What happened to Kurdish dreams of independence is a warning signal of what could happen to an Israel which relies on the world.
The Kurdish people have an inalienable right to their own national homeland just as other nations do. The Kurds are the largest ethnic entity in the world, numbering some 30 million people, which does not have a state of its own. Over three years ago, I declared – here on Arutz Sheva – that the world is obligated to see to it that historic justice is granted the Kurds by supporting their dream of being a free nation in their own land.
A referendum was held last month among the Iraqi Kurds over whether or not they should declare independence, while in the background threats emanating from Turkey, Iran, the Iraqi government and even Bashar Assad could be discerned. Joining them were other countries, including the USA and Europe, all of them warning the Kurds – and especially their leader, Masoud Barzani – not to attempt a one-sided declaration of independence. The neighboring countries fear a snowball effect on other minorities in their own countries, including their resident Kurds. More distant countries fear another war in the oil-rich regions such as northern Iraq, which could lead to a much wider conflict.
The referendum showed that a vast majority, over 90% of those voting, support independence. This resulted in Masoud Barzani, head of the Kurdish region, acquiring the ability to wield powerful leverage against the Iraqi government, which was naturally unnerved by the results and tried its best to convince Barazani not to declare independence.
The two main issues in the dialogue between Barzani and the Iraqi regime are:
- Delineating the borders of the Kurdish region and whether the oil fields and the nearby city of Kirkuk are within those borders and
- What happens to the oil that flows under the ground in the Kurdish region – are the profits Iraqi or do they belong to the Kurds?
Except that Barzani is not the only Kurdish actor on the stage. Jilal Talabani, his rival, did not support the hopes for Kurdish independence espoused by Barzani, and was of the opinion that the Kurds must remain within the national framework of Iraqi sovereignty. He was once the Iraqi president – mainly a ceremonial post – from 2005 to 2014, and died in Germany two weeks ago, on October 3, 2017. A pragmatist, he based his opinion on the realistic understanding that a declaration of independence would have a severely negative effect on the Kurds, because all the surrounding countries would do their utmost to ensure its failure, not balking at the idea of starving the Kurds to death by putting their region under siege.
The differences between Barzani and Talabani are nothing new. In fact, the two families have been at odds for decades, and in the second half of the twentieth century there were actual battles between the two, involving weapons and resulting in dead and wounded. The Iraqi regime knew this well and took advantage of it by forming a coalition of one side against the other. The factionalism of the Kurds prevented them from forming a united stand and the neighboring states – Turkey, Iran and Syria – knew how to make use of this factionalism for their own ends.
This week, the dispute led to facts on the ground: The Iraqi army, supported by Shiite militias, moved towards Kirkuk and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting force left the city without doing battle. Within two days the Iraqis took over the city and its adjacent oil field without resorting to violence, neutralizing an important part of the leverage Masoud Barzani was hoping to wield during negotiations with the Iraqi government.
It seems that the Pershmega are not united and reflect the ongoing internal dispute among the Kurds. Some listen to Barzani’s orders and others act under the influence of Talabani. The forces guarding Kirkuk were under the sway of Talabani and gave up in the struggle against the Iraqi army’s takeover, to Barzani’s dismay. The internal strife among the Kurds distances them from their dream of independence, a dream that will only move farther away for as long as they cannot agree on its parameters.
The tragedy of the Kurds is even greater because their fighters, part of the coalition led by the US, were the most important force fighting ISIS.
The tragedy that has befallen the Kurds is even greater because their fighters, part of the coalition led by the US, were the most important force fighting ISIS. They were given arms, weapons, funding and training by their coalition partners, but it is they and not the coalition’s fighters, who shed their blood in street to street, house to house, room to room fighting against ISIS. Hundreds of Peshmerga fighters were killed and wounded in the long, exhausting battle to liberate Mosul from the Jihadists of the Islamic State.
The Kurds expected the world, headed by the US, to stand behind them once ISIS was defeated, remembering their large contribution to that defeat and supporting their demand for independence. These hopes were dashed very quickly when the official American stand turned out to be that “we have no intention of interfering in internal Iraqi affairs” – that is, the US will not support the Kurdish demand for independence led by Masoud Barzani, this despite the referendum and their historic rights.
Those Kurds who longed for independence are disappointed and feel betrayed by the nation with whom, for whom and in whose name they fought for a lengthy and bloody period, one filled with battles and Kurdish victims sacrificed in the war against ISIS.
It is possible that the American stand is based on Talabani’s approach, one which saw no need –certainly not an immediate one – for declaring independence and preferred that the Kurds integrate into the Iraqi state for good. Naturally, Talabani’s loyalty to the Iraqi regime is explained by rumors of bribery, jobs and other favors he and his men received from Iraq and Iran.
On the other hand, rumors say that Barzani received his own favors from the Saudis, who are interested in preventing a Shiite axis led by Iran. The Mideast news sources are full of these hard to prove stories (Anyone who thinks that Trump invented the concept of “fake news” is unfamiliar with the media and political discourse of the Middle East…)
Conclusions Israel must draw from the Kurdish saga
For the last several years, and particularly since the signing of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers, there has been a discernable warming of relations between Israel and the Arab nations who feel threatened by Iran. Those include Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan. As a result there are Israeli pundits, army officers and politicians who view the current regional situation as a golden opportunity that Israel must take advantage of by accepting the Arab peace proposals, establishing a Palestinian state and embarking on a new era of cooperation with the “moderate Sunni axis” in order to bring peace and security to Israel and the entire area. Why? Because all these countries fear Iran as much as, and possibly more, than Israel does.
But let us suppose that the Iranian threat disappears because Israel succeeds in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. As a result, war breaks out between Israel and Iran (including Hezbollah), Israel sacrifices hundreds of soldiers and civilians – and the Iranian problem ceases to exist. Will the Arab and Western worlds be grateful to Israel and act to protect Israel’s interests?
The answer is simple: What happened to the Kurds will happen to Israel. The Kurds fought ISIS, sacrificed their soldiers and people, and were thrown to the wolves once they were not needed. That is exactly what the world’s nations will do to Israel once it extricates them from the Iranian problem. Why not? The immediate interests of each and every country and not the moral rights of the Kurds and the Israelis are what makes the world go round.
Israel will indeed be the darling of the “moderate Sunni axis” – that is, for as long as there is an Iranian threat.
Once that is gone, the fracturing of Iran into ethnic components (on the lines of the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) will obviate the need for relations with Israel.
For this reason, Israel would do well not to give up its lands for a piece of paper with the word “peace” stamped on it, because that paper can easily fly away in the desert wind while the worlds on it fade in the blazing Middle Eastern sun.
There are two unassailable proofs for this phenomenon: The first is the peace with Egypt. This peace was a result of Sadat’s need for economic assistance from Europe and Europe’s insistence that peace with Israel precede the granting of that aid so that its money is not squandered on wars. That peace treaty did not stand in Mubarak’s way when he allowed Hamas and its supporters to smuggle arms from Sinai to Gaza, because it was in Mubarak’s interests to bring about a war between Israel and Hamas, allowing Israel to do the dirty work with the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. As soon as the Sinai became Jihadistan and began fighting Egypt, the weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza ceased abruptly.
In sum, the peace between Israel and Egypt exists for as long as it suits Egyptian interests.
The second proof is the peace with Jordan, based on Yitzchak Rabin and King Hussein’s shared interest in preventing a Palestinian state from being established. This common interest created wide-ranging cooperation between the two countries. Hussein’s son, Abdullah II, changed his father’s policies and is a strong backer of the idea of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria whose capital is East Jerusalem. That is why he acts against Israel in every international forum, as if he were one of Israel’s greatest enemies. He relates to the peace treaty as an agreement to refrain from war and no more, while enjoying the economic benefits he gained from it.
The clear conclusion from the Kurdish, Egyptian and Jordanian situations is that Israel must not jeopardize its existence, security and interests by placing them in bankrupt Arab insurance companies.
Israel absolutely must strengthen its position in the Land of Israel, create local governing emirates for the powerful Arab families in urban Judea and Samaria while battening down Israeli control of the rural areas. No peace treaty can give Israel a lasting insurance policy, and the faster Israel and the world internalize this truth the better.
EDITORS NOTE: Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Consulting and Op-ed Editor, Arutz Sheva English site.
Patriots Don’t Sell American Uranium to the Russians
/in Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Linda GoudsmitLet’s talk about uranium. Uranium is a chemical element with unique nuclear properties. Radioactive forms of an element are called isotopes. Isotopes that can sustain a fission chain reaction (splitting of atomic nuclei) are called nuclear fuels and are described as fissile. The most common isotopes in natural uranium are uranium-238 and uranium-235. Uranium-235 is the only naturally occurring fissile isotope which makes it extremely valuable for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
Uranium is mined – the uranium that comes directly from the earth is uranium ore. First the uranium must be extracted from the ore and then the uranium must be converted to usable fuel. This is where the discussion of uranium gets interesting. More than 99% of the uranium that is extracted from the ore is uranium-238 but it is the fissible uranium-235 (less than 1% of the ore) that is critical for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors require approximately 3.5-4.5% concentration of uranium-235 – this significantly higher concentration of uranium-235 is called enriched uranium. Weapons grade uranium is ubra-enriched uranium with an 85% concentration of uranium-235. Clearly uranium is not something one sells to one’s enemies. It is rare and it is dangerous.
As of July 2016 the 10-top uranium producing countries in the world are:
Russia already produces three times the amount of uranium as the United States. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and the Ukraine are all former Soviet republics of the Soviet Union that Putin seeks to reunite under his control. The combined production of Russia and the former Soviet republics is one half of the mine production of the top 10 uranium producers in the world. The Uranium One deal is about dominance and control. Controlling the world’s uranium production would be an extreme advantage for any country.
Clinton’s secret sale of twenty percent of American uranium is far more of a disadvantage to America than a benefit to Russia. American patriots do not sell twenty percent of our essential American uranium. It is a stunning betrayal of America. Let’s examine the details of the ignominious sale and the motives of the parties approving it which seem to align along financial and ideological lines.
The 2010 Uranium One deal allowed the Russian nuclear energy agency to acquire a majority interest in Uranium One, a Canadian mining company with stakes in the United States. Uranium One has two licensed mining operations in Wyoming that comprise 20% of the uranium recovery in the United States. They also have exploration projects in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona.
Foreign investments that could pose national security concerns must be reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) which has nine members. The Committee can approve a sale but cannot stop it. Only the President has the authority to stop the deal if the committee or any one member recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction.
The Uranium One deal transferred 20% of American uranium assets to Russia. The United States gets a fifth of its electrical power from nuclear energy but only produces a fifth of the uranium it needs. The sale clearly needed CFIUS approval. So who had to sign off on this contemptible deal?
Composition of CFIUS
The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairperson of CFIUS, and notices to CFIUS are received, processed, and coordinated at the staff level by the Staff Chairperson of CFIUS, who is the Director of the Office of Investment Security in the Department of the Treasury.
The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:
At the time that the Uranium One deal was being reviewed four congressional Republicans voiced security concerns about Russia controlling 20% of our uranium assets. A bill expressing disfavor of Congress was introduced by King, Lehtinen, Bachus, and McKeon and still no disclosures were made to Congress or to CFIUS about the ongoing FBI investigation into racketeering between Rosatom, Russia’s state controlled nuclear energy conglomerate, and the Clinton Foundation. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI at the time and Rod Rosenstein was the U.S. attorney in Maryland where the investigation was being conducted.
So, a secret deal to transfer 20% of American uranium assets to Russia was facilitated and hidden from the American people by the Obama administration. Why? How did the Uranium One deal benefit America? It didn’t – which explains the secrecy of the deal.
The chief benefactors of the Uranium One deal were The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation (CF). CF received millions of dollars and Bill was paid a suspiciously high $500,000 for a speech he delivered in Moscow. It is unknown at this writing if any other participants in the approval process profited financially from the sale.
Let’s review. Mueller and Rosenstein who helped facilitate this traitorous transfer of American uranium to Russia are now investigating President Trump based on a fake dossier commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? People, this is the deep state at work.
Obama’s Uranium One deal is only rivaled in damage to America by his secret Iranian deal.
The Clintons are despicable money-grubbers who prostituted themselves and endangered America for money. Obama is an ideologue still trying to bring down American democracy and replace it with socialism (hope and change). Eric Holder, one of Obama’s ideological appointees who facilitated Obama’s attempts to politicize U.S. institutions and bring down America is considering a presidential run in 2020.
Obama’s ideological and corrupt appointees were placed in powerful positions to facilitate the Obama take down of America. Obama weaponized the government by politicizing it and flagrantly violating the laws. Barack Obama never thought his deceit or his complicit administration would be exposed. In a stunning open-mic dialogue with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev on March 26, 2012 Obama is clearly heard saying, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” The conversation occurred ironically at a global nuclear security summit in South Korea and the reference to “flexibility” referred to missile defense issues.
Americans heard the dialogue but most people simply could not fathom an anti-American president of the United States. They could not process what they were hearing and wrap their minds around the idea of an anti-American president. Obama’s ends justifies the means tactics almost brought down America – but then Donald J. Trump won the presidential election and the Trump train intervened. Obama’s third term was quashed and he resurrected himself as leader of the “resistance” movement.
The legacy of President Donald J. Trump will be that he exposed the sinister attempt by Barack Hussein Obama and his gang to bring down America.
EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.
VIDEO: The State of Civil Rights in America Today
/in Culture War, Policy, Politics, Video/by Frances Presley-RiceFrances Rice at National Defense University. Photo: NDU
I had the honor of being a featured guest speaker at the National Defense University on Fort McNair in Washington, D.C.
The National Defense University (NDU) is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s premier university for joint professional military education. NDU offers one-year fellowships to select senior officers from more than 50 nations for the International Fellows Program. After completion of the academic program qualified Fellows are awarded a Master’s Degree.
You may be interested in seeing the video that I prepared as part of my presentation on “The State of Civil Rights in America Today,” as part of the NDU’s seminars on “American Studies: Civil Rights”
The State of Civil Rights in America Today from The Black-O-Scope on Vimeo.
Cast Your Obamacares, Says Hill GOP
/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research CouncilHouse and Senate leaders may disagree on how to fix Obamacare, but they certainly don’t dispute why.
After seven years, the only thing higher than the costs of the Left’s health care law may be the mounds of evidence about its failures. Already, families are bracing themselves for January 1, when experts warn that most Americans will wake up with a headache — and not from a lack of sleep from the night before.When the Times Square ball drops, premiums won’t. In fact, the first day of 2018 may trigger one of the steepest rises in health care premiums the country has faced. For the 39 states that have stuck it out on the Obamacare exchange, they’ll ring in the New Year by wringing out their wallets — most facing a 34-percent spike in premiums, and climbing. Although the pain will be passed on to almost every customer, analysts say the middle class will be squeezed the most. Like most people, insurers understand that Obamacare is a sinking ship, and they’re doing everything they can, the Wall Street Journal points out, to “hedg[e] against broader uncertainty around other aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and my market conditions.”
Others have outright left the exchange, blowing a big hole in the number of plans consumers could pick from. “The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has estimated that 46 percent of Americans live in counties that will lose at least one exchange insurer next year.” Others are losing their plans entirely, news many of them are just getting in the mail. “Time to shop for new coverage,” their letters read. In some pockets of the country, like Virginia, people who had as many as 14 policy options last year are down to two (which also happen to cost $150 more a month).
So, while some may want to steer Congress away from the failed Obamacare debate into the greener pastures of tax reform, there are still Republicans who are trying to solve the looming crisis and give Americans some relief. Two of Congress’s key moneymen, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Senate Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), are the latest to offer up a proposal that deals with some of the worst aspects of Obamacare — and, unlike the Lamar Alexander-Patty Murray deal, leaves no doubt about one of the biggest concerns: abortion. From its very first bullet point, Hatch and Brady explain that their “bicameral agreement” would fund cost savings reductions (CSRs) through 2019 “with pro-life protections.” That was a problem many of us had with the Alexander-Murray idea, since nothing in the plan addressed one of voters’ key priorities — ending the forced partnership between taxpayers and the abortion industry.
“What we’re proposing not only helps treat some of Obamacare’s symptoms: rising premiums, fewer choices, and uncertainty and instability,” Rep. Brady explained. “It takes steps to cure Obamacare’s underlying illness through patient-centered reforms that deliver relief from federal mandates, protect life, and increase choices in health care.” Like other bills, it would eliminate Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, expand health savings accounts, and fund the cost-sharing program for two years, a move, Politico explains, “designed to appeal to Republicans who want to fund the Obamacare program but feel that Alexander didn’t get enough conservative concessions in his negotiations with Murray.”
Its biggest obstacle, apart from getting time on a busy congressional calendar, is that the duo will be introducing it as a standalone bill, meaning that it would need help from Democrats to pass. But if the Obamacare implosion continues, even they’ll have to concede that something needs to be done. And soon.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
Also in the October 26 Washington Update:
HHS Asks You: How Are We Doing?
Best Bye: Controversial Texas Speaker to Exit in ’18
Church World Service CEO: Trump catering to white-supremacists with refugee screening changes
/in Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann CorcoranThis is one of several statements I’m seeing this morning on the Trump Administration’s latest announcement on more stringent vetting for refugees and others wanting to enter our country.
Editor: When I can’t quite figure out how much Trump is accomplishing on this issue, I can always use a ‘squawk’ gauge—what is the decibel level of the squawking from the refugee industry? It is pretty high today!
As usual, in his Trump-blast, the CEO of one of nine federal contractors (paid by the head to place refugees in your towns) never once mentions that with more stringent vetting and fewer refugees entering the U.S., his ‘religious’ charity may have to absorb a huge loss in FEDERAL funding.
Will Rev. McCullough take a pay cut himself?
Continue reading here.
This past summer, I used Charity Navigator for my source of information on CWS and its income (see all nine contractors here). This is what I learned. In the most recent year for reporting (2016), CWS was operating on a budget of just over $88 million. See how much of that YOU (the taxpayer) supplied.
71% of their revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury! Yet, the good reverend is perfectly comfortable protesting, political organizing against the President, and calling any of you who have concerns about the refugee program a white supremacist!
This organization could not exist without government grants!
Church World Service contributions breakdown.
See if a Church World Service subcontractor is working where you live, click here.
(It was Church World Service that sent its subcontractor, Virginia Council of Churches, to the county in Maryland where I live over 10 years ago and so CWS is responsible for helping create this blog! However, I see VCoC isn’t listed as a subcontractor on that list anymore! Hmmm!)
And here (below) are Church World Services churches (churches representing the religious LEFT).
Is your church one of those supporting the goals of CWS?
BTW, If your local church is doing a “crop walk” you know you are supporting more refugees being placed in America through CWS.
People ask me all the time what they can do. If one of these is your church, you need to start speaking up to your local pastors/ministers!
African Methodist Episcopal Church- African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
- Alliance of Baptists
- American Baptist Churches USA
- Armenian Church of America (including Diocese of California)
- Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
- Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
- Church of the Brethren
- Community of Christ
- The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
- Ecumenical Catholic Communion
- The Episcopal Church
- Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
- Friends United Meeting
- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
- Hungarian Reformed Church in America
- International Council of Community Churches
- Korean Presbyterian Church in America
- Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
- Mar Thoma Church
- Moravian Church in America
- National Baptist Convention of America
- National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
- National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
- Orthodox Church in America
- Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A.
- Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
- Polish National Catholic Church of America
- Presbyterian Church (USA)
- Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
- Reformed Church in America
- Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
- The Swedenborgian Church
- Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
- Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America
- United Church of Christ
- The United Methodist Church
RELATED ARTICLES:
Did you watch the Congressional hearing this morning? Are you as enraged as I am?
President Trump issues new Executive Order on refugees as old one expired yesterday
No such thing as ‘Minnesota nice’ as St. Cloud mayor and council play dirty
Foreign-owned Big Meat hires Lutherans to help them find and retain refugee labor
VIDEO: What Is the Alt-Right?
/in Elections, Politics, Video/by Prager UniversityWhat is the alt-right? What is its worldview? How big is it?
Michael Knowles, bestselling author and host of The Michael Knowles Show, took a deep dive into alt-right culture. Here’s what he learned.
EDITORS NOTE: PragerU is suing Google/YouTube because of their censorship of PragerU videos! Learn more here.
Noncitizen Immigrants Voted Illegally in Pennsylvania Elections
/in Elections, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalA Pennsylvania election official confirmed Wednesday that noncitizen immigrants illegally voted in elections hundreds of times since 2000, casting doubt on the state’s ability to screen out ineligible voters on its election rolls.
Jonathan Marks, commissioner for Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation, told a state legislative committee that an agency analysis found 544 improper ballots cast from 2000 through 2017.
The election commission says those ballots were cast by noncitizen immigrants who claim they had mistakenly registered to vote, reports the Associated Press. In response to questions from Republican lawmakers, the commission said it was investigating if other noncitizen immigrants remain registered to vote.
The hearing comes two weeks after former Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes abruptly resigned amid disclosures that legal resident noncitizens were able to register to vote while applying for or renewing drivers licenses. After inquires from Republican state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the Pennsylvania State Department said it had records of 1,160 canceled voter registrations listing ineligibility as a reason and had put the issue under review.
At his testimony Wednesday, Marks said a glitch in the state’s Transportation Department’s “motor voter” process was responsible for the improper voter registrations. He told lawmakers the issue will be fixed within several months, according to the AP.
Republican officials nationwide have for years voiced concern that state election systems are susceptible to fraud and illegal voting by noncitizens and illegal immigrants. President Donald Trump pushed the issue to forefront in May with the creation of an election integrity commission to investigate “vulnerabilities in voting systems” used for federal elections.
In July, the commission sent letters to all 50 states, asking for voter data, including names, birth dates, party affiliation, partial Social Security numbers, and voting history dating to 2006.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, declined to provide some of the information, citing privacy issues and “grave concerns your request is a mere pretense for pursuing restrictions on the fundamental right of citizens to vote.”
Will Racke
Will Racke is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @hwillracke.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
A Note for our Readers:
Unfair Ballistic Privilege
/in Commentary, Satire/by The Peoples CubeTоварищи!
I am so filled with self-loathing over my unfair ballistic-intuition male privilege that I must denounce myself. It is, after all, for the common good and the cause of gender hyper-equality!
Report: Standing Up to Pee Gives Boys an Unfair Advantage in Physics
RELATED ARTICLES:
Wookiee Goes Ballistic on Foreign Dictator
Why is everything so unfair?
ABC News: Unfair and Unbalanced
EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Chief Designer originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.
Obama Justice Department’s $1 Billion ‘Slush Fund’ Boosted Liberal Groups
/in Featured, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalPresident Barack Obama’s Justice Department created a “slush fund” of nearly $1 billion using legal settlements with banks and steered those funds to political allies on the left while excluding conservative groups, internal documents show.
The financial institutions, which made legal settlements with the Obama administration regarding mortgage securities that imploded during the 2008 financial crisis, include Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and JPMorgan Chase.
Public records of the settlement agreements with the Justice Department show that when cash donations to liberal groups are combined with other donations in the form of loans and a separate settlement with Volkswagen of America Inc., the slush fund may have topped $3 billion.
The House Judiciary Committee obtained the internal Justice Department documents as part of an investigation conducted in conjunction with the House Financial Services Committee.
Tony West, an associate attorney general during the Obama administration who is now a top official at PepsiCo Inc., figures prominently in a chain of email messages involving his staff members, the records show.
The emails also suggest the Obama administration’s targeting of conservative organizations was not limited to the actions of Lois Lerner, the official who was in charge of an IRS division that processed various groups’ applications for tax-exempt status.
A 2013 inspector general’s report found that Lerner’s division delayed and obstructed the applications of tea party and other conservative groups.
In similar fashion, the Justice Department documents show that West’s staff went to great lengths to prevent conservative organizations from receiving any of the settlement funds.
In one email dated July 9, 2014, a senior Justice official on West’s team explains how the draft of a mandatory donation provision was rephrased for the purpose of “not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation [PLF].” The official identified the foundation as a group that “does conservative property-rights free legal services.”
The same email from West’s team singles out the National Association of IOLTA Programs as the sort that could be eligible for funding from settlement agreements.
It says the organization is among “statewide intermediaries” that “provide funds to legal aid organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention assistance and community redevelopment assistance.” IOLTA stands for Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account, a way of a method of raising money for charity.
By a vote of 238-183, the House passed a bill Tuesday designed to bar the Justice Department and all other federal agencies from “requiring defendants to donate money to outside groups as part of settlement agreements.”
Called the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, and sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the bill also “requires that settlement money goes either directly to victims or to the Treasury,” a press release from his office says.
Congressional investigators found that the Obama Justice Department used mandatory donations by the banks to funnel almost a billion dollars to left-leaning advocacy groups. The internal documents include correspondence showing some of these same third-party organizations lobbied Justice to receive the funds.
On March 4, 2014, political activists discussed a proposal in a meeting with Elizabeth G. Taylor, then a deputy associate attorney general. That same day, according to the documents, Taylor sent an email to West about the meeting.
In the email, Taylor informs West that she met on his behalf with Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement, and that representatives suggested that a bank that entered into a settlement agreement should contribute to the National Community Equity Restoration Fund.
Because a portion of the email is redacted, it’s not clear which bank was cited.
Bank of America, however, is mentioned later in the same email. The bank was “shamed” into complying with demands of political activists after they disrupted a shareholder meeting, the Taylor says in the email.
West responded to Taylor’s message the same day, writing: “Let’s discuss later today.”
The Washington-based Capital Research Center characterizes both the Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account and Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement as “left-wing outfits.”
Taylor may have become aware of Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement, or VOICE, in an email to her Nov. 8, 2013, from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a Washington-based lobbying group. The name of the individual who sent the email was redacted in the documents obtained by the House committee.
VOICE describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan “coalition of almost 50 faith communities and civic organizations in Northern Virginia working together to build power in middle- and low-income communities.”
The 2013 email explains that the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights had partnered with the Virginia interfaith group “in their fight to get JPMorgan to reinvest a portion of the more than $300 million in equity it stripped from Prince William County, Va. communities and families through predatory loans and toxic Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs) and foreclosures … ”
The author of the email then asks Taylor whether Justice Department officials who were negotiating with JPMorgan Chase could consider having any settlement funds directed toward a Prince William County Restoration Fund.
In sworn testimony Feb. 2, 2015, regarding settlements reached with banks, however, Geoffrey Graber, another Obama Justice Department official, told members of Congress that “the department did not want to be in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement.”
The email records obtained by the House Judiciary Committee appear to contradict Graber’s testimony.
West left the Justice Department in September 2014.
The Daily Signal unsuccessfully sought to reach West for comment at PepsiCo, and also has rquested comment from Taylor and from the named financial institutions.
Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at The Heritage Foundation who has written at length on settlement practices, told The Daily Signal in an email that Goodlatte’s legislation would help prevent future misuse of such settlement funds.
“The Obama administration gave to its cronies money that belonged to the public,” Larkin said. “That was tantamount to theft. This bill will keep any future administration from again stealing from Americans.”
The bill now goes to the Senate.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
Kevin Mooney
Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.
A Note for our Readers:
The Fruits of Soft Discipline: When Truth Becomes Mere Opinion
/in Culture War, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Catholic ThingFr. Mark Pilon: We have failed to maintain discipline about truth. When we are unwilling to defend the truth, truth itself becomes mere opinion.
When I was in the seminary in the early 1960s, we were indoctrinated in the notion that the harsh discipline of the Church over the centuries would be a thing of the past following Vatican II. Supposedly, none of this harshness had ever really worked to safeguard the teaching of the Church, so a new softer approach was needed.
Pope St. Pius X
A half-century later, the results are in – and it’s indisputable that the softer approach didn’t work. In addition to the exodus of priests, nuns, and religious, there’s been a massive loss of knowledge among ordinary lay people about what the Church teaches. And no wonder, since there’s been little effort to make Church teachings clear in the flight from the bad old days of “harsh discipline.”
The bad example most often cited back then was the effort by Pope St. Pius X to root out modernism by removing dissident professors and then, in 1910, instituting the Anti-modernist Oath “to be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.” This oath began by embracing and accepting “each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.”
Those errors were then briefly explicated, followed by this submission: “I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decreeLamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.”
Now the “enlightened” critics of this oath were many and prominent during the Second Vatican Council, and they won just two years after it closed. In 1967, the CDF under Paul VI issued a much-shortened Profession of Faith in “substitution of the Tridentine formula and the oath against modernism.” It is a brief restatement of the Creed with a closing qualifier: “I also firmly accept and retain each and every truth regarding the doctrine of faith and morals, whether solemnly defined by the Church or asserted and declared with the ordinary Magisterium, as well as those doctrines proposed by the same Magisterium.”
Click here to read the rest of Father Pilon’s column . . .
About the Author
Fr. Mark A. Pilon
Fr. Mark A. Pilon, a priest of the Diocese of Arlington, VA, received a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from Santa Croce University in Rome. He is a former Chair of Systematic Theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, and a retired and visiting professor at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. He writes regularly at littlemoretracts.wordpress.com.
Too Rich To Tax
/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes/by Rod EcclesThere is an argument going on in Washington, D.C. that affects each and every one of us. I am not talking about Obamacare, although that does affect each and every one of us. And I am not talking about security issues such as the boarder wall or enhanced check points at air ports, although these, too, affect each and every one of us.
I am talking about taxes. Yes the talk about taxes has begun anew in D.C. Republicans say cut taxes. Democrats say any cut only benefits the rich. Both parties say tax cuts must be paid for. I don’t know how that is an actual tax cut if you have to “pay” for it with other taxes.
Republicans say, cut spending. Well some of the Republicans say cut spending. Democrats and many Republicans say raise other taxes to pay for income tax cuts. Again, that is a shell game and not a tax cut.
Government at every level simply tells the citizens of their jurisdiction that they must do with less because government refuses to do with less. In fact, government often says it cannot do with less. So they raise your taxes and then expect you to be grateful that they raised them by a small 2% instead of the 5% or 10% they really wanted.
Sometimes government is “nice”. They don’t raise taxes. They raise user fees, licenses, registrations, tags, etc. The reality is, if government is charging it, if government is collecting it, then it’s a tax. Name it whatever you wish but understand its still a tax. And a tax is a tax no matter what name you give it.
Not to mention the hidden taxes everywhere you turn. Fuel taxes. Cell phone taxes. Internet Service Provider taxes. Cable TV taxes. Electric power taxes. You get the point.
And sometimes there is a tax before the tax. Or a tax on top of the tax. Its usually known as a surcharge. Yea, gas for your car has surcharges. So does the heating oil for your home.
Oh, and lets not forget the behavior taxes. Tobacco taxes, for example. The government tells us these taxes are to get us to stop using tobacco. So when Americans stop using tobacco, the government says they are losing too much money that they got used to having when they first implemented those taxes.
So what do they do? They raise the tax on tobacco and then propose new taxes. Taxes on sugary soda’s. Taxes on sugary and salty snacks. You get the point.
How about your gas tax? You know the massive taxes you pay every time you fill up the gas tank on your motor vehicle. The federal rate is about 18 cents per gallon. By the way, oil companies usually earn less than that rate per gallon as profit. So right off the bat, the federal government earns more off every gallon of gas than the companies that drill, transport, refine, distribute and sell it.
Now don’t forget to add your state taxes to the mix. The combined federal and state rate on a gallon of gas goes from a low of about 26 cents in Alaska to a high of nearly 70 cents in New York. I bet you thought California was the highest. They are a very close second at about 69 cents. The Hawaii comes in at about 68 cents.
That does not include local taxes in some jurisdictions. And that does not include the taxes paid on crude oil. When you add up all the taxes that you pay when you put a gallon of gas in your gas tank, in some states you are paying over $1.00. So if gas in your area is selling for around $2.50 per gallon, understand the oil company is only getting about $1.50 or less.
And if you think you can get around this tax by using a more efficient vehicle or buying or using a vehicle that doesn’t even use gas, you better think again.
There are those in government that are putting out a call to tax you on the total miles you drive because gas tax revenue is falling due to more efficient vehicles on the road. You are pumping less gas. Which means you are keeping too much of your money.
Yet every time someone seriously proposes cutting taxes we all pay, someone else says its only a tax cut for the rich. What they are really saying is that they don’t want you to keep more of your own money. So they hide behind the false notion that only the rich will benefit.
Who cares? If the rich earn what they earn, how does it make my life better if government taxes them more? It doesn’t. But since they don’t get a tax cut, then neither do the rest of us poor slobs who more often than not open our wallets to find them empty.
Spread the misery right? How about we spread the prosperity for a change. Its time for government to do with less money for a change.
Don’t you agree?
We Are Suing YouTube for Censoring Our Videos
/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Policy, Politics/by Prager UniversityAs you know, PragerU’s videos are available on a number of platforms, one of which is YouTube. And as you may also know, YouTube has chosen repeatedly to restrict some of our videos for violating their “Community Guidelines.” Those guidelines are meant to protect users against viewing sexual content, violent or graphic content, and hate speech.
As a PragerU viewer, you know as well as I do that our videos contain nothing even remotely close to any of these categories.
To date, YouTube has restricted or “demonetized” 50 PragerU videos, addressing topics ranging from the Ten Commandments to the history of the Korean War.
More than a year ago, we filed a complaint with YouTube, hoping that there was some kind of innocent mistake.
That’s when we were told by YouTube that after reviewing our videos they determined that they were indeed “not appropriate for a younger audience.” Of course, we have this in writing.
Think about the millions of actually inappropriate videos on YouTube and then ask yourself, “Why is our content restricted?”
Unfortunately, the answer is rather obvious, isn’t it? YouTube has restricted PragerU videos for only one reason: Ideological discrimination.
Of course, YouTube is owned by Google, which was founded to, ironically, “Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
YouTube has made some of our most important videos inaccessible to the very audience PragerU seeks to reach: young people.
Let me be clear: they don’t like what we teach and so they intend to stop us from teaching it. This kind of censorship is what we have seen on college campuses for years. But it is far more dangerous in this circumstance because the internet is where the world goes to get informed.
Can you imagine if the left owned the internet the way they own our universities?
Can you imagine what the world would look like if Google is allowed to continue to arbitrarily censor ideas they simply don’t agree with?
Well, this is why Prager University filed suit again YouTube and Google. We are not fighting this only for PragerU—we are taking this on for America and possibly the world.
Now, I have to tell you … this was not an easy decision.
Over the summer, former Governor of California Pete Wilson — who has been a longtime supporter of PragerU — approached us and posited the idea: “We have to sue them,” he said. “Google is hubris.”
Those words weighed heavy on our entire team as we considered our options.
Obviously, a fight with Google will be hugely difficult and costly, and we hate the idea of deploying energy and resources away from producing more content and reaching new audiences. We simply cannot do that.
So, before taking any such action, we decided we’d attempt a more diplomatic approach one last time. On the one-year anniversary of Google blocking our content, or the “BANniversary” as we had come to call it, we renewed our complaints to YouTube and re-circulated an online petition urging Google to change course. Many articles have been written and many people, including many very prominent and influential people, rallied in support of our cause. To date, well over a quarter-of-a-million people have added their names to our petition.
What was the result of our efforts?
Nothing. YouTube ignored us. In fact, they have since restricted 11 more PragerU videos.
With our hands tied, we knew Governor Wilson was right—Google’s hubris had to be challenged.
So, we have built an all-star legal team, including Governor Wilson’s Law Firm, Eric George, Alan Dershowitz, Barak Lurie, Kelly Shackelford, Mat Staver, and more.
It’s an impressive group, because this is an important case; not only for PragerU, but for the fundamental American right to freedom of speech.
But this is not going to be easy and it isn’t going to be cheap.
Despite the fact that our amazing attorneys have agreed to reasonably cap their legal fees, there will be additional personnel, research, marketing and public relations costs to PragerU.
This case will be tried in the court of public opinion as much as in the courtroom, and we intend to win in both venues.
However, we cannot deplete our operating budget to fight this case. Thanks to you, PragerU has reached more than 1-out-of-4 Americans on the internet. Sixty-three percent of them are under 34. We plan to continue to focus on this growth and reach 3 out of 4 Americans. We can’t let up now.
We are fully committed to the lawsuit but we won’t let them slow the growth of PragerU.
This is why our board of directors and many staff members have donated, in addition to our annual gift, to what we are calling the “YouTube Action Fund.” Dennis Prager, Allen Estrin, and I have all given extra this year.
Now, here is how you can help:
Many of you have already given so generously and I am embarrassed to ask for more. But if you think this fight is important please support us in whatever way you can.
It seems like a lot to ask…until you consider how much we have to lose.
Perhaps Goliath could teach Google a little bit about where hubris leads … when a David comes slinging.
Thank you, and God bless you.
RELATED ARTICLE: Conservative Group Claims YouTube Is Censoring Its Videos
Depressing conclusions to be drawn from the sad story of the Kurds
/in National Security, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Mordechai KedarWhat happened to Kurdish dreams of independence is a warning signal of what could happen to an Israel which relies on the world.
The Kurdish people have an inalienable right to their own national homeland just as other nations do. The Kurds are the largest ethnic entity in the world, numbering some 30 million people, which does not have a state of its own. Over three years ago, I declared – here on Arutz Sheva – that the world is obligated to see to it that historic justice is granted the Kurds by supporting their dream of being a free nation in their own land.
A referendum was held last month among the Iraqi Kurds over whether or not they should declare independence, while in the background threats emanating from Turkey, Iran, the Iraqi government and even Bashar Assad could be discerned. Joining them were other countries, including the USA and Europe, all of them warning the Kurds – and especially their leader, Masoud Barzani – not to attempt a one-sided declaration of independence. The neighboring countries fear a snowball effect on other minorities in their own countries, including their resident Kurds. More distant countries fear another war in the oil-rich regions such as northern Iraq, which could lead to a much wider conflict.
The referendum showed that a vast majority, over 90% of those voting, support independence. This resulted in Masoud Barzani, head of the Kurdish region, acquiring the ability to wield powerful leverage against the Iraqi government, which was naturally unnerved by the results and tried its best to convince Barazani not to declare independence.
The two main issues in the dialogue between Barzani and the Iraqi regime are:
Except that Barzani is not the only Kurdish actor on the stage. Jilal Talabani, his rival, did not support the hopes for Kurdish independence espoused by Barzani, and was of the opinion that the Kurds must remain within the national framework of Iraqi sovereignty. He was once the Iraqi president – mainly a ceremonial post – from 2005 to 2014, and died in Germany two weeks ago, on October 3, 2017. A pragmatist, he based his opinion on the realistic understanding that a declaration of independence would have a severely negative effect on the Kurds, because all the surrounding countries would do their utmost to ensure its failure, not balking at the idea of starving the Kurds to death by putting their region under siege.
The differences between Barzani and Talabani are nothing new. In fact, the two families have been at odds for decades, and in the second half of the twentieth century there were actual battles between the two, involving weapons and resulting in dead and wounded. The Iraqi regime knew this well and took advantage of it by forming a coalition of one side against the other. The factionalism of the Kurds prevented them from forming a united stand and the neighboring states – Turkey, Iran and Syria – knew how to make use of this factionalism for their own ends.
This week, the dispute led to facts on the ground: The Iraqi army, supported by Shiite militias, moved towards Kirkuk and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting force left the city without doing battle. Within two days the Iraqis took over the city and its adjacent oil field without resorting to violence, neutralizing an important part of the leverage Masoud Barzani was hoping to wield during negotiations with the Iraqi government.
It seems that the Pershmega are not united and reflect the ongoing internal dispute among the Kurds. Some listen to Barzani’s orders and others act under the influence of Talabani. The forces guarding Kirkuk were under the sway of Talabani and gave up in the struggle against the Iraqi army’s takeover, to Barzani’s dismay. The internal strife among the Kurds distances them from their dream of independence, a dream that will only move farther away for as long as they cannot agree on its parameters.
The tragedy of the Kurds is even greater because their fighters, part of the coalition led by the US, were the most important force fighting ISIS.
The tragedy that has befallen the Kurds is even greater because their fighters, part of the coalition led by the US, were the most important force fighting ISIS. They were given arms, weapons, funding and training by their coalition partners, but it is they and not the coalition’s fighters, who shed their blood in street to street, house to house, room to room fighting against ISIS. Hundreds of Peshmerga fighters were killed and wounded in the long, exhausting battle to liberate Mosul from the Jihadists of the Islamic State.
The Kurds expected the world, headed by the US, to stand behind them once ISIS was defeated, remembering their large contribution to that defeat and supporting their demand for independence. These hopes were dashed very quickly when the official American stand turned out to be that “we have no intention of interfering in internal Iraqi affairs” – that is, the US will not support the Kurdish demand for independence led by Masoud Barzani, this despite the referendum and their historic rights.
Those Kurds who longed for independence are disappointed and feel betrayed by the nation with whom, for whom and in whose name they fought for a lengthy and bloody period, one filled with battles and Kurdish victims sacrificed in the war against ISIS.
It is possible that the American stand is based on Talabani’s approach, one which saw no need –certainly not an immediate one – for declaring independence and preferred that the Kurds integrate into the Iraqi state for good. Naturally, Talabani’s loyalty to the Iraqi regime is explained by rumors of bribery, jobs and other favors he and his men received from Iraq and Iran.
On the other hand, rumors say that Barzani received his own favors from the Saudis, who are interested in preventing a Shiite axis led by Iran. The Mideast news sources are full of these hard to prove stories (Anyone who thinks that Trump invented the concept of “fake news” is unfamiliar with the media and political discourse of the Middle East…)
Conclusions Israel must draw from the Kurdish saga
For the last several years, and particularly since the signing of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers, there has been a discernable warming of relations between Israel and the Arab nations who feel threatened by Iran. Those include Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan. As a result there are Israeli pundits, army officers and politicians who view the current regional situation as a golden opportunity that Israel must take advantage of by accepting the Arab peace proposals, establishing a Palestinian state and embarking on a new era of cooperation with the “moderate Sunni axis” in order to bring peace and security to Israel and the entire area. Why? Because all these countries fear Iran as much as, and possibly more, than Israel does.
But let us suppose that the Iranian threat disappears because Israel succeeds in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. As a result, war breaks out between Israel and Iran (including Hezbollah), Israel sacrifices hundreds of soldiers and civilians – and the Iranian problem ceases to exist. Will the Arab and Western worlds be grateful to Israel and act to protect Israel’s interests?
The answer is simple: What happened to the Kurds will happen to Israel. The Kurds fought ISIS, sacrificed their soldiers and people, and were thrown to the wolves once they were not needed. That is exactly what the world’s nations will do to Israel once it extricates them from the Iranian problem. Why not? The immediate interests of each and every country and not the moral rights of the Kurds and the Israelis are what makes the world go round.
Israel will indeed be the darling of the “moderate Sunni axis” – that is, for as long as there is an Iranian threat.
Once that is gone, the fracturing of Iran into ethnic components (on the lines of the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) will obviate the need for relations with Israel.
For this reason, Israel would do well not to give up its lands for a piece of paper with the word “peace” stamped on it, because that paper can easily fly away in the desert wind while the worlds on it fade in the blazing Middle Eastern sun.
There are two unassailable proofs for this phenomenon: The first is the peace with Egypt. This peace was a result of Sadat’s need for economic assistance from Europe and Europe’s insistence that peace with Israel precede the granting of that aid so that its money is not squandered on wars. That peace treaty did not stand in Mubarak’s way when he allowed Hamas and its supporters to smuggle arms from Sinai to Gaza, because it was in Mubarak’s interests to bring about a war between Israel and Hamas, allowing Israel to do the dirty work with the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. As soon as the Sinai became Jihadistan and began fighting Egypt, the weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza ceased abruptly.
In sum, the peace between Israel and Egypt exists for as long as it suits Egyptian interests.
The second proof is the peace with Jordan, based on Yitzchak Rabin and King Hussein’s shared interest in preventing a Palestinian state from being established. This common interest created wide-ranging cooperation between the two countries. Hussein’s son, Abdullah II, changed his father’s policies and is a strong backer of the idea of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria whose capital is East Jerusalem. That is why he acts against Israel in every international forum, as if he were one of Israel’s greatest enemies. He relates to the peace treaty as an agreement to refrain from war and no more, while enjoying the economic benefits he gained from it.
The clear conclusion from the Kurdish, Egyptian and Jordanian situations is that Israel must not jeopardize its existence, security and interests by placing them in bankrupt Arab insurance companies.
Israel absolutely must strengthen its position in the Land of Israel, create local governing emirates for the powerful Arab families in urban Judea and Samaria while battening down Israeli control of the rural areas. No peace treaty can give Israel a lasting insurance policy, and the faster Israel and the world internalize this truth the better.
EDITORS NOTE: Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Consulting and Op-ed Editor, Arutz Sheva English site.
Border Agency Uses Slow Computers that Blackout & Can’t Screen Aliens with ‘Harmful Intent’
/in Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Judicial WatchThe computer system used by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) front-line border protection agency is slow, frequently blacks out and can’t prevent the entry of inadmissible aliens with “harmful intent,” a disturbing federal audit reveals. Incredibly, thousands of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents rely on the flawed information technology (IT) system to fulfill their duty of securing the nation’s borders and keeping terrorists and their weapons out of the United States.
“CBP’s IT systems and infrastructure did not fully support its border security objective of preventing the entry of inadmissible aliens to the country,” a DHS Inspector General report states. “The slow performance of a critical pre-screening system greatly reduced Office of Field Operations officers’ ability to identify any passengers who may represent concerns, including national security threats. Further, incoming passenger screening at U.S. international airports was hampered by frequent system outages that created passenger delays and public safety risks. The outages required that CBP officers rely on backup systems that weakened the screening process, leading to officers potentially being unable to identify travelers that may be attempting to enter the United States with harmful intent.”
This may seem inconceivable 16 years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil. CBP is one of the world’s largest law enforcement agencies with 60,000 employees and annual budget of around $13 billion. It’s a crucial DHS agency that must balance national security with facilitating lawful international travel and trade. On a typical day CBP processes more than a million passengers and pedestrians, 280,000 vehicles and conducts more than 1,000 apprehensions. The agency also has an Air and Marine Operations (AMO) that protects sea borders by interception inadmissible aliens and cargo approaching American borders. The division has about 1,800 agents, 240 aircraft and 300 marine vessels throughout the U.S., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The agency watchdog found that “frequent network outages hindered air and marine surveillance operations, greatly reducing the situational awareness needed to detect inadmissible aliens and cargo approaching U.S. borders.”
Information technology is a critical part of CBP’s operations and the agency has a special Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Information and Technology (OIT) to assure everything is functioning properly. The office is charged with providing effective technology, infrastructure and communications to adequately carry out border security operations. It’s also well-funded to the tune of $1.4 billion in 2016, the DHS IG report says. That accounts for the largest IT budget within DHS, comprising around 23% of DHS’s $6.2 billion IT budget. The CBP IT division also has a staff of around 5,200, including nearly 2,000 federal employees and thousands of contractors. This is a big-time and handsomely-funded enterprise that should run smoothly and effectively. Instead, it’s notorious for being inefficient and dangerously unreliable.
As an example of traveler delays and safety issues, the DHS report offers recent system outages that affected about 119,774 international travelers nationwide. More than 10,000, arrived at Miami International Airport and the backlog created “hazards and security concerns,” the audit says. CBP had to call local police and fire departments to help mitigate the risks and 258 CBP officers worked 762 overtime hours, resulting in more than $58,000 in overtime pay. The incident “created numerous secondary challenges and risks, including difficulties with crowd control, temperature, health emergencies and officer and public safety,” according to the audit.
Border Patrol agents face similar issues with a system known as e3 that’s famously slow and suffers lots of outages. Agents are frequently unable to carry out border apprehension and enforcement activities, DHS investigators found, with the most common outages related to a key portal that shares information in real time with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE). Some of the outages were prolonged and others occurred monthly. “The most significant impact of outages and slow processing in the e3 system was Border Patrol agents’ inability to meet court deadlines for submitting information about criminal aliens for possible prosecution,” The report states. For example, 48 individuals apprehended in the Tucson sector of the southwest border were not prosecuted in 2015 due to late records submissions. The same Border Patrol sector missed the deadline for transferring records for another 36 individuals due to e3 system failures.
CBP management does not dispute any of the findings in this alarming report. The question is, what will the agency do to fix the problem.
‘Men’ Get Pregnant Too, British Government Declares
/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Science/by The Daily SignalThe phrase “pregnant woman” needs to be more inclusive and termed “pregnant people” in a U.N. treaty, the British government announced on Monday.
The British government’s suggestion on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights claims the wording excludes pregnant transgender people. The treaty says “pregnant women” are protected and not subject to the death penalty, reported The Times.
The current terminology excludes transgender people who have given birth, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office claims.
“We requested that the U.N. Human Rights Committee made it clear that the same right extends to pregnant transgender people,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials told The Times.
There are two transgender men on record in the U.K. who have given birth after having a sex change. The biological women kept their womb and ovaries during the change, according to the Sunday report.
Some feminists are not happy about the terminology.
“This isn’t inclusion. This is making women unmentionable,” said prominent feminist writer Sarah Ditum. “Having a female body and knowing what that means for reproduction doesn’t make you ‘exclusionary.’ Forcing us to decorously scrub out any reference to our sex on pain of being called bigots is an insult.”
The British government is also considering removing a census question that asks citizens to identify gender and biological sex for the 2021 census.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s comments comes after Prime Minister Theresa May announced last week that the Gender Recognition Act will likely soon be amended to let people change genders without a doctor’s approval.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
A Note for our Readers:
University of Wisconsin-Madison Students Protest Abraham Lincoln Statue Because ‘He Owned Slaves’
/in Culture War, Education, Elections, National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalThere’s a common quote, frequently attributed to G.K. Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.”
In our modern context, this should be rephrased a bit: “Don’t try to pull down a statue if you have no idea who or what the statue was really about.”
During a 2016 Columbus Day protest conducted by Wunk Sheek, a Native American student organization, activists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus hosted a “die-in” at Bascom Hall, near a statue of President Abraham Lincoln.
According to The Daily Cardinal, a campus newspaper, the protest ended with the group hanging a sign on the Lincoln monument that said “#DecolonizeOurCampus.”
The activist group is now demanding a disclaimer be put up saying Lincoln was complicit in the murder of Native Americans.
Why would they be so angry about Lincoln?
“Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let’s be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men,” said one of the protesters.
“Just to have him here at the top of Bascom is just really belittling.”
This claim from the protester is patently false. The Great Emancipator grew up in poverty and never owned slaves.
Not only that, but his debates with fellow Illinois statesman Stephen A. Douglas offer some of the clearest reasons for why the institution of slavery violated the American creed.
Lincoln saved the union and brought about the end of slavery. Period.
In fairness to the activists, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg also made the mistake of saying Lincoln owned slaves last year.
Wisconsin educators, it appears you have some work to do. This is a basic fact that most Americans should learn before graduating high school, let alone while attending an institution of higher learning.
But beyond that basic ignorance, simply stating the fact that U.S. soldiers executed Sioux Indians while Lincoln was president doesn’t begin to do justice to what was a very complex situation in the middle of the Civil War.
During the war, Minnesota was in a state of chaos due to soldiers abandoning their posts and armies moving east to join the main war effort. On top of that, the Office of Indian Affairs was mired in corruption that was exacerbated by wartime negligence.
As a result, money promised to the Sioux tribe in Minnesota in exchange for its land wasn’t coming through, and many of its people starved.
This led to a bloody uprising called the “Dakota War,” which the U.S. government eventually put down.
Over 300 Sioux were sentenced to death for connection to the rebellion. Lincoln saw this as extreme, however, and pardoned all but 38 of the alleged perpetrators, whom he believed were guilty of the worst crimes such as rape and murder.
It was the largest mass hanging in American history, but it could have been much worse if not for Lincoln’s compassion. He believed that the Sioux were getting a raw deal, but needed to ensure peace on America’s borders in a time when the future of the United States was seriously in question.
It’s amazing that Lincoln acted at all in this matter, given that the nation was gripped by a bloody civil war more deadly than all of our other wars combined.
As Matt Vespa wrote in Townhall, “It’s not one of our nation’s best moments, but Lincoln was also fighting a much more existential threat to the country[:] an army from the southern states that at the time … was winning the American Civil War.”
It’s silly to judge Lincoln’s actions without some understanding of the circumstances of the time. But this is generally what has sustained the iconoclast statue movement.
Figures of our past are dehumanized, their actions put in a vacuum, only to be narrowly judged by the increasingly absurd, ever-evolving standards of our time.
This is why it was such a short jump from attacking statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee to Lincoln, even though these men stood on opposite sides of the conflict that shook our nation and decided what we would become in the centuries that followed.
The anti-statue crusade thrives on shallow 21st-century moralizing—the privilege of the prosperous and comfortable, far removed from the suffering and difficulties of earlier times—coupled with the sheer ignorance of a generation that has little understanding of the basic facts of our history.
But the iconoclasts do not just see Confederates or Christopher Columbus or Lincoln as problematic. The movement is about more than these individuals. It’s an attempt to delegitimize and erase the very foundation of our civilization, which to them, is irreparably flawed.
This article has been updated to note when the University of Wisconsin-Madison protest took place.
COMMENTARY BY
Jarrett Stepman
Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.
RELATED ARTICLE: Why Cities Shouldn’t Take Down Confederate Statues
A Note for our Readers: