doesn’t Stop There…

old holy bible

The Great ‘Christian Terrorist’ Unicorn Hunt

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

Khalid Masood

Khalid Masood. Photo: Daily Mail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POPLE ROPE

People of the Rope vs People of the Ladder

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

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

What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

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

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

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

Read ‘Textbook of Americanism’

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: The False Compassion of Liberalism

dzouza media

VIDEO: UNCHAINED — Dinesh D’Souza at Trinity University

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

Dinesh D’Souza is UNCHAINED at Trinity University.

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

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

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

Eric Garcetti

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s Message to Smugglers: ‘The Coast is Clear’

For years mayors of cities across the United States have declared their cities to be “Sanctuary Cities” that would gladly shield illegal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement officers.

On March 23, 2017 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was quoted as stating:

In Los Angeles, we don’t separate children from their families because it’s inhumane. In Los Angeles, we don’t demonize our hard-working neighbors just because they speak a different language or come from a different country. That’s un-American.

Of course our immigration laws have absolutely nothing to do with deporting (removing) aliens who speak a foreign language.  The reasons that an alien becomes subject to deportation can be found in Title 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – (Deportable aliens).

Garcetti’s lies feed the outrageous false claim that proponents of effective immigration law enforcement are xenophobic racists.

If Garcetti wants to discuss “Un-American” conduct he should consider that our borders, including our nation’s coastline and our immigration laws, are our first and last line of defense.

If he wants to discuss how inhumane it is to “separate children from families” he should consider the plight of families that have lost loved ones, including children, toe crimes of illegal aliens.

On March 25, 2017 Fox News interviewed Don Rosenberg whose 25 year old law student son was killed by an illegal alien in San Francisco.

Garcetti has now promulgated a new set of restrictions on Los Angeles’ port police that exacerbate the immigration crisis for his city and for the entire country.

We will consider this new development shortly but let us first consider that the statements and policies promulgated by Mayor Garcetti and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” has served to entice aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States, by whatever means are most convenient for them, to enter the United States.

This includes entering the United States without inspection by running our northern or southern borders, stowing away on ships or by surreptitiously gaining access, without detection to the United States along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline.

In point of fact, while there has been much attention paid to the lack of security to be found along the U.S./Mexican border, seaports and coastlines have been traditionally, indeed for millennia, vulnerable to smuggling activities.

In March 2016 it was reported that US agents nearly caught $194 million worth of cocaine in a narco submarine.   The drugs were lost when, despite the efforts of Customs and Border Protection personnel, the boat sank in the Pacific Ocean off the California Coast.  The news report claimed:

In 2012, 80% of the illegal drugs smuggled to the US came on maritime routes, and 30% of the illegal drugs delivered to US shores via the sea were carried on narco submarines, according to a 2014 study cited by Vice News.

Back on June 9, 1993 the New York Times reported, “SMUGGLED TO NEW YORK: The Overview — 7 Die as Crowded Immigrant Ship Grounds Off Queens; Chinese Aboard Are Seized for Illegal Entry.”

Often aliens seek the “services” of alien smugglers also known as “Human Traffickers” who may help guide illegal aliens to evade the inspections conducted at ports of entry and the Border Patrol along unprotected sections of our land borders.  They also may arrange for aliens to enter the United States without being inspected by concealing them on ships as stowaways.

Smugglers may work in conjunction with unscrupulous employers and hence coerce smuggled aliens into becoming indentured workers at various employment venues to pay their smuggling fees.

Sometimes this involves coercing young women into becoming prostitutes at brothels.

All too often these hapless aliens find that they can never earn enough money to fully pay off the smugglers.  They become virtual slaves in the United States.

Additionally, often aliens who are smuggled into the United States are forced to become “mules,” becoming human “beasts of burden” carrying large quantities of narcotics on their person as they illegally enter the United States.

Smuggled aliens face extreme violence at the hands of the smugglers.  In fact, because smugglers are so likely to rape young female aliens that many young women, who seek to be smuggled into the United States, take birth control pills beginning months before they make their attempts to run our borders to keep from getting pregnant.

In some instances, the services offered by alien smugglers enable terrorists and transnational criminals to enter the United States and other countries.

Aliens may also enter the United States through ports of entry via the inspections process and gaming the inspections process and/or the visa process and violate the terms of their admission as established by the specific visas they used to enter the United States.

In such instances alien smugglers / human traffickers may pay a critical role of providing documents or reaching out to corrupt government officials to procure documents and visas.

Page 61 of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” contains this excerpt:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist 

groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is 

evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of 

terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

My dad used to say that “Nothing is so good it could not be made better or so bad it could not be made worse.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has found a way to make things worse; far worse and, not just for the beleaguered residents of his city of Los Angeles, but for the security of the United States and for safety of everyone in the United States.

Once aliens enter the United States by any means whatsoever, they are able to easily travel across the United States.  Foreign criminals and terrorists can easily set up shop in any town or city they wish, with Sanctuary Cities being the most advantageous to them.

In addition to ordering that the LAPD will ignore violations of immigration laws, on March 21, 2017 the Los Angeles Times published a report, Port, airport police barred from enforcing immigration laws that must have been “music to the ears” of human traffickers, terrorists and transnational criminals” seeking to violate the borders of the United States for malevolent purposes.

Smugglers will find additional encouragement to head for Los Angeles now that Mayor Garcetti has proclaiming that Los Angeles Port Police, who patrol the harbors of Los Angeles will not cooperate with Customs and Border Protection.

Law enforcement officers who are encumbered by such restrictions prohibiting them from enforcing immigration laws, find themselves in a professional bind.  They are aware of their oaths of office for which they risk their lives every day that they go on duty.  They recognize that our Constitution and our laws are not to be treated as a menu at a restaurant where patrons may opt for the soup but not the salad.

The fact that a law enforcement officer may run afoul of outrageous and, in my judgement, illegal sanctuary policies may decide that the safest way to do their jobs is to minimize the possibilities that they may act in violation of the dictates promulgated by the mayors of Sanctuary Cities.  The best way to accomplish this goal of professional/personal survival is to take the fewest actions while on duty.

This is consistent with the principle of “Big cases- big problems, little cases- little problems:  No cases- No problems!”

As I noted in the conclusion of my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013 on the topic, “Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values,”

I want to make this clear: Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that, if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States. In effect, the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent, I recall that Doris Meissner, who was at the time the Commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be ‘‘customer oriented.’’ Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented, what Ms. Meissner and apparently too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the ‘‘customers’’ of the INS and of our Government in general are the citizens of the United States of America.

Clearly Mayor Garrett and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” need to be reminded who their constituents are and the true meaning of their oaths of office.

Garcetti and his “mayoral partners in crime” should read my previous article, “Opponents Of Border Security And Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Jeff Sessions Plans to Fight Back Against Sanctuary Cities

What’s This? PEW Study Finds Americans, Legal Immigrants Doing Jobs “They Won’t Do”

587 refugees admitted since 120-day moratorium should have started, Syrians top list

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

christians pakistan

VIDEO/PHOTOS: Atrocities Against Christians in Pakistan

GENEVA, Switzerland/PRNewswire/ — European Organization for Pakistani Minorities hosted a 3-day exhibition in to highlight the issue of atrocities against Christians in Pakistan. The exhibition was from 20th – 22nd of March 2017 at Onex, Geneva, Switzerland.

The objective of the exhibition was to raise awareness on the complete lack of basic social and political rights for Christians in Pakistan and portray how the increasing influence of Islamic radicalism in the country has resulted in regular incidents of violence against the community. The Pakistani Christian community’s struggle for survival was graphically displayed through posters that formed the major part of the exhibits.

A documentary on the condition of Christians in Pakistan administered Kashmir informed visitors about the discrimination faced by Christians in every walk of life including education, jobs, voting rights and even in the absence of graveyards to bury their dead.

The exhibition was well attended, with visitors showing keen interest on the issue.

For all photos and videos please visit the website http://www.eopm.org

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Unknown men murder Christian rickshaw driver, police labels killing as ‘suicide’

Christian Persecution in Pakistan

The Legalized Distrimination of Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan

ABOUT EUORPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR PAKISTANI MINORITIES (EPOM)

EOPM is a Human Rights Organization that strives to focus the attention of the international community on human rights violations blatantly perpetrated in Pakistan and help raise a unified voice against the atrocities committed on minorities in a country known to encourage and protect acts of religious fanaticism. We endeavour to create and develop new strategies to stop human rights abuses and to ensure improvement in the political, educational, social and economic conditions of all minority communities in Pakistan. EOPM brings to the attention of the UN and other intergovernmental regional organizations, cases of human rights violations in Pakistan in order to confront hate and terrorism and promote human rights and dignity for minorities in the country.

While most of the world welcomed 2014 with celebrations, Pakistan rang in the New Year with a deadly suicide bombing in Quetta on January 1, 2014 when a vehicle loaded with explosives rammed into a bus in the outskirts of the Balochistan capital carrying Shia pilgrims returning from Iran. This atrocity illustrates that while years and dates may change, very little changes in the wave of religious and sectarian terrorism in Pakistan. The killing of an Islamabad leader of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, Munir Muawia, in the federal capital on 3rd January, 2014, is yet another bloody footnote in the once-again simmering sectarian wars and the state’s inability to control them. It is not surprising anymore that a drive-by shooting can occur in Islamabad and that the assassins can simply melt away. Helplessness seems to be the only reaction of the heavily financed and resourced capital police. If the heart of the capital city Islamabad cannot be made safe by security officials, then what hope is there for Peshawar, Quetta, Karachi or the rest of Pakistan?

The number of incidents related to attacks on minorities in Pakistan is continuously increasing in the country. A suicide attack on the historic All Saints Church in Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan on September 22, 2013, killed at least 85 Christian worshippers and left more than 100 injured in one of the deadliest attacks on the Christian minority in Pakistan. Suicide attacks on minorities in Pakistan have not only resulted in the death of a large number of people across the country but the number of suicide attacks in Pakistan also rose by 39 per cent in 2013. 46 suicide attacks were reported in 2013 compared to 33 in 2012. Of these, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) witnessed 18 suicide attacks in 2013 while 12 attacks occurred in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Furthermore, nine suicide attacks occurred in Balochistan, five in Sindh and one each in Rawalpindi and Azad Kashmir. This was revealed in the ‘Pakistan Security Report 2013’ launched by Pak Institute for Peace Studies (Pips), a think-tank based in Islamabad which is engaged in research to understand ongoing conflicts such as militancy, extremism, radicalisation and insurgency.