After Trump Deals with Democrats, GOP Leaders Know How “Real” Black Republicans Feel

There’s an old adage that says, “What goes around, comes around.” I couldn’t help but think about this adage when I saw the response of many congressional Republicans, after President Trump cut a deal with the congressional Democrats on raising the debt ceiling, Hurricane Harvey relief, and funding for the federal government.

Republican lawmakers were not only highly upset and insulted, they lost their damned minds. They were all over radio, television and newspapers whining and complaining. Many were too afraid to voice their outrage publicly, so they reverted to what all weak people do: they gave the media anonymous quotes.

“Real” Black Republicans go through this all the time and the party leadership doesn’t seem to give a damn. I have a record in my columns and in my other media platforms of publicly and privately expressing my displeasure with the party when they cut deals with Black Democrats at the expense of “real” Black Republicans.

To my congressional Republican friends and major party operatives: Now you know how “real” Black Republicans feel.

Now you know how “real” Black Republicans felt when you hired Roland Martin, a liberal Black Democrat journalist, to emcee my Black Republican Trailblazer Awards Luncheon. Roland, who is a good friend, never misses an opportunity to denigrate and diminish all things Republican with his liberal vitriol.

But hey, if Democrats were stupid enough to pay me to call them names, hell, I’d take the money too!

Now you know how “real” Black Republicans felt when Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with Al Sharpton and Marc Morial two weeks after he was sworn into office. To this day, he has never met with any Black Republicans. I worked on Session’s first senate campaign in 1996. Sessions is a great person, but I still wonder which White House staffer set up this disastrous meeting.

Sharpton and Morial have called Sessions everything, but a child of God since their meeting. So, what was the purpose of their meeting—race insurance? Enquiring minds want to know.

Now you know how “real” Black Republicans feel when in 2009, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich cut a deal to go on a national speaking tour with Sharpton promoting educational reform.

Three years later, when Gingrich decided to run for president in 2012, Sharpton used some of the most vicious language to attack Gingrich in his efforts to diminish his presidential aspirations.

So much for thinking you can buy your enemy’s loyalty and affection by getting in bed with them.

So, to all the Republicans who are angry at President Trump: we “real” Black Republicans feel your pain.

It’s not fun, is it?

So, just maybe, next time you will think twice when you want to engage with the Black community by courting Black Democrats at the expense of Black Republicans.

Maybe, just maybe, your experience with Trump will make you a little more sensitive to our plight.

Nothing positive has ever come out of Republicans meeting with Black, liberal Democrats. But yet, you continue to meet with these liberal individuals and groups like the NAACP and the National Urban League. Why?

It reminds me of the movie classic, “The Wizard of Oz.” What you were looking for was right before you all along. The Tinman already had a heart, the Lion already had courage, the Scarecrow already had a brain; they just simply needed to be reminded of that which they already had.

The Black community already supports the policies of the Republican Party, but the party needs to awaken from their slumber and recognize that which they already have.

Historically, Blacks have spent more time in the Republican Party than they have in the Democratic Party. In the immortal words of my grandmother, “your actions speak so loud, I can’t hear a damn thing you are saying.”

The message is not the problem. The messengers that congressional Republicans use are the problem. The Blacks you try to promote have absolutely no standing in the Black community.

But congressional Republicans are comfortable with liberal, Black Democrats, because Republican lawmakers know that the Black Democrats will simply do whatever they’re told to do. Congressional Republicans, in essence, tell the Black Democrats how to be Black like the Black acting school scene in Robert Townsend’s classic movie “Hollywood Shuffle.”

So, to my Republican friends: come on back home to the Black community. You don’t have to continue to live in the fake world of Oz. To my Republican friends: if you awaken from your sleep, you will find a whole new world of possibilities waiting for you in the Black community.

RELATED ARTICLE: Most Voters Are Happy Trump’s Reaching Across the Aisle to Work With Dems.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Progressive Doublethink: ‘Barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect!’

Barbarism is defined as: absence of culture and civilization; extreme cruelty or brutality.

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

After listening to Mr. Condell’s commentary, while reflecting on what happened on 9/11/2001, I realized that those who embrace open borders policies, sanctuary cities, labeling people as Islamophobes, shout the word “racism” based upon the notion that Islam is a race rather than a global political ideology, are in the business of reeducating Americans to embrace barbarism as “worthy of equal respect.” If you fail to do so the courts can, and in some places do, make you a criminal.

Groups that are merging barbarism with civil society to further their political goals include but are not limited to: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Organizing for Action, some followers of Mohammed, some followers of Bernie Sanders and some members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This is happening in our public schools, colleges, universities, in the media, in the halls of Congress and in our courts. Our “civilized” society is being reeducated to believe what George Orwell called “doublethink.” In his book “1984” Orwell defined doublethink as:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

The progressive ideal is the embracing of relative truth. Relative truth is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths. Revelatory truth is the knowledge that there are absolute truths. Truths that transcend culture, civilization and mankind itself. Progressive reject absolute truths such as: barbarism is evil.

Relative truth allows those in power to stay in power. Because its always about power.

Antifa protester.

Orwell wrote:

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, 1984 [Emphasis added]

Just as the object of torture is torture and power is power, the object of barbarism is barbarism. Barbarism is not a means; it is an end.

Those who embrace barbarism are themselves barbaric. Those who, by omission or commission, accept barbarism are encouraging more cruelty and brutality.

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Robin Rayne Nelson / ZUMA Press / Global Look Press

Thousands of impoverished people arriving in the U.S. while Americans are homeless

The image above is of Irma damage in Florida. The cost of hurricanes Harvey and Irma to the U.S. economy can be $290 billion or more.

As I have said until you are surely sick to death of it, President Donald J. Trump is expected to present to Congress a ‘determination’ within days about how many third world impoverished people will be admitted to the U.S. beginning on October 1.

But, here is the thing—he has complete authority to say that NO refugees will be admitted in FY18 because the Refugee Act of 1980 gives that power to the President!

In the last 2 days, three reporters (that I know of) wrote about suspending, or shutting down, the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program for this year.

Frank Sharry

Frank Sharry, open borders advocate.

First, Thomas Allen at VDARE wrote this (read it all, it is full of historical knowledge about the program).  Allen mentions this:

But even Open Borders activists recognize Trump has the legal authority to set the number at zero for 2018. Frank Sharry [Email him] a leading Treason Lobbyist, told a group of activists at the National Partnership for New Americans conference in September 2017 that Trump could “zero the program out” if he chose to. And Congress certainly could zero out the funding of the program if it chose to.

Not only did Sharry acknowledge this, but so did Bill Frelick from Human Rights Watch, here.

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch: “…there is no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee….”

And, indeed HIAS executives reported (here) that George W. Bush delayed a Presidential determination in the wake of 9/11 without any legal consequences to him. (The administration must have been worried about Islamic terrorists getting in to the U.S. even then!)

Harvey leaves American homes in Texas ruined by flood waters. Maybe the refugee contractors could get their volunteers busy helping Americans first!

Harvey trash

Destruction from hurricane Harvey.

Next, read Daniel Horowitz yesterday at Conservative Review.

And, finally don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where I am quoted saying this:

Ann Corcoran, who has followed refugee resettlement for more than a decade, said Trump has plenty of reason to do just that and still come across as a great humanitarian by focusing on needy Americans.

“The public should be outraged to learn that in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which have left tens of thousands of Americans homeless, that we are poised to take in thousands of impoverished refugees when we now have our own refugees, struggling people who have lost their homes, lost everything, with their lives shattered, living in tents, shelters and RVs,” Corcoran said.

To bring in more from other countries in a time like this would be the ultimate insanity.”

Read it all.

The refugee industry (the resettlement contractors and the cheap labor lobby) want you to think that the President must submit a determination of at least 50,000 for the upcoming fiscal year, but it just isn’t so!

Tell the President what you think by clicking here to get instructions…Tell your members of Congress and U.S. Senators too!

America First!

Betsy DeVos Stands Up for Due Process Rights in Campus Sexual Assault Cases

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced in a speech Thursday that she will roll back an Obama-era “guidance” document that drove colleges to implement Star Chamber-like tribunals to mishandle sexual assault cases.

The guidance forced colleges to weaken already minimal due process protections for those accused of rape and sexual assault, and threatened schools that refused to do so with losing federal funding.

The Education Department will seek “public feedback and combine institutional knowledge, professional expertise, and the experiences of students to replace the current approach with a workable, effective, and fair system.”

DeVos highlighted a proposal by two former prosecutors for states to set up specialized centers with trained professionals for investigation and adjudication of sexual assaults.

Another proposal is mandatory reporting of sex crimes to law enforcement as a condition of federal or state funding.

States already do this in the context of child and elder abuse, requiring teachers, administrators, school nurses, and coaches to report suspected abuse to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Failure to report can trigger civil and criminal penalties against the individual and penalties against the institution.

These proposals would take the pressure off colleges to conduct quasi-criminal proceedings, which college administrators are ill equipped to do. No one would expect a college tribunal to handle a murder on campus.

It makes no sense for a college to handle other serious crimes such as sexual assaults and rapes. Rapists are criminals, not just college students who violate a school’s honor code. They should be prosecuted in criminal court, and if found guilty, punished accordingly, including having to register as convicted sex offenders.

But the Obama-era guidance led colleges to steer students away from reporting crimes to the authorities, and required use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof when investigating and disciplining students accused of sexual assault.

This led to colleges barring an accused student from reviewing the evidence against him or cross-examining his accuser; refusing to allow an accused to hire an attorney or, when attorneys were permitted, prohibiting them from speaking on the accused’s behalf; and implementing other procedures that fly in the face of the protections typically afforded to someone accused of a crime.

The guidance letter received criticism from liberal and conservative quarters, from law professors to think tank scholars to members of Congress and many others.

Law professors at the University of Pennsylvania wrote that this “approach exerts improper pressure upon universities to adopt procedures that do not afford fundamental fairness,” and that “due process of law is not window dressing.”

Harvard law professors similarly decried the procedures as “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused” and which were “in no way” required by federal law. It also led to numerous lawsuits filed by students who were punished in these kangaroo courts.

In her speech, DeVos stated, “The notion that a school must diminish due process rights to better serve the ‘victim’ only creates more victims.”

Instead, due process must be “the foundation of any system of justice that seeks a fair outcome. Due process either protects everyone, or it protects no one.”

Sexual assault investigations and adjudications are serious issues that involve complicated procedures designed to get at the truth and prevent further harm to victims and those falsely accused.

Compound this complexity with a massive federal bureaucracy and various interest groups with their own agendas, and it is little wonder that alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and universities themselves are often left with no clear idea of their rights and responsibilities under the law.

Reversing the ill-advised Obama-era guidance is the first step to ensure that sexual assaults are properly investigated and adjudicated by trained professionals, leaving college administrators, as DeVos said, “to focus on what they do best: educate.”

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. On Twitter: Read his research.

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. On Twitter: Read her research.

RELATED ARTICLE: Read more about campus sexual assault, and how to fix the problem.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE:  Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

The Sixteenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Terror Attacks

The way we relate to our memories and recollections creates a dichotomy. Sometimes our memories of events make it appear that the event happened just days ago and sometimes we perceive our memories of the same events as through they happened a lifetime ago.Some events are so startling for good or evil that we will forever remember precisely where we were when that event occurred.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the assassination of President John F. Kennedy will forever remember where we were when we first learned about his death. The same can be said of the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger 72 seconds after liftoff on that cold January morning in 1986.

Similarly the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, were seared into our memories, if we are old enough to remember that horrific day, now 16 years ago.

As a New Yorker, I can never, ever forget the ashes from the conflagration at what came to be known as “Ground Zero” fluttering down on my neighborhood in Brooklyn less than ten miles away. I can never forget my neighbors screaming as they ran out of their homes and looked up at those ashes knowing that they likely contained the remains of people, including possibly, their family members who had just gone to work a couple of hour earlier.

I will never forget the cars that began driving around New York decorated with American flags and bearing the photos of their loved ones who had gone missing. Those photos were almost always accompanied by the plaintiff question, “Have you seen my son?” “Have you seen my wife?” “Have you seen my dad?”

It is sobering, however, to consider that there are millions of Americans who were too young on that day to remember the events surrounding the most massive terror attacks ever carried out on U.S. soil. There are also millions of American children who were born after that horrible day.

Recently I spoke with the producer of a radio show who called to invite me on his program. He was in his early 20’s and when I began discussing the attacks of 9/11 I was startled when he told me that he really did not know much about the attacks of 9/11. I asked him if he was taught about that savage act of mass murder in his classes. It was upsetting to hear that he had not learned much about that terror attack during the course of his education.

However, when I asked him about whether he had been taught about the attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, he immediately responded by saying, “Of course we learned about that attack, it led to America’s entry into World War II!

I decided that this was a moment to provide him with a bit of perspective about 9/11.

I asked him if he realized that on September 11, 2001, nineteen radical Islamic terrorists barely out of their teens, for the most part, had inflicted more casualties on the United States that did the entire Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

It took him nearly a minute to respond. He told me that he had never heard anyone make that comparison before, nor did he himself ever consider that comparison.

I went on and told him that the Second World War ended back in 1945 and Japan was no longer an adversary but an ally. In point of fact, I had worked with the Japanese government to help them to bring one of their citizens to justice, a young Japanese woman who was the final co-conspirator of a massive international drug trafficking organization, to be arrested.

The organization she was a part of smuggled cocaine from the United States to Japan. At the time that I assisted with that investigation I was the first INS agent assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration in New York City.

I was awarded a medal by the Japanese National Police for my assistance in that case.

The “War on Terror” however, is still very much ongoing. The “All clear” has not yet been sounded. No armistice is on the horizon.

As you read this members of the U.S. Military are engaged in the life and death struggles that go with combat, waging a war against an enemy that is determined to kill as many Americans, and others, as possible and destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The terror attacks of 9/11 have changed America profoundly. Privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment has all but vanished in many aspects of our lives whether we are boarding airliners, conducting business or engaging in so many other aspects of our day-to-day lives, concerns about safety and national security have stripped us of our privacy.

In point of fact, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, have yet to claim their last victim. In addition to the nearly 3,000 people who were slaughtered on September 11, 2001 even more people were injured or sickened by their exposure to deadly toxins released when the World Trade Center Complex was destroyed.

Because the illnesses and suffering and death attributable to the attacks of 9/11 continue to this very day, legislation known as H.R.1786 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act was passed to provide billions of dollars to address the massive expenses for providing medical care for these victims of 9/11. That bill and the legislation that preceded it was named for NYPD Detective James Zadroga, one of the first responders who perished because of his exposure to those toxins released at “Ground Zero.”

Every year since the attacks of 9/11 I have committed myself to doing whatever I could to alert and educate as many folks as possible about the nexus between immigration failures and national security and America’s vulnerability to international terrorists.

As an INS agent I have investigated and arrested terrorists.

I was called upon to provide testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the nexus between the terror attacks of 9/11 and multiple failures of the immigration system.

I have testified before numerous Congressional hearings in both the House and Senate.

Open borders/immigration anarchists attempt to bully and intimidate those who call for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement by accusing them of being “anti-immigrant” and, for the most part, the mainstream media has been more than complicit in their deception using that language to deride anyone who would dare suggest that America’s borders must be secured and our immigration laws must be enforced.

All too often he media equates demands for effective immigration law enforcement with xenophobia and racism.

However, our immigration laws have nothing, whatsoever, to do with race, religion, or ethnicity. As an INS agent I frequently investigated and arrested aliens who were not from Latin America. I have investigated and arrested aliens who were citizens of countries from around the world and were of every race, religion, and ethnicity.

Because of my advocacy for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement I have been referred to as “anti-immigrant” in some articles. Let’s set the record straight. I am the son of an immigrant. My mother legally came to the United States at the age of 13 and lived by herself in a rooming house and supported herself by working in an umbrella factory for $3 per week. Her mother, my grandmother, died in the Holocaust — I was named for her.

As an Immigration Inspector I gladly admitted many, many more aliens than I denied entry. When I was assigned as an Adjudications Officer to adjudicate the immigration marriage petitions as you’ve no doubt seen in some movies, while I did uncover a major fraud ring for which I received an award, I happily granted Green Cards to many more aliens than I denied.

Enforcement of our immigration laws is not about bigotry but about protecting America and Americans.

Inspectors of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are charged with enforcing our immigration laws at ports of entry. It is a job I am intimately familiar with because it is the job I did for the first four years of my thirty year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) before I became an INS Special Agent.

Those inspectors are charged with preventing the entry of aliens whose presence would be dangerous or otherwise problematic for America and Americans.

They are law enforcement officers and the law that governs their decisions are comprehended within one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Racism is not behind our immigration laws but survival most certainly is.

The racists in the immigration debate are those who freely talk about “Latino Voters” as though American citizens who are of Latino ethnicity have different values, goals, and dreams than other Americans. By definition, anyone who makes such proclamations about people based solely on their race is a racist.

All reasonable Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals and Independents, irrespective of superficial factors, race, religion, or ethnicity, have essentially the same concerns and desires. All Americans want our military to keep our enemies as far from our shores as possible. They want our police to keep our streets safe and they want our schools to educate our children so that any American of any race, religion, ethnicity, or gender who is willing to study hard, work hard and perhaps benefit from a bit of good luck, can write the next success story.

For the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001, I truly believe that the United States has in Donald Trump a President of the United States who is determined to use the The 9/11 Commission Report and official companion report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” as the starting point for formulating immigration enforcement strategies and policies.

The preface of that latter report began with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Page 47 of this report noted:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

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.150 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.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists. I have therefore come to refer to this issue as Immigration fraud: the lies that kill.

In the years since 9/11 still more terror attacks have been committed in the United States by aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Case in point, the Tsarnaev brothers who were granted political asylum and subsequent lawful status before they carried out the deadly terror attack on the Boston Marathon.

The news media is also guilty of committing fraud. President Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration is always referred to as the “Travel Ban” and it is then generally followed up with the statement that he has focused on “Muslim majority nations.”

In point of fact, the actual executive order does not include one word about the religion of the aliens impacted by his Executive Order. Furthermore, many other countries that are also “Muslim majority” are not on the list, including Indonesia whose population alone is nearly as great as the population of all of the countries on the list combined.

It is frustrating, at the least, that the mainstream media refuses to publish the actual name of President Trump Executive Order. If they did the manufactured “controversy” would evaporate.

The actual name of President Trump’s Executive Order is:

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

For Americans who are justifiably concerned about the dangers posed to America and Americans, especially in the wake of a series of worrying reports about terror attacks carried out overseas, the title of President Trump’s Executive Order would be comforting and reassuring.

A review of that Executive Order makes it clear that its purpose is not to single out aliens by religion but by the potential threat that they pose to national security and public safety and that where this Executive Order is concerned, “beauty is more than skin deep.”

Other Executive Orders issued by President Trump call for ramping up the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States to identify and remove criminal aliens and aliens who are members of violent gangs such as the notorious MS-13.

Sanctuary Cities obstruct all of these important efforts.

The globalists of both political parties are adamantly opposed to the notion of secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.

While our borders are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense, to these globalists, borders are an impediment to their wealth.

They want our borders to be wide open to permit America to be flooded with as many exploitable workers as possible, including high-tech workers, to drive down wages and benefits.

Pure and simple this is a matter of unbridled and immoral greed.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies including major corporation and a wide array of special interest groups, often from seemingly divergent positions are far more concerned with head counts on airliners, theaters, and hotels than they are with body counts in the morgue.

Lives are sacred and We the People must focus on what unites us as Americans and ignore the immigration scammers who engage in Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

As we contemplate the terror attacks of 9/11 and the victims of that horrific day, we must, as rational and moral Americans, resist those who would put America and its citizens in harms way.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Newsmax. The featured image is of the ‘Tribute in Light’ illuminating the night sky, on September 10, 2017, in New York City, on the eve of the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. (Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images). The image appeared in the original column and is reprinted with permission.

An Open Letter to the American People: A Destiny-Changing Proposal

I’m reaching out to you to consider a needed message, God Bless America? His Rescue Plan…

It begins with this Prologue: “The Great Sign of Revelation 12” in the sky on September 23, 2017.

The sign, according to astronomers, is a complex convergence of aligning planets and constel-lations that unfolds over 9 months that fits Revelation 12:1,2. Starting September 23, 2017, the sun will be in the virgin, Virgo, and the moon will be at her feet. She will have a crown of nine stars and three planets in alignment making 12. Jupiter, symbol of deity, will be in the womb area, exiting at her feet. A 90-sec YouTube video asks us what it means.

Christians might think the child that is birthed and caught up to heaven would be Christ, but if God guides the stars and if He meant this sign to be about the birth of Christ, He is 2000 years late.

But we know God is on time, and He’s the Author of nature and the Bible. We should wonder if the Bible explains what nature doesn’t? The answer is Yes!…

God called Israel His “first-born” in Exodus 4:22, but 1st-born implies another event. Paul supports this when he included the Exodus in writing that “All those things happened to them for examples …ends of the world.” 1 Corinthians 10:1,11. The Exodus then, is an example of an event that’s impending, signaled by the imagery of Revelation 12:1,2. It’s also the imagery of ‘travail on a woman with child’ when the ‘day of the Lord’ (end-times) comes with sudden destruction in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3.

America has many parallels to Egypt as the greatest nation then and now.

  1. They killed babies; the United States has aborted over 60 million babies.
  2. Egypt was a source of food in times of famine as America is for some nations now.
  3. Israel went to Egypt in a famine. Pioneers came when the Bread of Life was banned by the papacy in medieval times. Pioneers risked their lives for relief.
  4. Egypt enslaved Israel, but the United States has enslaved most of its people with alcohol, tobacco, drugs and bondage to food, gambling, greed, crime, sex, perversion, music videos, games, TV, etc.

God is going to execute judgment on the United States as He did on Egypt. Then Israel made a covenant at Sinai and they became God’s kingdom and Bride, Exod 19:5,6; Jer 3:14. This brings us to a more biblical understanding of the wedding parables, not a rapture. Readiness for the calamity in those parables is the key to high destiny. The Rule of 1st Use helps us understand them. For example…

The cry at midnight in Matthew 25:6 is first found in Exodus 12:29,30 as calamity fell on Egypt. The ‘knock’ in Luke 12:36 is an earthquake because Laodicea (where He knocked) ended that way. “The day of the Lord’ begins with an earthquake in Joel 2:10,11; Paul says ‘sudden destruction.’

God Bless America? shows how we can be ready for that event by ‘watching’ on the eve of Pass-over (all the wedding parables have Passover imagery) and it’s the authentic night for communion and the key to high destiny, Luke 12: 35-37,44.

If readiness for the event that affects destiny is important to you, please reply with a request for God Bless America? His Rescue Plan and How We Can Be “Ruler Over All That He Has.” He is offering us a huge reward and it must be important to Him for our answering His end-time call.

Thank you for considering this message. May God bless and guide America.

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling is an author on current events and Bible prophecy. His latest book, God Bless America? is subtitled His Rescue Plan & How We Can Be ‘Ruler Over All That He Has,’ is offered at no charge this Saturday, October 16th, 2017 at http://amzn.to/2grtEQx.

On the ‘ISM’ sins: Racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia

James V.  Schall, S.J.: “Ism sins” wrongly seek to “purify” by identifying evil with unacceptable ideas, not with actions of individuals who are personally responsible for their actions.

At first sight, we might think today that nobody talks of sins anymore. Indeed, in our era, much of what was once forbidden is permitted. Just what someone would do to commit what was once called a “sin” – serious matter, full consent of the will – is difficult to pin down. A citizen is likely to end up in jail if he suggests that adultery or sodomy might just possibly be “sins” rather than “rights.”
A newer category of sinning, however, is flourishing. It is related to the older idea of “corporate guilt.” We now have the “ism” and the “phobia” sins, the general category sins by which we can judge (“Who am I to judge?”) whole groups of human beings as sinful just for being what they are.

Even earlier we had the “anti” sins – anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism. Of course, depending on one’s politics, some of the “anti” sins were considered to be virtues – anti-fascism, anti-Nazism, anti-Communism.

These newer sins somehow, not without reason, were never mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

One can apparently contract these newer and terrible vices – racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia – without ever committing an actual sin in the older sense of the term.

Initially, sins had to do with acting persons, not with ideas or categories. To constitute sufficient matter, some identifiable individual had to act specifically against the good of himself or another identifiable person. Sins of thought did exist in the sense of willing evil in one’s heart to others, even if no overt act ever came forth.

These newer sins are more vague. Guilt is not a consequence of some particular individual’s knowledge and choice. The newer “guilt” belongs to an individual only as a member of a class or collectivity. If someone committed the sin of “racism,” just what would he have done to merit blame?

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

James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The features image is titled Christ and Sinner by Henryk Siemiradzki, 1875 [State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg]

Is it 1960 Again?

Robert Royal urges Catholics who are orthodox in their beliefs to resist the political trend to treat the Faith as what amounts to a hate crime.

When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, anti-Catholicism, which the Harvard historian Arthur M. Schlesinger once called “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” was still quite strong – and open. And not only among the usual suspects, like the KKK and Southern rednecks. The American poet Peter Viereck famously observed that anti-Catholicism was “the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals,” as easy to find in New York or Boston as in Alabama or Tennessee.

So it was no wonder that Kennedy felt he had to go before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960 and assure Protestant leaders, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me.”
It was a clever speech, crafted by Ivy League advisors and progressive priests, and intended to reassure nervous Protestants that the pope would not be dictating policy to America – in effect saying Kennedy’s Catholicism would not have any bearing on his decisions as president.

Wags have commented, accurately if uncharitably, that there was no little irony in this pre-emptive surrender, because the Kennedy boys’ Catholicism was so private, they mostly didn’t even impose it on themselves. But the tactic worked. Kennedy won, though public Catholicism – then strong in America – lost.

The usual feelgooders inside and outside the Church celebrated the overcoming of a longstanding prejudice. But anti-Catholicism did not and still has not gone away: witness the outrageous grilling of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett last week in a Senate judiciary hearing by Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, and Dick Durbin.

I will pass over the slimy details except to say that “orthodox Catholic” may be about to become a political term for someone whose religious beliefs disqualify him or her from public office. Perhaps even make them unwelcome in polite society.

You can’t be surprised that the Democrats – even the nominally Catholic Durbin – attacked. They are wedded to the belief that contraception, abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights (even for very young children) not only define our “deepest values” as Americans, but must be embraced by any faith that wishes to remain a respectable presence in American society.

Unorthodox Catholics, sometimes in larger percentages than the general population, accept all those things too, and so are not a problem – at least in politics. God may someday have a word to say about that.

Click here to read the rest of Robert Royal’s column . . .

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the Archangel Michael Hurling rebellious angels into the abyss by Luca Giordano, c. 1666 [Kunsthistorisches Museum,Vienna]

 

VIDEO: James Damore — ‘Certain Dogmas You Can’t Dissent Against at Google’

Google officials did not tell him what was incorrect in his research-based observations about men and women before firing him, software engineer James Damore said in an interview Monday night on Fox News Channel.

Instead, Damore told Tucker Carlson, colleagues tried to “shame” him amid “huge, emotional outrage” rather than discuss the 10-page memo he wrote about challenges to the information giant’s diversity goals. The reason for his termination last week, he was told, was his “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

“There’s certain dogmas that you really can’t dissent against at Google, and one of them being that there’s any difference between people,” the soft-spoken former Google employee said.

Watch the video to find out why Damore, 28, says he wasn’t completely surprised by the reaction to his “trying to actually improve Google.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Did Google Freak Out, Fire Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Video Team

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

The Problems Resulting from Moral Decay

How it impacts business.

Click for AUDIO VERSION.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

I recently went out to dinner with a business friend who owns a medium sized manufacturing company with just over 50 employees. Over a couple of cocktails he started to express to me his frustration with his people. He claimed to pay them well, provides a comfortable work environment, and offers a respectable benefits package. Regardless, he wished his people were more dedicated and professional in their attitude. He yearned for the old days when there was more pride in workmanship (and you thought I was the last of the whiners). I’ve known my friend for a long time and know his management style; he works well with people and although he insists on organization and structure, he tends to empower his workers to assume responsibility as opposed to micromanaging them to death. Frankly, I know a lot of people who would love to work in his environment, yet he still had this problem of employee attitudes and asked me for my thoughts on it.

I told him what he was experiencing was a simple matter of moral decay. Regardless of the work environment he provided and his interpersonal relations with his employees, there are other forces at work, namely our eroding system of values. I explained the following to illustrate the point:

  • It used to be a person’s word was his bond. If he made a verbal commitment, you could count on it. Today, lying and deceit are commonplace in just about every corner of our society. Consequently, our expectations to honor a commitment have been lowered and, even worse, we have lost faith and trust in our fellow man.
  • We used to have dedicated workers who cared about their work and doggedly saw a task through to completion. Now, we no longer associate our reputations with our work products. This may be because we have laws today making it difficult to reprimand or fire anyone regardless of their performance. Further, we now suffer from the “99% complete” syndrome whereby we never seem to finish anything with the excuse that, “We’ll get around to it.” In other words, determination and pride have been replaced by indifference which erodes production and opens the door for competition.
  • We used to respect our bosses and were loyal to our companies. As long as you were employed by someone, you bit your tongue and endeavored to help the company succeed. For example, I knew a loyal Boeing employee who steadfastly refused to fly on anything but Boeing aircraft. Today, concepts such as corporate loyalty and respect are a thing of the past as employees no longer trust management, and management doesn’t trust its workers, all of which leads to an inordinate amount of back stabbing and political maneuvering. It’s no small wonder that today’s employees are regarded more as free agents as opposed to team players.

To me, morality means giving of one’s self, putting aside our self interests for the common good of all. However, if in fact such things as honor, courtesy, pride, respect, sacrifice, courage, dedication, commitment, loyalty, honesty, perseverance, integrity, and professionalism, are adjectives of the past, then we are indeed witnessing the moral decay of our society. Actually, it’s rather remarkable we have progressed as far as we have as a species, but it makes you wonder how much farther we would be if we had the moral fortitude to overcome greed, corruption, and other vices. As Samuel Clemens correctly observed, “Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.”

Interestingly, American morality seems to change whenever we change presidents from one political party to another. I can think of no other single event which benchmarks a change in our culture than the passing of the presidential torch. Consider for example, the social changes incurred in the transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy, from Carter to Reagan, Bush to Clinton, and now Obama to Trump. A change in Presidential party signals a change in social norms and moral priorities.

So what can be done about deteriorating moral values? You would think that our religious institutions would have a significant role to play here. Not necessarily. There are those who go to church simply to absolve themselves of their sins from the preceding week, not to correct any character flaw. After being “cleansed” they revert back to their indiscretions. No, we need to lead by example, reward accomplishments and truly penalize violations as opposed to looking the other way. There will always be those who are morally handicapped and persist in attempting to undermine our system of values, but we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to persevere. Our ability to surmount moral corruption defines who we are as a civilization.

Years ago, Arnold Toynbee said succinctly, “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder,”meaning our social problems are actually self inflicted. If we can cause the problems, I would like to believe we are strong enough to solve them, regardless of the price to be paid. Going back to my friend’s problem, what is needed is a little inspiration, hope, belief in ourselves, a little brother/sisterhood, and a legal system that doesn’t stifle morality, but rather promotes it. Regardless of the magnitude of the job, from major to menial, workers must believe they are leading an honorable and worthwhile life. There is nothing wrong with ambition, as long as it doesn’t lead to incessant politics. There is nothing wrong with personal achievement/recognition, as long as teamwork doesn’t suffer. There is nothing wrong with criticism, as long as it’s constructive, not destructive. Basically, we just need some common sense and respect for the human spirit.

So, the question comes down to this; Do we still possess the fortitude to do what is morally right? That is a question for each of us to answer and for our heirs to judge.

Immigration and the Unlearned Lessons of 9/11

Politicians and the courts block Trump administration’s efforts to safeguard America.

It is hard to believe that it has been 16 years since four passenger airliners were used as de facto cruise missiles to carry out the most horrific terror attack in the history of the United States.

That attack was against the entire United States of America, however, for those who were in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on that day, the attack was also personal — all too personal.

I will never forget the sight of the ashes from the conflagration at what came to be known as “Ground Zero” fluttering down on my neighborhood in Brooklyn on that day.  I will never forget my neighbors screaming and wailing as they watched the televised coverage of that act of violence and destruction playing out just miles from our homes, knowing that their loved ones and friends went to work only an hour or two earlier at the World Trade Center, or in one of the buildings near the World Trade Center complex.

I will never forget what I came to think of as the “stench of death,” the horrible, sickening odors emanating from the smoldering debris at Ground Zero that lasted for months, permeating the air in New York City.

So many of us still suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. How could we not?

Today the death count from 9/11 continues to climb as more people, especially first responders, slowly and torturously succumb to the diseases that were caused by their exposures to and ingestion of the toxins released when the World Trade Center collapsed.

In fact, the expenses associated with the massive number of those who were sickened by those toxins will be borne through the passage of legislation known as H.R.1786 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act.  That bill was named for NYPD Detective James Zadroga, one of the first responders who perished because of his exposure to those toxins.

For nearly every year since the attacks of 9/11 I have written retrospectives to lay out how both the Bush administration and especially the Obama administration failed to take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into account, particularly where the issue of immigration was concerned.

I provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the nexus between the terror attacks of 9/11 and multiple failures of the immigration system.

Last year my article, Reflections On 9/11’S Vulnerabilities” made my frustrations with the Obama administration crystal clear.

My 2014 article The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks provided and in-depth analysis of the many ways that the Obama administration had not only not acted in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but actually acted in direct opposition to those findings and recommendations.

Today, thankfully, Donald Trump is the President of the United States and the Attorney General is not Loretta Lynch but Jeff Sessions.

Trump and Session are both clearly committed to enforcing our immigration laws, securing our nation’s borders and addressing the immigration failures and vulnerabilities that the 9/11 Commission identified.

For the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001 I truly believe that the President of the United States is determined to use the The 9/11 Commission Report and official companion report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” as the starting point for formulating immigration enforcement strategies and policies.

However, don’t break out the champagne just yet.

At every turn the measures taken by the Trump administration to secure the borders of the United States and effectively and fairly enforce our nation’s immigration laws are being thwarted, hobbled and even blocked by politicians from both political parties in Washington and elsewhere.

“Sanctuary Cities” harbor and shield illegal aliens from detection by ICE enforcement personnel.  Among these illegal aliens are criminals, fugitives and terrorists. Without access to smuggled aliens ICE is unable to identify and act against human traffickers.

Incredibly some Sanctuary Cities have decided to solve the problem of “undocumented aliens” by providing them with documents often referred to as municipal IDs.  The term “Undocumented Immigrant” is an artifice created by President Jimmy Carter to blur the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants.  In the years since further blurring of distinction has served to minimize the distinction between citizens and aliens.

Meanwhile the idea of providing illegal aliens whose true identities, backgrounds and even entry data are unknown and unknowable are being provided with the illusion of legitimacy by being provided with those municipal identity documents which also runs contrary to the REAL ID Act passed by Congress to address issues identified by the 9/11 Commission.

Nearly five years ago the NY Times published an important and illuminating article, Roosevelt Avenue, a Corridor of Vice that reported on the nexus between illegal immigration, crime (including human trafficking, prostitution, narcotics) and the use of false identity documents.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, has acted to gut Presidential authority to prevent the entry of terrorists and into the United States.  Other court decisions have blocked the implementation of laws that would punish Sanctuary Cities.

Finally, supposed “journalists” who could be gainfully employed by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in his novel “1984” castigate the President and anyone who would dare suggest that the United States not welcome every single foreign national irrespective of how they enter the United States.

They routinely refer to anyone who draws a distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens as being “Anti-Immigrant” while those who advocate for pure immigration anarchy are kindly looked upon as compassionate and refer to them as “Pro-Immigrant.”

When President Obama issued his Executive Orders on immigration the media immediately and accurately published the actual name of the Executive Order.  Today the term DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival) is well-known because the media published the actual name of Obama’s Executive Order.

The media reported that the Executive Order would benefit “young undocumented immigrants” even though illegal aliens as old as 31 years of age could participate in this wrong-headed and dangerous program, if they claimed that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.

With no in-person interviews and no field investigations, however, fraudulent claims were extremely unlikely to be uncovered by the adjudications officers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).

The 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.  I have therefore come to refer to this issue as Immigration fraud: the lies that kill.

In the years since 9/11 still more terror attacks have been committed in the United States by aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Case in point, the Tsarnaev brothers who were granted political asylum and subsequent lawful status before they carried out the deadly terror attack on the Boston Marathon.

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are determined to identify and prosecute  aliens and co-conspirators who engage in visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud and end Sanctuary City policies.

Additionally, President Trump promulgated an Executive Order that has universally been reported as the “Travel Ban” that purportedly was focused on citizens of “Muslim majority countries.”

All of the supposed controversy surrounding President Trump’s Executive Order is contrived and would end overnight if the media simply published the actual name of President Trump’s Executive Order:

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

For Americans who are justifiably concerned about the dangers posed to America and Americans, especially in the wake of a series of worrying reports about terror attacks carried out overseas, the title of President Trump’s Executive Order would be comforting and reassuring.

A review of that Executive Order makes it clear that its purpose is not to single out aliens by religion but by the potential threat that they pose to national security and public safety and that where this Executive Order is concerned, “beauty is more than skin deep.”

Other Executive Orders issued by President Trump call for ramping up the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States to identify and remove criminal aliens and aliens who are members of violent gangs such as the notorious MS-13.

Sanctuary Cities obstruct these important efforts.

What has also not been reported by the media is that while President George W. Bush and his Secretary of Homeland Security issued an improper Executive Order to protect illegal aliens under the Privacy Act, even though that law, as enacted, only protects United States citizens and lawful immigrants, President Trump has issued an Executive Order that rescinds the Bush Executive Order.

President Trump has been acting in the best interests of America and Americans.

The bottom line:  Opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies is opposition to national security and public safety.

RELATED ARTICLE: The REAL ID Act: What It Means, State by State Requirements, & Everything Else You Need To Know

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on September 11, 2001

By Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” a terrorist declares on the Flight 93 cockpit recording. That’s followed by the sounds of the terrorists assaulting a passenger.

“Please don’t hurt me,” he pleads. “Oh God.”

As the passengers rush the cabin, a Muslim terrorist proclaims, “In the name of Allah.”

As New York firefighters struggle up the South Tower with 100 pounds of equipment on their backs trying to save lives until the very last moment, the Flight 93 passengers push toward the cockpit. The Islamic hijackers call out, “Allahu Akbar.” The Islamic supremacist term originated with Mohammed’s massacre of the Jews of Khaybar and means that Allah is greater than the gods of non-Muslims.

Mohammed Atta had advised his fellow terrorists that when the fighting begins, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.” He quoted the Koran’s command that Muslim holy warriors terrorize non-believers by beheading them and urged them to follow Mohammed’s approach, “Take prisoners and kill them.”

The 9/11 ringleader quoted the Koran again. “No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood.”

On Flight 93, the fighting goes on. “Oh Allah. Oh the most Gracious,” the Islamic terrorists cry out. “Trust in Allah,” they reassure. And then there are only the chants of, “Allahu Akbar” as the plane goes down in a Pennsylvania field leaving behind another blood-soaked territory in the Islamic invasion of America.

Today that field is marked by the “Crescent of Embrace” memorial.

Thousands of Muslims cheered the attack in those parts of Israel under the control of the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority. They shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and handed out candy.

But similar ugly outbreaks of Islamic Supremacism were also taking place much closer to home.

On John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Jersey City, across the river from Manhattan, crowds of Muslim settlers celebrated the slaughter of Americans. “Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,” a retired Jersey City cop described the scene. “The women were shouting in Arabic.”

Similar Islamic festivities broke out on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, a major Islamic settlement area, even as in downtown Manhattan, ash had turned nearby streets into the semblance of a nuclear war. Men and women trudged over Brooklyn Bridge or uptown to get away from this strange new world.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: President Donald Trump Remembers 9/11: ‘America Cannot Be Intimidated’

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Daniel Greenfield originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Failure of the ‘Biofuels’ mandate

Can government ever admit a mistake and reform?

Government “biofuel” mandates are a mistake we should eliminate.

CFACT senior policy advisor Paul Driessen reminds us at CFACT.org of Ronald Reagan’s quip that, “the closest thing to earthly eternal life is a government program.”

“The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS),” Driessen writes, “created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act and expanded by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, is a perfect example. It has more lives than Freddy Krueger.”

“The laws require that refiners blend steadily increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline, and expect the private sector to produce growing amounts of ‘cellulosic’ biofuel, ‘biomass-based diesel,’ and ‘advanced’ biofuels. Except for corn ethanol, the production expectations have mostly turned out to be fantasies. The justifications for renewable fuels were scary exaggerations then, and are now illusions.”

“Bio-fuel” mandates reduce mileage, distort markets, raise prices, clog engines, reduce natural habitats and increase CO2 emissions (if that’s your thing).

They have no energy or environmental benefits and certainly are of no help to the climate.  They are an agricultural welfare program.

We love our farmers.  While some may defend these mandates to keep the cash flowing, virtually all admit that they are a big government mistake.

“Biofuel” mandates are ripe for cutting.

Congress should dust off and sharpen its ax and cut these foolish mandates off.

Round up of ‘death wish’ calls by Enviromental-Nazis

Hulk actor Mark Ruffalo has issued a death wish for conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. Ruffalo urged a “gofund me campaign”to “fly Rush Limbaugh to Hurricane Irma!”

Ruffalo’s death wish for Limbaugh follows a long line of climate activists who have issued similar calls for harm to come to climate skeptics. See:

2017: Left-Wing Website Hoped Hurricane Irma Would ‘F*ck Up’ Trump’s Mansion

2016: Arnold Schwarzenegger again threatens climate skeptics: ‘I would like to strap their mouth to the exhaust pipe of a truck — turn on the engine’ -Terminator wants to Terminate skeptics

2014: Death Wish: Warmist Greg Blanchette: ‘I kind of hope N. America gets its ass kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action’

DEATH WISH: Flashback 2009: Nobel-Winning Warmist Economist Thomas Schelling ‘Wished’ for ‘tornadoes’ and ‘a lot of horrid things’ to convince Americans of climate threat!

2010: DEATH WISH: Warmist Michael Tomasky admits he’s cheering for more natural disasters to convince people of man-made global warming!

Warmist’s Death Wish: ‘I will probably enjoy a drink of expensive scotch when Marc Morano, James Inhofe, and Steve Milloy kick the bucket’

2016 Death Wish: NYT Writer Calls for A ‘Natural Disaster’ in GOP States to ‘Unify’ After Clinton Win 

And if the weather does not kill, just use a weapon! See: ‘We could shoot him’ – Sir David Attenborough proposes shooting Trump to save climate in 2016 – ‘It’s not a bad idea’

Image result for death wish

But these hurricanes cannot be linked scientifically to “global warming” See: Climate Depot’s point-by-point rebuttal to warmist claims on extreme weather events

Despite that, Actor Ruffalo also urged Americans to “direct some of your rage and loss” at “climate change deniers like [EPA Chief] Scott Pruitt.”

Julie Kelly writing in American Greatness commented:

One could write this off as just another emotional rant from an uneducated Hollywood celebrity. But Ruffalo has quite a following, including 3.4 million Twitter followers and the media’s admiration. So it is not without consequence when the actor invites his minions to attack a Trump Administration cabinet official and anyone deemed a climate change denier. Considering one of Ruffalo’s fellow Bernie Bros tried to assassinate several Republican congressmen earlier this summer, nearly killing one of them, it’s outrageous for a top celebrity activist to fan the flames in this kind of political environment. It’s also a bit ironic, since he routinely tweets about love, compassion, and tolerance.

But Ruffalo also claimed that GOP “deniers” will be “in part responsible for these disasters going forward.”

The climate change activist community appears unified that Hurricane Harvey and Irma were somehow made worse by “climate deniers” and these “deniers” should be punished because they are guilty of “murder.”

The Nation: ‘To refuse to act against global warming…is murder’ – ‘Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us’

“The victims of Hurricane Harvey have a murderer—and it’s not the storm.​..What makes this so infuriating is that it shouldn’t be happening. Experts have warned for decades that global warming would increase these sorts of weather extremes and that people would suffer and die if protective measures were not implemented,” Warmist Mark Hertsgaard wrote in The Nation for the September 25 issue.

“The first step toward justice is to call things by their true names. Murder is murder, whether the murderers admit it or not. Punish it as such, or we encourage more of the same,” Hertsgaard wrote. “It is past time to call out Trump and all climate deniers for this crime against humanity. No more treating climate denial like an honest difference of opinion.”

“When the president announced in June that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord, I wrote in The Nation: ‘To refuse to act against global warming is to condemn thousands of people to death and suffering today and millions more tomorrow. This is murder, even if Trump’s willful ignorance of climate science prevents him from seeing it,” he added.

Climate activist Brad Johnson followed suit and demanded: “Put official who reject science in jail” as he blamed Irma on climate change.

Meanwhile, other environmental activists prayed for Hurricane Harvey to hit Texas so that it could damage it’s oil pipelines.

“Yes I am praying the Hurricanes hit full force to stop the illegal no federal permit permit Valley Crossing Pipeline,” Texas’ Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe chairman Juan Mancias posted a day before Harvey made landfall in Texas. “It will cost Enbridge and Spectra more $$$$.”

The two hurricanes also prompted other climate activists to demand “big oil must pay for climate change” because “their products contributed substantially to climate change.”

Other climate activists have called for a national registry to record U.S. citizens views on man-made climate change. See: Climate Gestapo: Treat ‘deniers’ like murderers, demand federal registry to record views on climate change

Climate Activists Peter C Frumhoff & Myles R Allen wrote in the UK Guardian that they blame industry for worsening storms.

“We know that the costs of both hurricanes will be enormous and that climate change will have made them far larger than they would have been otherwise,” Frumhoff and Allen wrote.

But others noted that fossil fuels are indispensable when facing natural disasters.  See: Alex Epstein on Stossel: ‘I Love Fossil Fuels’ – ‘The fossil fuel industry is not taking a safe climate and making it dangerous. They are taking a dangerous climate and making it safe’Alex Epstein praises oil & gas industry: ‘Thousands upon thousands of lives saved in Texas thanks to fossil fuels and the development they make possible’

Flashback 2016: Marc Morano: “This is all part of a financial scheme…Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”

Climate Depot’s point-by-point rebuttal to warmist claims on extreme weather events

Warmist claims from UK Independent Article – Via UK Independent: 

Claim: “Hurricane Irma likely to be followed by more extreme weather events.”

Climate Depot Response: “A meaningless statement. Extreme weather events have always happened and will always happen.” See: UK Prof. Philip Stott: ‘From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.” “Extreme weather events are ever present, and there is no evidence of systematic increases.”

Claim: “The world is going to be hit by more horrifying weather events like the hurricanes Irma and Harvey.”

Climate Depot Response: “Yes. That is true. The world has always been hit by horrific storms and extreme natural events. Climate activists are basically saying ‘many bad things will happen because of global warming’ and then when a bad thing happens, they tout ‘we predicted it!.’ But if you look at the history of major landfalling hurricanes, you can see a declining trend as CO2 has risen. See: Chart: As CO2 has risen, major landfalling US hurricanes declining over past 140 years – ‘Maybe we need MORE CO2’

Claim: “Global warming is likely to trigger a run of extreme weather events, they say, and like the recent hurricanes they may unfairly hit the poor.”

Climate Depot Response: “Concern about ‘global warming’ has coincided with unusually low extreme weather so far, despite these two recent hurricanes. See: Extreme Weather Expert: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters’

All extreme weather and other disasters “unfairly hit the poor” including war, famines, etc. The “poor” will always have it worse than the wealthier when it comes to resources to battle disruptions.

Claim: “The rapid pace of climate change is set by government policies in the U.S. and many other countries.”

Climate Depot Response: “Wow. Governments set the “pace of climate change.” About as likely as witches controlling the weather.

Claim: “Planet Earth’s climate is in upheaval and we know exactly what is causing it: right now.”

Climate Depot Response: “Earth’s climate is not in any more ‘upheaval’ than past geologic history. It’s medieval witchcraft to claim that  ‘we know exactly what is causing’ bad weather.” See: Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

RELATED LINKS: 

‘Three Category 5 hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S. since 1924’

Is Irma really strongest hurricane ever? ‘Not really’ – Ranked 10th for ‘intensity’ – Tied for 2nd in Wind Speed

Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Harvey & Irma are terrible, but…Major landfalling US hurricanes trending downwards over past 140 years’

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg: “Harvey and Irma are terrible, but we need perspective: Major landfalling US hurricanes trending downwards over past 140 years.”

Chart: As CO2 has risen, major landfalling US hurricanes declining over past 140 years – ‘Maybe we need MORE CO2’

Claim: ‘Hurricane Irma Should Shut Up All the Global Warming Deniers for Good’

The Nation: ‘To refuse to act against global warming…is murder’ – ‘Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us’

Claim: ‘Hurricane Irma’s epic size is being fuelled by global warming’

‘Bloomberg News: Hurricane Irma Made Worse by Climate Change, Scientists Say’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on’ – Curry: ‘Anyone blaming  Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.’ ‘The huge amounts of rain are associated with Harvey’s stalled movement.’ Phil Klotzbach has prepared this list off Cat 4-5 U.S. landfalling hurricanes:

Flashback: 1963 Global Cooling Hurricane Produced 100 Inches Of Rain

The so-called “consensus” is very unclear about hurricanes.

See:What Hurricane ‘consensus’?! ‘Global warming’ causes MORE hurricanes — Except when it causes FEWER hurricanes – Stop the confusion! Global warming will cause less hurricanes or more hurricanes or more powerful but less frequent hurricanes or have no known impact on hurricanes and will cause less rain or more rain. In other words, predict every possible outcome and you too can claim you predicted it! No matter what happens with hurricanes, the climate establishment can confidently claim, they were right. 

Michael Mann joins a long list of doomsayers who have predicted similar end times predictions about “global warming.” In 2004, the UK’s Sir David King suggested Antarctica would be the only place left on Earth cool enough for humans to live.

UK Independent article excerpt from 2004: “Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.”

Flashback 2007:UK Green Guru James Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: ‘Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic’  (But Lovelock would later recant and become more skeptical of climate change. See: Alert: ‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore!

Former NASA scientist James Hansen on NBC’s Nightly News: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami. They would all be under water.UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer on ABC News, 20/20: “If the sea level rise occurred fast enough, some major cities might have to be abandoned, like, for instance, London.”  (Both of above clips  of Hansen & Oppenheimer appeared in Climate Hustle film. )

Global warming campaigners have seized the opportunity to link Hurricane Harvey to their cause, just as they have done with previous hurricanes.

Here we go again: Every hurricane is ‘what climate change looks like’ according to climate activists

Climate activists waste no time blaming, exploiting and claiming every hurricane that makes landfall in the U.S. is “what climate change looks like.” Hurricane Harvey is the latest hurricane to get this treatment. Below are a few examples. (Also see: What Hurricane ‘consensus’?! ‘Global warming’ causes MORE hurricanes — Except when it causes LESS hurricanes)

2017: “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like” – Politico Magazine – By ERIC HOLTHAUS – August 28, 2017: Harvey is what climate change looks like. More specifically, Harvey is what climate change looks like in a world that has decided, over and over, that it doesn’t want to take climate change seriously.

#
Flashback 2005: Boston Globe: Katrina’s real name: ‘Its real name is global warming.’ – By Ross Gelbspan – August 30, 2005: “THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.”

Flashback 2012: Superstorm Sandy Is ‘What Global Warming Looks Like’ – Environmental News Service – October 30, 2012: Dan Lashof, who heads the Natural Resources Defense Fund, blogged, “This mega-storm is just one more sign of the new normal that will continue as long as we keep avoiding addressing climate change. Just like the unprecedented droughts, flooding and heat we all experienced this year, storms like Hurricane Sandy is what global warming looks like. This is the new normal.”

Flashback 2015: “Hurricane Matthew looks a lot like the future of climate change” – CNN – By John D. Sutter – October 7, 2016: But as the impact of the storm becomes clear, there’s an uncomfortable truth the rest of us should wrestle with: Hurricane Matthew looks a lot like future climate change. And if we want to stop storms like this from getting even more intense, we need to do everything we can to rid the economy of fossil fuels.

Reality Check: Hurricane Irma Is NOT the Most Powerful Atlantic Hurricane Ever Recorded

Watch: CNN, MSNBC Blame Climate Change For Irma