Ocasio-Cortez Goes To Washington

After her dramatic win during Tuesday’s election, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez booked a flight to Washington so that she might find an apartment in Seattle close to work as she embarks upon her mission to bring glorious Socialism to America.

She commented that she was pleased to see the volcano covered with snow as this will keep the lava nice and cool and prevent eruptions while helping to fight global warming.

Upon seeing the Space Needle for the first time, she came up with a plan to increase NASA’s budget so that they might finally have the funds to launch it.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Evil Smiley originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Understanding Nationalism

I find the vilification of nationalism to be appalling. It is being depicted as some sort of Fascist, racist, unpatriotic institution. The reality is, nothing could be further from the truth. It is being characterized as such, because it doesn’t fit in with the progressive/socialist agenda, nor other global developments, such as climate change, immigration, and defense.

President Trump embraced the concept as part of his “America First” initiative, which is one reason why Democrats find it offensive, but it is also being embraced in Europe by the “Brexit” movement in the United Kingdom, Poland, Hungary, Germany, and France. This explains why French President Emmanuel Macron recently made the claim, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” as he views it as a threat to his presidency and the European Union.

As just about anyone who has visited the country can tell you, France is one of the most nationalistic countries in terms of its culture and language. You either fit into their way of thinking or get out. Mr. Macron also suggested the development of a separate army to defend itself against China, Russia, and the United States. This is an insult as America has come to the aid of Europe not just once, but several times over the last 100 years, both militarily and economically.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will not seek re-election following her term of office, also attacked nationalism by warning against “destructive isolationism.” She went on to say, “We know that most of the challenges and threats of today can no longer be solved by one nation alone, but only if we act together.”

I couldn’t agree more, but why is nationalism detrimental to this cause? In reality, it is not. People like Mr. Macron and Mrs. Merkel would have us believe we must all work together in a concerted effort, be it for the environment, immigration, health, and defense. This is all well and good, but what happens when there is a difference of opinion, and a country is asked to implement something in sharp contrast to their beliefs? In the case of “Brexit,” you withdraw from the European Union. In the case of President Trump, you withdraw from the Paris climate control accord, the Iranian peace deal, you move your embassy to Jerusalem over European objections, and you inform your “friends” you will no longer pick up the check for their activities, especially when we get nothing in return.

For many years I taught and consulted in the area of Corporate Culture. All companies, large and small, have a culture, a way of operating based on their values and perspectives. Not all companies think or act alike. In fact, the differences may be very pronounced. Also, within a Corporate Culture there may be a sub-culture, a clique or group of people (such as a department) exhibiting distinctly different characteristics. Such groups may be allowed to operate so long as they do not violate the norms of the overall culture.

Those embracing globalization would have us believe there is one corporate culture. Yes, there may be sub-cultures exhibiting minor differences, but all are expected to conform to the overall culture. This is what Macron and Merkel support. Those embracing nationalism see the world as a group of separate cultures with some similarities allowing them to work cooperatively on mutually beneficial projects. This means each culture is sovereign and is responsible for managing their own affairs. If they do not want to work with another culture, it is their prerogative.

Ideally, companies and countries should work on “Win-Win” projects, where both parties benefit. A good example of this is “NYLON” which was a joint venture based on groups in New York “NY” and London “LON.” If we run into a “Win-Lose” scenario whereby one party benefits at the expense of another, this becomes an unhealthy relationship. Whereas nationalism promotes “Win-Win” situations, globalization allows for “Win-Lose.” And frankly, America is tired of being taken for granted and asked to pay the bill all of the time.

Globalization involves the cultural integration of trade, capital, and immigration among the countries of the world. This tends to force countries to lose their identity and become subservient to others. Again, nationalism respects the sovereignty of a country.

From this perspective, French President Macron is dead wrong; patriotism, which involves the love of country, is promoted by nationalism, not globalization. If anything globalization is a deterrent to patriotism.

There is nothing wrong with forming coalitions for different endeavors, such as the United Nations, NATO, the OAS, the European Union, etc. It is when “Win-Lose” relationships form and one country must dance to the fiddle of another that discord erupts. Think about it; as citizens, does our allegiance rest with the United Nations or the United States? Frankly, I do not understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Nationalism does not prohibit us from coming to the aid of our friends, as we have demonstrated for many years. However, when a friendship is abused and a financial burden added, it is time to ask why.

Nationalism is not the enemy, being asked to relinquish our sovereignty is.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Johnson on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Nancy Pelosi Emailed A ‘Critical Priorities’ Survey. You Won’t Believe What’s In It.

I am on the Democratic Party email list. I just received a survey from Nancy Pelosi titled “📎 need input. NOT money.” The email states:

I’m coming to you one more time this week to make sure you have your voice heard.

BEFORE MIDNIGHT: Take my critical priorities survey before our new members head to their home districts. I can’t wait to share your thoughts with them. >>

I’ve been able to meet with all our new Democratic members of Congress.

They have inspired me so much, and I’m so ready to work with them to stop President Trump’s agenda and rescue President Obama’s legacy.

And I must be honest with you, in order to make that a reality, I need you with me.

Please, can I count on you to take 3O seconds and share your top priorities with me and all our new Democratic Congress members?

NOTE: While the title states that Nancy is not seeking money, the last question requires you to send money.

It appears from the email that Nancy Pelosi’s and the Democrat’s agenda is to “stop President Trump’s agenda and rescue President Obama’s legacy.”

Here are the “Critical Priorities”:

Which issues do you want our Democrats to know matter most to you right now? (Check all that apply)

  • Restoring the Voting Rights Act and protecting voting rights
  • Protecting DREAMers and immigrants
  • Protecting Robert Mueller and his investigation
  • Continued funding for Medicare and Social Security
  • Protecting our environment and slowing climate change
  • Health care coverage for pre-existing conditions
  • Building on the progress of Obamacare
  • Gun violence prevention
  • A $15 minimum wage
  • The economy
  • LGBTQ rights
  • Preserving President Obama’s Medicaid expansion
  • Making tuition affordable for all

The only questions on the survey that are a priority with President Trump, and Republicans in the House, are funding Medicare and Social Security, Health care coverage for pre-existing conditions and the economy.

All the rest of the critical priorities are for narrow constituencies. It’s interesting that Nancy is still focused on former President Obama’s legacy.

Well, at least there are some things that Nancy is in sync with Republicans and the American people.

A good sign? Or a bad sign?

RELATED ARTICLE: Migrants Chant ‘Si Se Puede’ and Mexican Nationals say ‘No Way Jose’….Out, Out, Out!’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Facebook page.

Blaming the Victim in the Digital Age

Consider the following scenario:

A murder investigation is underway to determine the identity of the shooter. The detective questioning the suspect accuses him of shooting the woman he robbed. The suspect indignantly retorts, “BUT SHE WOULDN’T GIVE ME HER PURSE!!”

WHAT? The robber is blaming the victim because she refused to give him what he wanted! The victimizer is rationalizing his behavior and misrepresents himself as the victim.

The facts of this case are not in dispute – the suspect admits he shot the woman he was robbing. It is the interpretation of those facts that are being disputed – WHO is to blame – victim or victimizer?

In a sane society the shooter is blamed for the murder and is held criminally responsible. In today’s upside down world of Leftist Democrat identity politics, society accepts the shooter’s interpretation and the victim is being blamed for not surrendering to the demands of the victimizer. The perpetrator has been allowed to frame the argument.

The escalating antisemitism in Europe and America illustrates the same operating principle of blaming the victim where the perpetrators are being allowed to frame the argument. This is how it works.

Tabitha Korol’s recent article, “Paradise Long-lost,” documents the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations in Randa Siniora’s October 25, 2018 anti-Semitic address to the UN Security Council. So, let’s investigate Ms. Siniora’s odious “blame the victim” presentation.

Ms. Siniora begins her address with a lofty self-aggrandizing introduction to frame the argument:

“Mr. President, Excellencies, Civil Society colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good morning. Today, I speak in my capacity as the General Director of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC). I also speak on behalf of the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace and Security. I speak to you as a peace leader and as a human rights defender who has witnessed, documented, and spoken out about violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for three decades.”

The body of Siniora’s 1500 word speech typifies the deliberate worldwide effort to demonize Israel. The incessant repetition of lies, distortions, and blaming Jews for Arab violence defines the current echo chamber that is propagandizing adults on the Internet and indoctrinating children in schools worldwide.

It is Hitler’s old tried and true political strategy – if you tell a lie big enough and long enough it will be believed as the truth.

Propaganda is a far more powerful tool than bullets in Western societies. Ever since oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia the greedy West has allowed itself to be propagandized by the anti-Semitic Jew hatred of the Arab world. Politicians were bribed, university chairs were bought, Internet behemoths began curating/censoring content, and pro-Arab policies became normative resulting in sharia compliant anti-Semites serving in public office.

We live in a 21st century digital world that is indoctrinating the public to blame the victim and believe that the Jews are the problem. Rational arguments and documented facts are not persuasive to those who embrace their political self-interest with emotional religious zeal. The anti-semitic echo chamber in Nazi Germany transformed a sovereign country into a killing machine. Today, the United Nations represents a worldwide anti-Semitic echo chamber united against Israel. The United States and Israel are powerful sovereign nations and formidable obstacles in the globalist campaign for one world government.

We are now at a global tipping point. The liberal Leftist Democrats in the United States and the ultra-left Labor party in England have been exposed for embracing the anti-Semitic lies of the echo chamber. The Leftist leaders will collapse their countries’ economies if they gain power and will blame the Jews for the collapse.

It is not enough for rational people to shake their heads confused by how it is possible for lies, inconsistencies, and distortions to be believed. They must fight back by exposing the deliberateness of the propaganda effort to blame the Jews and recognize that antisemitism is a galvanizing political tool. The lying echo chamber that promotes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and supports Ms. Siniora is the same lying echo chamber that facilitated Obama’s catastrophic anti-American anti-Semitic Iran deal.

The Constitution of the United States has been America’s enduring, non-partisan, foundational document guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms for 242 years. Leftist Democrats are seeking to transform our Constitution into a living breathing document that will reflect their partisan political aspirations. This partisan transformation will allow the institutionalization of antisemitism and legalize its blame the victim infrastructure.

It is essential to recognize that masses of illegal immigrants bring antisemitism with them when they cross the border. Population shifting and forced illegal immigration is a political strategy designed to collapse the economies and sovereignty of Western nations in preparation for one world government.

Like Hitler in the 1930s, Leftist leaders here and abroad are using the unifying tool of antisemitism to gain partisan power and control over their respective governments. They have embraced the Islamists and Globalists in a bizarre alliance of common cause.

Here is the problem.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis is the short term head of a poisonous three-headed snake. The Islamists believe they will prevail. The Globalists believe they will prevail. The Leftists are the useful idiots for both sides. Time will tell the outcome.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Goudsmit Pundicity. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash.

How Goes Maine, So Goes the Nation

$1.3 Million was spent to influence Maine voters on the the issue of Ranked Choice Voting. The bill passed and Maine become the first State in the Nation to institute this voting process. Now before we go further, let’s talk about what Ranked Choice Voting is…

Ranked choice voting is a method of ranking the candidates of your choice in order of your preference. In order to be elected to office, the candidate must reach 50 plus 1 percent of the vote. The candidate who reaches that mark wins the race. But what if it is a closely contested race and no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to claim victory. That’s where Ranked Choice comes into play.

In the recent 2nd District race for Congress here in Maine, the two major candidates were Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin and his Democratic challenger, Jared Golden. Neither candidate, however,  reached the 50 plus1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. So in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) we then turn to the “also ran” candidates to settle  the issue.

Previously, those votes cast for the candidates that were mathematically eliminated from the race in the first round of ballot counts were just thrown out, but now those ballots will be counted in a second round of counting when no candidate reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold. If you voted for one of the lesser candidates that was eliminated, your vote on that ballot for your second choice will now be added to the vote tally of that individual. This will keep going until one of the candidates reaches the 50 plus 1 threshold to win.

So let’s take a race, as was the case here in Maine, with four candidates on the ballot: A Republican, Democrat, Progressive and Independent. Progressives and Independents are by and large, liberal, so If you voted for the Progressive or Independent as your first choice….who do you suppose your second choice is likely to be?  The Democrat of course, and so your second choice for office, the democrat, will get your vote!  So is RCV fair? I think not. It is a system of voting that is designed to stack the deck against a Conservative candidate.

In the recent mid term elections, Maine’s Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin was challenged by Democrat, Jared Golden who is backed by Pelosi and the far left. Liberal organizations pumped millions into Golden’s campaign in hopes of unseating the Republican incumbent. This was the most expensive Congressional Campaign in the Country and keep in mind that Maine’s population is only around a million people. Poliquin received more votes than Jared Golden in the election. Sadly, though, that wasn’t enough to win because remember, the candidate needs 50 plus 1 percent of the vote to be declared winner. Neither of these candidates received the required 50 plus 1 percent of the vote and so the remaining 23,013 votes were assigned to the voters second choice candidate. This placed Golden over the 50 plus 1 percent of the required votes needed to be declared winner. Even though, after the votes were counted, the incumbent Republican Congressman, Bruce Poliquin received more votes, Golden received more second choice votes on the ballot than did Poliquin and…presto, Jared Golden wins and becomes the new Congressman representing Maine’s 2nd district.

Added questions to this skewed voting process come in the form of Article 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

The sticking point seems to come from the word, “Manner,” and what the Founders meant by this word. I would argue that they were clearly referring to the way in which the electorate would show their support, either by a show of hands, or written ballot. I do not believe that ever in their wildest dreams would these learned and astute men who so meticulously hammered out the greatest Republic the wold has ever known, concoct a methodology of choosing a candidate that was so convoluted. They meant to give each and every American a voice and how he chose to use that voice was up to him; one man, one vote.

Bruce Poliquin has filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of RCV and to retain his seat in the Congress. The case is set to be heard in Federal Court here in Bangor on December 4th. The judge has promised a decision before the December 14 deadline when all certified votes for office must be submitted to Congress by Maine’s Secretary of State. I do not have a great deal of faith that RCV will be overturned in Federal court. The result of this election should be placed on hold and the case fast tracked to the Supreme Court and the decision made there on its Constitutionality.

Remember Maine’s Motto is “Dirigo,” or “I lead.”

“How Goes Maine….So Goes the Nation!!!”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Mercedes Mehling on Unsplash.

The Golan Heights: Its History and Biblical significance

Why Historical Correctness must always trump Political Correctness.

In the cesspit known as the United Nations – an oxymoron as most nations are not united except when depressingly voting as political fodder within murky voting blocs – one shining star remains above the UN’s corrosive hypocrisy. That principled star and lady is UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, who declared in a statement previewing the perennial anti-Israel vote that “the United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights.” As she so resolutely said:

“If this resolution ever made sense, it surely does not today. The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone. The destructive influence of the Iranian regime inside Syria presents major threats to international security. ISIS and other terrorist groups remain in Syria.

And this resolution does nothing to bring any parties closer to a peace agreement. The United States will vote no.”

But here is a telling and inconvenient truth for the assorted delegates to hear as they sit squirming in their comfortable chairs in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Israel has been in possession of the Golan Heights for 51 years, Syria occupied it for 44 years.

You see, the British tore the Golan away from Mandatory Palestine and gave it to France’s Syrian colony in 1923. Syria attacked Israel in 1967 and lost the Golan. Who then has possessed the Golan the longest?

Even as modern day Syria is convulsed in a murderous and bloody civil war with untold thousands dead and maimed; even as its tyrant, Bashir al-Assad, the minority Alawite Shiite dictator, now allies himself with Iran and Russia as he fights for his political and physical life; even with all this, he nevertheless spews forth his hatred of Israel and his call to take away the Golan Heights from the Jewish state.

Russia, as it has since the time of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, seeks a warm water port in the Mediterranean and a physical presence south of the Black Sea. Syria provides both.

Iran, under the irrational yoke of ayatollahs and mullahs who desire one thing – a cataclysmic nuclear war that they believe will usher in the Muslim messiah; the twelfth Mahdi – are already bringing thousands ofIslamic terrorists to the Golan border between Syria and Israel in order to fulfill the extermination of the Jewish state, which it calls the Little Satan, and later to destroy with ICBMs the Big Satan; the United States of America.

Iran has already built military bases in Syria and continuously arms its huge terror proxy army in Lebanon and Syria, Hezb’allah, with advanced missiles and weapon systems. This terrorist horde has an army bigger than most European forces can deploy and has over 130,000 missiles aimed at Israel from southern Lebanon; all hidden in private homes, schools, hospitals and UN facilities constituting a crime against humanity and a massive threat to the civilian population of the Jewish state. At the same time, Iran which is the leading fomenter and financier of worldwide terror, directs the Hamas terrorists who occupy the Gaza Strip.

Those of us who have stood on the Golan’s 1,700 foot steep escarpment, are struck by its immense strategic value overlooking Israel’s fertile Hula Valley and the beautiful harp shaped lake below, called in Hebrew,Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee.)

But during Syria’s occupation of the territory, no agriculture of any significance took place and no restoration of its terrain was ever undertaken. Instead, the Golan was a giant Syrian army artillery encampment whose sole purpose was to deliberately rain down upon Israeli farmers, fishermen and villagers an endless barrage of lethal artillery shells.

So what is the history of the Golan Heights and what is its overwhelming Biblical significance to the reconstituted Jewish state? Perhaps we should return primarily to the biblical books of Joshua and Numbers.

Before the Tribes of Israel would cross the River Jordan and enter the Promised Land, the first among them had already taken possession of territory east of the River Jordan. These were the half tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben who liberated the Bashan and Gilead from the Amorites.

Biblical Bashan incorporates today’s Golan Heights. Gilead is the fertile land, which lies in what is the north eastern area of today’s Kingdom of Jordan:

” … a little balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds” (Gen 43:11.)

It was Canaan, correctly known by its time immemorial Biblical Jewish names (Judea and Samaria) west of the Jordan, (erroneously known by its Jordanian Arab occupation name of the so-called West Bank) which would pose the formidable challenge to Joshua bin Nun, the general leading the Israelite tribes. So it was that Moses, the Lawgiver, spoke to the children of Gad and Reuben thus:

“Shall your brethren go to war, and shall you sit here?” (Numbers 32:6)

The leaders of the two tribes replied that they would indeed send their combat men west into Canaan and fight alongside their brethren while their families would remain behind.

“We will build sheepfolds here for our cattle and cities for our little ones. But we ourselves will go ready armed before the children of Israel until we have brought them unto their place: and our little ones shall dwell in fenced cities because of the inhabitants of the land. We will not return unto our houses until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance.” (Numbers 32: 16-18)

The story of reconstituted Israel and its people is mirrored in the Biblical story of those ancient ancestors. The young men and women of modern Israel have gone again and again from their homes; be they villages, towns or cities, to the borders and established communities there in times of danger and peril, just like those young men did from the Biblical tribes of Gad and Reuben.

The Jewish pioneers of today in Judea and Samaria – the Biblical heartland – are no different. But the world has chosen to demonize them as “obstacles to peace” and an impediment to the creation of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine; a state that has never existed in all of recorded history – certainly not as a sovereign independent Arab state.

The pioneers are now pejoratively called “settlers” and their homes and farms derisively called “settlements.” It matters not to the infernal chorus that sings the international siren song of hate and ignorance that these pioneers are returned to their ancestral homesteads and seek to take up their ploughshares to sow, to plant and re-possess their ancient homeland.

But the purpose of this article is also to learn about the Biblical and post-Biblical history of the Jewish descendants of Gad, Reuben, Manasseh and all the original Jewish tribes.

The Bashan region, now known as the Golan Heights, is a part of the Biblical territory promised to the Patriarch Abraham and the people of Israel for an everlasting covenant – the Covenant of the Parts – recounted in Genesis 15. The city of Bashan was a refuge city (Deut, 4:43).

During the Biblical period of the Jewish Kings, a battle high on the Golan took place between King Ahab and the army of Aram. A Jewish victory took place at the present site of Kibbutz Afik, which lies a few miles east of Lake Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee.

After the end of the Babylonian Exile, and during the Second Temple Period, Jews returned to their homes on the Golan. Subsequently the returnees were attacked by hostile neighbors and Judah Maccabee brought his forces up to the Heights to defend them.

At the conclusion of the Hasmonean Period, King Alexander Yannai finally re-conquered the Golan and Jews returned yet again. They rebuilt communities in central Golan, including the major cities of Banias and Susita, which formed part of the defense of the Golan.

Their residents fought heroically against the Roman legions during the Great Revolt of 135 AD, known also as the Second Uprising. It was led by the charismatic Shimon Bar Kokhba, known as the “Son of a Star” and an authentic historical Jewish folk hero. Some 10,000 residents of Gamla alone perished fighting against Rome.

Second century Jewish coins were found on the Golan after its liberation during the last days of the June, 1967 Six Day War. These ancient coins were inscribed with the words, “For the Redemption of Holy Jerusalem.”

In the succeeding Talmudic Period, Jewish communities flourished and expanded. Archaeologists have found the remains of 34 synagogues on the Golan. Jewish life on the Golan largely ended after the defeat of the Byzantine army by Arabs from Arabia carrying the new banner of Islam and the region descended into a long period of neglect.

But Jewish life returned yet again in the latter years of the 19th century when members of the Bnei Yehuda society from Safed purchased land on the Golan. In 1891, Baron Rothschild purchased around 18,000 acres in what is present day Ramat Magshimim.

The Jewish pioneers of the First Aliyah (immigration) began to farm land they had purchased in the Horan region until the Turkish Ottoman occupiers evicted them in 1898. Their land was then seized, and in 1923 the entire Golan was given away by Britain to the French Colonial Mandate over Syria and Lebanon.

Zionist leaders had earlier demanded the Golan be included within the new Jewish National Home because of its immense historical roots in Biblical and post-Biblical Jewish history. But Jewish liberation of the ancestral land was not possible until Israel was forced to fight for its very survival during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Golan is only 60 miles from Haifa. The lofty snow-capped slopes of Mount Hermon, the highest point in the region, have been the eyes and ears of Israel. The Golan Heights were officially annexed to Israel in 1980. But it was the left wing Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, who first offered to give the Heights away in 1994.

Since then, Israelis have winced at the wrenching offers made by subsequent left leaning Israeli governments and politicians who declared publicly their desire to give the entire Heights to the Syrians in return for a delusional peace. The overwhelming majority of Israelis, however, are adamantly opposed to any such suggestion.

The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group suggested that a way out for the United States from its Iraqi imbroglio would be for Israel to give the Golan Heights away to Syria. This sop, it was believed by the ISG, would bring Syria into responsible nationhood and wean her away from support of the “insurgents” attacking Iraqi and U.S assets. Of course this was before the successes of the “Surge” instituted by General Petraus made such appeasement moot.

“Obama’s carrot to the Syrian dictator, inevitably was to be the Golan Heights.”

U.S. President Obama mistakenly renewed diplomatic relations with Syria as a way, he believed, of distancing the Arab dictatorship from its alliance with Iran. This was yet another delusional act by the then U.S. President whose foreign policy was predictably in tatters.

But Obama’s carrot to the Syrian dictator inevitably was to be the Golan Heights. After his re-election he chose to yet again appease Arab and Muslim dictatorships by applying brutal pressure upon Israel and to force it to give away yet more of its Biblical patrimony. Fortunately his malign pressure was successfully resisted.

To put any trust in a Muslim nation, especially the Iranian backed Syrian regime, is truly risky. Besides which, Iran has already stated that it’s ambition is also to take the Golan from Israel at the same time that it plans on making Syria, Iraq and vast swathes of Muslim lands a future part of an all-encompassing Islamic Caliphate.

And consider this again. The British colonial power gave the Golan to France’s Syrian colony in 1923. Syria attacked Israel in 1967 and lost the Golan. Syria had occupied it for 44 years. Israel’s liberation of the Golan has lasted 51 years. Ask yourself then, who has possessed the Golan the longest and who has millennial historic, religious, Biblical and post-Biblical attachment to it?

Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer with many published articles in leading national and international conservative websites and magazines. Born and educated in England, he has been a broadcaster and has authored several books including a collection of short stories under the title, The Blue Hour. His four-volume set of in-depth studies on the threats from resurgent Islam to Israel, the West and to Judeo-Christian civilization is titled, Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Josh Appel on Unsplash. © Victor Sharpe 2018

Nationalism Versus Globalism

Nationalism versus Globalism. Let’s explore the basics of Nationalism versus Globalism, as Clinton can easily be defined as a Globalist and Trump can easily be defined as a Nationalist. So an important question to ask is where will the Globalist agenda lead us vs. the Nationalist agenda? Please listen to a brief podcast commentary relating to this post at the bottom of the page.

Nationalism Versus Globalism

Nationalist / Trump

Sovereign nation. Protecting borders, language and culture. A restoration of the once great U.S. Constitutional Republic. We went from a Constitutional Republic (“If you can keep it” – Ben Franklin), to a Democratic System, to an Oligarchy on the verge of complete collapse into a controlled police state via Global Governance. When you look at the policies of Donald Trump you will see that he understands the importance of global trade and global alliances, however with his “America First” approach as outlined so well in his foreign policy speech, you can see that Donald Trump if elected, will strive to return the U.S. back to its roots. Easier said than done but never under estimate what one man can do and Donald Trump has and will continue to have increasing global support in my opinion. Yes he is up against the deeply rooted ruling elites NWO, I get it. But we have a choice, Clinton the Globalists or Trump the Nationalist. No Trump-No Hope.

Globalist / Clinton

One world government. One world justice system. One world military and one world currency. Globalism is the more user friendly term for New World Order since NWO has gotten its rightly deserved bad reputation over the decades. So what is Globalism? Well one definition from Oxford defines Globalism as “The process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale”. Organizations and treaties such as NAFTA, the United Nations, the WTO, The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), Agenda 21, UN Agenda 2030 and scores of others are all part of Globalization. I covered a much more in depth analysis of this in a VI part series of posts. Here is part VI and at the end of each post you can click to the preceding posts on the subject. You see Globalism goes hand in hand with Global Governance which aims to control every single aspect of your life and have each and every one of us more and more dependent upon the government for our very survival. Learn more by reading this post as well as Global Governance By Design. Clinton is a Globalist and her agenda aligns completely with that of the NWO / Globalism agenda. With a Hillary Clinton election there is no turning back. Not for a very, very long time if ever.

The Most Important Book Of 2016

What One Man Can Do” the new Donald Trump book to help swing voters. America and freedom itself is at a crossroads. Civilization as we know it is about to change. This is the most important book of 2016. This is America’s last stand as the world awaits, No Trump-No Hope. Learn more by visiting this page. Congrats! You’ve made it this far you’re and engaged reader. What are your thoughts? Share your comments here on this blog post. I would like to hear from you. Also share this post on your social media accounts.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

The President MUST Appeal The Acosta Ruling

Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CNN Reporter Jim Acosta’s hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.

Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta’s hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander’s “belated efforts at [answering Acosta’s concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.

I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly’s view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pageswhen the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.

Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President must zealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.

Let’s be clear.  There is no finality to Friday’s ruling.  

The judge’s order was the implementation of a temporary restraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court’s position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.

Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Diverse and Divided

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Board of Directors issued a comprehensive statement in 2006, whose combined language included helping students to connect their education to societal issues, change inequities, and to promote cultural empathy, pluralism, and diversity in a liberal education.  The key words for determining the value of today’s education, which are severely undermining western civilization, however, are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Diversity used to define the variety of learning experiences, opinions, and opportunities for a well-rounded education, but the term now applies to the students themselves – their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, and disability – and how they are to be divided and classified for acceptance into the institute of higher indoctrination.   Meritocracy, then, has been set aside for a quota system based on superficialities, which is passionately supported by the University of Michigan (U-M), among others.  Its spending for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity, reported on October 10, 2016, was $40 million per year with an additional $85 million proposed over the next five years.  Another strategic plan for an “inclusive and equitable campus community” required $17 million, and $31 million would be taken from the university’s general fund – increased tuition (by 3.9 percent), student fees, and appropriations granted by state lawmakers – more than double the rate of inflation.  Liberal programs of propaganda are indeed expensive propositions. As we shall see, the key words are a whitewash of deception, while an assault is being waged against the very education that these students hope to obtain.

Lest we assume that U-M is alone in its objectives, Colorado State University has a “Bias Hotline,” where one may report any conduct, speech or prejudice that could be seen as intimidating, demeaning, degrading, marginalizing, victimizing, or threatening to individuals or groups based on that individual group’s actual or perceived speech or behavior.  This is, of course, a violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, but also a means of robbing students of coping skills they’ll need in the adult world.  In keeping with the times, the U-M also implemented a hotline for citing microaggressions, discrimination, and incivility by students and instructors alike, where one might even report an offense at not being addressed by a preferred pronoun.

Further, university President Mark Schlissel nominated the school’s first chief diversity officer to distinguish and root out discrimination, for a hefty annual salary of $385,000 (within the diversity office payroll of $11 million).  This preoccupation with denouncing someone for mis-speaking strongly resembles the Nazi HJ-Streifendienst (Patrol Force).  The divisiveness causes  suspicion and greater rifts between student groups, as well as a purposeful disconnect from school camaraderie and national unity.

In order to gain Inclusivity, however, the minority students must declare their Exclusivity, their distinction to the group with which they align. This is a regression to tribalism with an increased hostility toward others, to gain power in their common victimhood, to seek more privileges and prestige from the more numerous white, straight, Christian (conservative) males, whom they now view as oppressors and label “white supremacists.”  It is also a total disregard for E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.  They are not accepting that America was founded by Whites, that the end of slavery was achieved by Whites, and that our nation’s growth and prosperity was realized by Whites.  England’s Shakespeare and other masters in their fields, also Whites, have been removed from many curricula, an intentional depletion of scholarship for the sake of activism and the new equity.

Additional agitators have singled out Jews as oppressors, providing the setting for racist, fascist, Klan, Nazi, and pro-Palestinian groups to isolate, boycott, and protest the existence of Israel and Jews – even with violence.  Jewish instructors have been isolated, harassed and sometimes forced to leave because of threats to their families.  Jewish students are the prey of biased teachers and antisemitic groups.  Disturbingly, the new school culture strongly suggests an alignment with the strategy of the left and ideology of Islam.

In the past, Equity meant equal opportunities for all students to rise as far as their own abilities, hard work, and talent would take them.  Today it means accepting an equal number of students defined by social issues to produce like-minded mediocrity.   The new “cultural training programs” do not address the American culture, and the “language police” are engaged to monitor and restrict the use of words deemed offensive to the diverse groups.  Their apparent purpose is to change the student’s focus – from correct to politically correct, from justice to social justice, from the groundwork for their future occupations to their groundless preoccupations.  Visiting speakers with new ideas are usually unwelcome, and aggression, comparable to the left or Islamic incitement, is promoted to shut down those who dare to impart their opposing views.

Needless to say, because the student pool is no longer the “best and brightest,” it has become necessary to change teaching methods and criteria – reduced requirements to meet reduced abilities, and to qualify for federal grant money.  Education finally accommodates Hillary Clinton’s deceptive trope, “no child left behind.”

Inclusion is now an identity-based, rather than an industry- and achievement-based, system of quotas, and students who once qualified for a university education may now be disqualified if his/her marginalized group has not gained acceptance.  For example, Harvard, among others, has sought to limit the number of Asian-American applicants when it exceeds the quota, despite that group’s exceptional achievements in scholastics, extracurricular activities and interests.  Accordingly, academia is willing to deny superior students’ entry to prestigious schools in order to offer the opportunity to less capable students who, further down the road, may be overwhelmed and obliged to quit.   As for the Jewish students, on far too many campuses, they are targets of harassment, vandalism, exclusion from campus activities, and calls for expulsion, while leftist schools protect the vandals by declaring their attacks to be “free speech.”

Once again, this “education” appears to be geared to the destruction of democracy.  The mechanism leads us through Neotribalism (breakdown of social structure, friendship and community), opposing white students and isolating Jewish students, eroding the male identity, curbing thoughts and speech, and the weakened education, as the left prepares the students for a parallel Islamic legal system.

Another example is the university’s Institute for Research on Women & Gender’s sponsoring an event in February, 2018, titled, “Pederastic Kinship: Deidealizing Queer Studies,” which focused on pederasty, that is to say, sexual relationships between an adult and underage boys.  By its mere presentation, the criminal deviancy was validated, again dishonoring masculinity, and encouraging a behavior that is tolerated in many Muslim societies.

The Jewish victimization is being addressed.  The U of M’s President Mark Schlissel and administrators  have received notification from The Lawfare Project for reports that John Cheney-Lippold, American culture professor, and Lucy Peterson, graduate teaching assistant, denied Jewish students’ their earned letters of recommendation to study abroad in, specifically, Israel.  Another student divulged that her instructor said her degree was contingent upon her watching a slide presentation that contained historic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories: one equating Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler, and another depicting Jews as money-hungry pigs.  In fact, Lawfare is monitoring several universities across the country that have created hostile antisemitic environments, and is now demanding from the U-M immediate and concrete steps to unambiguously condemn anti-Semitism in order to provide a “safe academic environment for Jewish and Israeli students,” in keeping with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism.  The First Amendment was not established as a shield for bigotry.

To paraphrase a quote by Shannon L. Adler:  Before a student or educator calls himself any of the identities recognized by the schools’ programs, one must first learn to be human.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Devin Edwards on Unsplash.

A Glimpse Into a World Without Men

Ah, to have an all-female workplace, full of sugar and spice and everything nice and absent #MeToo turpitude and transgressions. Are you in, ladies? Well, before signing on that dotted line, you may want to consider the experiences of the sugar-and-spice girls at Sweden’s new Gender Equality Authority.

Yes, that sounds like what’s birthed when Orwell’s 1984 meets The Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (Bill Maher’s most memorable movie), but it wasn’t mainly men being consumed in this bureaucracy. As Sweden’s FriaTider reports (auto-translated and corrected for grammar):

The New Gender Equality Authority has a leadership consisting of 100 percent women. Ten months after its inception, an internal report now reveals a work environment so bad that 70 percent of its employees are distressed enough to be at risk of ill health, reports Ekot.

The internal survey, Ekot also noted, shows in addition that a majority of the employees of the Gender Equality Authority suffer from sleep problems and “risk fatigue”.

Among other things, the women-dominated workplace is characterized by bullying and harassment, according to the survey.

If this surprises you, perhaps you derived your conception of the sexes from a women’s-studies class (maybe the one known as modern American culture). Whether it was Aristotle’s observation that women are more likely “to scold and to strike,” Rudyard Kipling’s verse about how “the female of the species is more deadly than the male” or statistics on bullying, it has long been known that the sugar-and-spice bit reflects marketing and male flattery, not reality.

As Forbes wrote in 2012 on inter-employee harassment, “Women make much nastier office bullies than men, says psychologist Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the [Workplace Bullying] Institute.” This behavior is “particularly vicious among working women,” informs Forbes, and ranges “from playing favourites to badmouthing colleagues” to undermining other women’s careers (and men’s, too).

Unsurprisingly, Forbes attributed this to conditioning (read: it’s our Patriarchal™ society’s fault), writing that girls “are taught to be critical about each other from adolescence.” How this is taught or where it’s taught I have no idea, but that’s their story and they’re stickin’ to it. It’s just good the Female Criticism 101 classes don’t also instruct on how to criticize men, otherwise there could actually be nagging wives in the world. (Unless they’d just skip right to the physical, as some studies show that women are more likely to initiate both domestic and teen-dating violence.)

Those adolescent girls must be quick learners, though, because experts and studies (two troubling phenomena, no doubt, but, hey, even a blind squirrel and a broken clock, ya’ know?) inform that bullying among girls is notably worse than among boys. Just consider the left-wing Guardian, which outlines the problems and practices of these teen Gorgons and then closes with the question: Do these realities “make the ‘normal’ bullying of, generally, low-level violence as used by boys seem strangely comforting?”

Part of the explanation for this is that as poet William Congreve noted in 1697 (pre-“gender”-sensitivity training), Hell hath no “fury like a woman scorned.” His context was affairs of the heart, of course, but it extends further. While men have their characteristic sins (lust, for example), a female one is vindictiveness. I suspect this is partially, though not completely, because women are very emotion-oriented, are easily hurt and, most significantly, are emotion-retentive. Thus, a real or imagined slight cuts deeply and doesn’t just remain in a woman’s mind, but in her heart. It’s harder to forgive when negative feelings linger — demanding retribution.

The bottom line is that, as often portrayed art-imitating-life-style in film, two men can engage in fisticuffs and be buddies an hour later. Women? Not so much.

The psychological experts will tell us this is taught, too, but it’s even (and especially) apparent in children. When a little boy gets upset, he may have a tantrum and explode like a volcano yet 15 minutes later behave as if nothing happened. A girl is less likely to do this but more apt to simmer for long periods, not boiling over noticeably but not cooling to a calm, either. Consequently, rifts with friends are too often permanent.

Then there’s that, speaking generally, men are creatures of principle, women of preference. As I put it, treating this recently, “Years ago a female writer (whose name…escapes me) discussed the different ways boys and girls settle problems. She wrote that boys are natural-born deal makers; they’ll try to ensure fairness for everyone and then shake hands, saying ‘Deal? Deal.’ In contrast, girls will try to ensure an outcome everyone feels good about.”

“Witnessed here, even from young ages,” I continued, “is that boys instinctively reference principles, the objective; fairness is a principle. The girls, of course, are referencing feelings, the subjective.”

The point? “Fair fighting” or conflict resolution in the workplace or anywhere else requires adherence to principles; emotion won’t secure it (which is why catfights are, well, catfights). Philosopher C.S. Lewis touched on this in his book Mere Christianity when he asked: With whom would you rather deal if your dog bit the child next door, the man or woman of the house?

Lewis explained that when the man handles what could be called the family’s “foreign policy,” outsiders are more likely to get a fair shake; the woman’s extreme “family patriotism” often precludes this.

The latter is, of course, what can cause a woman to be wholly devoted to her children, even to the point of backing them when they do evil (serial killers’ mothers come to mind). For only principle instructs, “Your family is wrong, and you must say so”; emotion exclaims “My family right or wrong!”

Kipling touched on this as well, writing of man, “Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands [t]o some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.”

The strong, unyielding feminine emotion can provide the no-holds-barred love and devotion a child needs. But when this intense passion is turned to competition in the workplace or elsewhere, it’s just no-holds-barred. So I don’t know about spice, but maybe, as so many today claim, sugar really is a killer.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Angel Santos on Unsplash.

Paradise Long-lost

Rebecca Ratcliffe’s article in the Guardian, (Women in Paradise face violence and political exclusion, campaigner tells UN, Oct. 26), concerned Randa Siniora, director of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, and her recent address to the UN Security Council.  Siniora presented multi-faceted accusations against Israel, with scant background or context.  She referred to Israel as an occupying power despite the UN’s declaration of Israel’s sovereignty as a state in 1948 over territory that had been Jewish-occupied for 3,000+ years, and never ruled or developed by Muslims.  The brief “occupation” of Gaza by Israel, won in a defensive battle against five attacking Islamic armies, was voluntarily relinquished in 2005; Gaza has since been ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a terrorist organization.  Siniora’s address represents Islam’s perpetual jihad.  To Islam, the entire world falls into two kinds of “houses” – The House of Peace, Dar al-Islam, the land that Islam as already conquered, and the House of War or Chaos, Dar al-Harb, literally the rest of the world that is targeted for conquest for Allah (8:40).  There are no other designations.

Siniora shamelessly provided partial stories in an effort to elicit a biased response.  She spoke of women being chased from their homes, but neglected to explain whether the homes were legitimately built on land zoned for such construction, in keeping with Israel’s laws (and particularly because of Israel’s size), or if the homes belonged to the families of Palestinian terrorists who had harmed or killed Israeli citizens.  Or they may have been the families of the young men who were responsible for the incendiary balloons and kites that destroyed seven square miles of agricultural land, forestry, nature reserves, livestock, people’s homes and livelihoods, and causing respiratory illnesses.  She chooses to not acknowledge these deadly activities or the bombed school buses, bus stations and restaurants; the terror tunnels that lead to schools and villages for the sole purpose of murder or kidnapping.  (At this writing, the Palestinians fired 400+ rockets today alone into Israel.)  The confiscation of their families’ homes as a consequence of these actions is a very light penalty, indeed.

On the inflated claim of a “humanitarian crisis,” she was also seeking additional funding for UNRWA, which was established in 1949 to support the 700,000 Arab refugees who fled the Arab armies’ attack against Israel, but which offered no safe haven to their brethren; the funds were never extended to the more than 850,000 Jews who fled Arab and Muslim persecution around the same time.  It is time to reduce the aid due to its “endless and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries,” the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital, their constant animus toward the United States, and because much of the subsidy is funneled through the UNRWA to support terrorism.  By allowing them to appropriate our humanitarian funds for killing, we have become their accomplices.

Her bemoaned “humanitarian crisis” is, in point of fact, a result of the harshness with which women have been treated by men since the time of Mohammed, and continues to this day.  In the Islamic ideology, men are given complete authority over women, where beatings are acceptable (4:34); their lives lived in stark contrast to the “paradise” quoted in the article’s title.  Domestic violence is undeniably rampant in the Arab community and the male’s foremost whipping boy is usually the female, his property – his wife, who must assume the blame for the faults and incompetence of others.  Would not this situation of homegrown cruelty be more closely examined and perhaps eased if the truth were exposed to the UN?  However,  like Linda Sarsour, Siniora is a jihada who uses lies (taqiyyah) to hide the truths of Islam and protect the violent ideology that perpetuates it, whether out of fear of repercussion or out of a desire to be accepted in the greater jihadi community.

Why does the woman who has achieved stature and access to the nations of the world not expose and speak out against the barbaric, sadistic FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) that UNICEF estimates has disfigured 200 million women in 30 countries?  Why do Siniora and her peers not rally against the burqas that restrict, confine, and isolate, but are also used to spotlight the non-Muslim women as fair game for rape or acid attack?  Why does she not work against the woman’s subservient status of one-half to one-quarter of the man’s value in their court system?  Why does she not try to save the children from terror training so that they won’t grow up to be the next generation of hate-filled, sadistic, controlling husbands who live to dominate the women and kill non-Muslims, particularly Israeli Jews?  Arab women’s subjection comes from the Koran and women like Siniora and Sarsour, who might be in a position to improve their lot, instead lend assistance to the injustice.  If either has gained access to the UN, why doesn’t she use this opportunity to speak out for Muslim women and insist on working toward equalization?   Sadly, they are jihadas, who clearly prefer the platform of propaganda and the tawdry glory of being temporarily raised from the diminished female status of the Muslim woman.

In spite of their public announcements, since polls were first taken in 1996, Israeli Palestinians, 20 percent of the population, have consistently rated Israel’s democracy as the one they most admire in the world.  This is not surprising, since all Arab municipalities receive government funding for education and infrastructure.  Israel has enacted affirmative action policies to help its minority citizens achieve full social and economic equality. Within Israel, there is legal protection against religious discrimination and hate crimes and Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population is thriving instead of disappearing as they do under Islam.

Siniora claims the Arabs in Gaza are experiencing an increase in male violence due to Israel’s “occupation,” although that ended in 2005.  Of course, she is  antagonistically claiming the whole sovereign State of Israel as “occupation,” an attitude that nourishes the Arab hostility toward the Jews (9:30) (4:89). She alleges that when Jews counterattack, the Arab men increase their violence toward their wives and children.  How is it, then, that when Arabs attack Israelis, the Israeli men only devise more methods of defense and build new shelters for their families’ protection?

Are we to believe that Arab men are peaceful when Israel is a non-factor?  On 11/11, a woman was hacked to death with a machete by ADF, and her five children kidnapped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On 11/10, six civilians were killed by Islamist shrapnel in Syria, and an official was killed by Taliban bombers in Afghanistan.  On 11/9, a man was killed by a motorcycle bomb blast in Pakistan; four family members were killed by a shell to their house in Yemen; a man praised Allah while attacking a group of police with an axe in Indonesia; a man tried to blow up hundreds of worshippers in a church but succeeded in slashing the priest with an ax in Indonesia; three Somalian suicide bombers killed 40 at a Somalian hotel and stabbed passersby while praising Allah; armed fundamentalists killed 17 local security personnel in two attacks in Afghanistan. During the month of October, there were 158 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, 801 people killed and 712 injured.  Are these the behaviors of an otherwise nonviolent people?

It is obvious that Siniora thus addressed the UN in order to deflect from the shame of her culture and to delegitimize Israel’s sovereignty. The philosophy of Islam is the life of Mohammed and his savagery.  A seriously flawed individual, frustrated by his lack of success, he turned to violence to achieve his ends and his world-ambitious followers continue his bloody legacy into the modern age.

If there is to be improvement for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, they must assume full responsibility for removing the ills from their society, stop the blame/shame ideology, and begin to create a government that allows them to flourish.  I recommend the Constitution of the United States as a guide.

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento On Location Israel-Gaza Border, Sderot, Israel 2018.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash.

Breaking Up The Media/Political Vicious Circle

The 2018 mid-term elections was the largest campaign of its kind in history, both in terms of votes cast and campaign money spent, which was in the billions of dollars. Perhaps it is time to reflect on why this happened. We now live in a 24/7 news cycle. Whereas back in the 1960’s we would read morning newspapers, watch evening news, and skim through weekly news magazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek, Life, etc.), news is now offered on a non-stop basis, not just on one television channel, but several, as well as the Internet. Forget reality TV and sports, news is now the #1 entertainment medium and there are millions of news junkies around to prove it.

What we are now faced with is the diabolical manipulation of the American psyche, much more persuasive than anything invented by Joseph Goebbels during World War II. Let me be brutally frank, the news media is not concerned with reporting reliable news and accurate information, it’s about making money, and this includes all of the news sources. They have sacrificed “fair and balanced” for the political agenda they believe will cause the most angst among the American public. This includes the major television networks, cable, the Internet, and printed press. Their influence is so pervasive, it explains why the country is polarized and people suffer from such things as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

To illustrate, during the election, the news media was quick to quote the latest poll du jour. All of these polls were just as inaccurate as they were in 2016 when they confidently predicted Mrs. Clinton would win the presidential election. Instead of examining early voting data as provided by the various state board of elections, they preferred to quote some cockamamie poll instead. Please understand, the early voting data is far more accurate and insightful than any poll, yet the news media refuses to quote them as it doesn’t create as much drama as a skewed poll does.

This overt attempt to whip the public into a frenzy is shared by the news media, the polls, and fact checkers. They are all on the take, which is why they encourage upheaval, cast doubt on politicians, and lack professional courtesy. Their job, as they see it, is to make the news, not report on it.

The question thereby becomes, what can be done about it? The answer is actually simple. Since the source of energy for the media is money, we should minimize the amount they can earn. For example, our electoral cycles have fallen into the rut of creating campaigns lasting as long as two years. This includes campaigns for federal, state, county, and municipal politicians. I just witnessed a campaign here in Florida where I saw state and county politicians, who earn approximately $30,000 a year, spend ten times that amount to be elected, some much more than that. From a business perspective, this represents a lousy return on investment. Again, the only group profiting from this is not the politicians, but the news media who reaps the reward.

As an aside, in 2018, politicians spent in excess of $2 billion for campaigning, a new record. This money was not used for charitable purposes, or to update our infrastructure, or to cure cancer. It was used to line the pockets of the media and create multimillionaire celebrity news personalities.

The end of the 2018 election marks the official beginning of the 2020 campaign, and the vicious circle starts all over again. The pumping of huge sums of money into the coffers of the news media only encourages them to persist in irresponsible news reporting. But what if the gravy train was interrupted; what then?

To curb spending and obnoxious campaigning, we should do as other countries do and reduce our electoral cycle to a defined period, such as 90 or 120 days. For example, there are several countries who have less than a 90 day election period, such as Argentina, Canada, France, and Japan. Further, some countries do not allow the purchase of TV ads, such as Brazil, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Such policies dramatically inhibit the media money machines and causes them to take the histrionics out of their broadcasts.

The symbiotic relationship between the Media and Politics is so imbued in our culture, getting the two parties to agree to my proposal is out of the question. To implement such a program requires changes in our electoral process which must be driven by the citizenry, not politicians. This cannot happen unless the country becomes aware of the problem and expresses outrage over it, but since the media controls communications it is doubtful voters will ever learn of it. In fact, watch this column be torpedoed and sunk.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats demand removal of Illinois election judge after she reported fraud

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Elijah O’Donnell on Unsplash.

Hillary Clinton Will Run In 2020, and We’ll Regret It!

A quick look at the stars reveals that Hillary Clinton will run again for President of the United States in 2020. If you can’t see it, look closer, it’s there.

The reason why isn’t just because it’s in the stars. It’s because she’s an egomaniac that will do anything in support of her fantasy of being President of the United States, no matter what the negative repercussions of pursuing it may be to her message, her party, or her country.  (You can hear more about my reasoning in my podcast from today.)

In an article by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the authors predicted that Clinton would run for President because she would not allow her career to be ended by a rank amateur, namely Donald J. Trump.  And she’s going to do it by concentrating on universal health care.

Undoubtedly, a Hillary Clinton run for President would be a calamity.  Consider all the bad things have happened to Mrs. Clinton since she lost her race to President Trump.  First, she actually proposed and defended the position that Bill Clinton should not have stepped down as President even though he infamously had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.  She said this despite calling for President Trump to step down because he uttered disparaging comments about women in a private conversation in a private recreational vehicle while not being President.  And when asked how she could defend her husband’s actions, she said, in the midst of the Me Too Movement, that it was okay because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and she knew what she was doing.

Clinton also purposefully said in an interview that non-Republicans could not be civil with Republicans because they were trying to destroy everything she stood for.  As a matter of fact, according to Mrs. Clinton, civility could not return until the Democrats assumed power.  How do you think, that video will play out in the general election?

If that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the matter of her book, What Happened,where she appears as a sore loser and blames everyone else, including women and the press, for her loss rather than reflecting on her shortcomings as a candidate.  Notably, it is in this book where Mrs. Clinton infamously spoke about the press being against her when in fact, few candidates have found a more favorable press than Mrs. Clinton did in her 2016 run.

Moreover, as time passed and people had the opportunity to view her conduct through the clarity of hindsight, many, including some of her more ardent supporters, have warmed up to the idea that Mrs. Clinton and her Clinton Foundation were engaged in inappropriate dealings with foreign entities for her own personal enrichment.  Many now believe that her mishandling of classified and non-classified emails was done in an effort to provide cover for her activities related to the Clinton Foundation.  And don’t forget, the nexus between her dealings with Uranium One and her personal enrichment has become a radioactive issue for her.

Overall, it appears that there are just too many scandals involving Mrs. Clinton to make her a viable candidate.  But she is not the first candidate with seemingly insurmountable problems that have gone on to win an election.  Just look at President Donald Trump.  But the final dagger to Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is also the most effective: Clinton is simply not liked.

Even if Mrs. Clinton tried to explain away her discrediting issues, which she is a master at doing, she will ultimately be unsuccessful because of her lack of interpersonal skills.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is not likable.  From her high-pitched voice, to her witchlike laugh, to her arrogant demeanor, Hillary lost and will lose again because she does not resonate with non-elites.  They simply don’t like her.  She appears uncaring and judgmental to everyone outside of her inner circles in the high-rises of New York City, and that, as in times prior, will be her downfall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.

Lessons Taken from the Recent U.S. Election Mess

By Wallace Bruschweiler & William Palumbo.

Another November, another Election Day debacle.  Leave it to the State of Florida to once again (think Bush v. Gore) expose the severe shortcomings of the American election system.  Though, to be fair, it isn’t only Florida; Arizona and Georgia are also in the proverbial “big soup” this time around.

The point of this article is not to systematically condemn the American election system, nor detail its deficiencies.  As any observer is painfully aware, there are legal, partisan, and political reasons why the system remains – basically – broken.  Nor shall we evaluate any contemporary claims of voter fraud; for these arguments will be lost and won by an army of lawyers, sent from D.C. to the states which have bungled yet another political election.

For the sake of both completeness and brevity, listed below are some broad complicating factors of the U.S. electoral system:

  • Generally speaking, states establish their own election laws – subject to Federal oversight – essentially creating fifty different regimes, each with their own idiosyncrasies and complications.
  • Gerrymandering, which allows the creation of customized electoral districts to the benefit of one party or the other.
  • Voter participation in the United States rarely exceeds 50-55%%, which is amongst the lowest in the so-called developed world. Therefore, approximately just 26-28% of eligible voters determine the direction of the entire country.
  • Electoral College: In Presidential elections, electors (not voters) ultimately decide who wins the office. This is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.  Wow!

Rather than focus on the various problems, we seek here to present examples from other countries where the election systems do work, for context and fermentation of ideas domestically.

A Look around the World

Australia

  • Population: 24.6 million
  • Voter participation: Greater than 90%
  • Nota Bene: Voting has been compulsory since 1924. Non-voting results in a fine, and elections are typically held on Saturdays.  Voters are not required to present identification.

Brazil

  • Population: 209.3 million
  • Voter participation: 79.54% (2016)
  • Nota Bene: Compulsory voting for all “literate” citizens between the ages of 18-70 years old, dating back to 1932.  Consequences of non-voting include exclusion from government funds, and potentially being prohibited from obtaining a passport.  Identification is required and voting is entirely electronic.

France

  • Population: 67.12 million
  • Voter participation: 67.9% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: France is one of the most centralized countries, administratively, in the world. Voters use paper ballots and are required to show identification.  Presidential elections are every five years, and it is typically a two-round process, assuming that no candidate receives more than 50% in the first round.

Germany

  • Population: 82.79 million
  • Voter participation: 76.2% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: Germany has a two vote system, in which votes are cast for both candidates and for party (for representative purposes in the Bundestag (i.e., federal parliament). Elections are managed by the Ministry of Interior which sets forth regulations, which includes presenting identification.  There are election management bodies, primarily the Federal Returning Officer, who is appointed by the Ministry of Interior.

Italy

  • Population: 60.59 million
  • Voter participation: ~73% (2018)
  • Nota Bene: Italy has a “parallel” voting system, in which 37% of seats are allocated by “first past the post,” and the remaining 63% are allocated proportionately. On a paper ballot, the voter can cast his ballot in three different ways: basically, different combinations of candidates and parties.  Voter identification at the polling station is required.  Representatives of the two leading parties then decide how to form the coalition.  Finally, the Italian President first validates the proposed coalition, and secondly the list of ministers, to form the government.  The President is an unelected official who, with respect to the formation of a government, is somewhat comparable to the power of the Queen of England.

Israel

  • Population: 8.71 million
  • Voter participation: 72.36% (2015)
  • Nota Bene: Voters in Israel vote for a party, not the candidate. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is proportionally representative of the votes cast.  Voters present their national identification card, complete a ballot, place it in an envelope, and slip it into a blue ballot box.

Japan

  • Population: 120.8 million
  • Voter participation: 53.83% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: Japan’s voter participation rate is on-par with the United States’. Voters must present voter cards.  Ballots are completed by writing in the candidate’s name.  Elections for the House of Representatives involve two votes: one for the district candidate, and one for the party.  Electronic voting first occurred in 2002, and early voting was introduced in 2003.

United Kingdom

  • Population: 66.02 million
  • Voter participation: 68.8% (2017) ; 72.21% (“Brexit” referendum, 2016)
  • Nota Bene: Registered voters can vote either in person, by post, or by proxy. Except in Northern Ireland, it is not required to show identification.  Voters complete a paper ballot and drop it into a ballot box.  Follow the close of polls (10 pm), the ballot box is immediately taken to a central counting location.

Conclusions

With the notable exceptions of Australia and the United Kingdom (two English-speaking countries), each one of the above countries requires a form of identification to be presented by the voter.  With the exception Japan, voter turnout is significantly higher in these countries than in the United States (25-35%).  Countries with compulsory voting – Australia and Brazil – unsurprisingly have the highest voter participation – 90% and 79% respectively.

Furthermore, the authors searched for recent examples of voter fraud in these countries, and were unable to find any eminent instances.  Unlike the United States, which has had multiple prominent election problems that have made international news, a comparable example among the countries analyzed cannot be readily identified.  Indeed, a U.S. level of election shenanigans seems to be reserved for what we typically call a “banana republic.”

A Divided Country, Embarrassed on the World Stage

Ever since the Greeks invented democracy in ancient times, societies have been voting.  From a technological standpoint, it is a very basic procedure.  Even Iraq, practically ravished by wars since the 1980s, votes using a straightforward and understandable process: ink on the index finger identifies each one who has cast a vote.

Not only do contested and contentious elections further exacerbate an already divided country, but they are a black mark on the reputation of the United States on the international scene.  Allegedly the leading country in the world today, it is almost impossible, for our allies and foes alike, to comprehend how we cannot even master a task so simple as a routine election.

Perhaps instead of sending two opposing battalions of lawyers to litigate the vote counting, it is time for meaningful reform that addresses both voter participation and the integrity of each and every vote.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the USA Transnational Report. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Casey Robertson on Unsplash.

Why We Need More Climate Change Skeptics

Instead of demonizing such skeptics, we need to encourage and respect such people who work hard to identify where biases have interfered with the pursuit of truth.


Climate scientists are not prophets. Those who believe them on faith provide no good service to the pursuit of truth.

Those who blame climate change for every storm or forest fire are silly. Equally silly are those who claim that a particularly cold day proves that climate change is a farce.

Fear of environmental calamity has caused human destruction before, such as when Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, led to the banning of the pesticide DDT. As a result of the “success” of the environmentalist movement in banning DDT, an estimated 30-50 million people in Africa—mostly children—died from malaria carried by the renewed growth in the mosquito population. Malaria deaths increased from tens of thousands per year pre-ban to millions per year post-ban. The story was similar in India. These were preventable deaths that resulted from stoked fears.

Now the target is carbon dioxide. We are told that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with their own scientific consensus. But that’s a misleading statement in an important way. The actual figure refers to “97 percent of climate scientists actively publishing in scientific journals.” To understand the relevance of this 97 percent figure, we need to know: what are the determiners of “actively publishing?”

Could the selection process for entry and success (“actively publishing”) in the climate profession create a bias that compromises the information we rely on to make our critical decisions about climate?

Let’s ask the question, calmly and rationally, and see where it takes us.

1. It is reasonable to consider that children raised in climate-conscious families are more likely to become interested in the environment than those raised by families who either don’t care or who deny. The climate-conscious children are more likely to undertake science fair projects and write papers about climate change. Climate work is rewarded in school, so it shouldn’t be any surprise if such children, more than others, later consider environmental science as a college major. If this occurs, which seems likely, this childhood process would be Distillation Step 1 in creating a future climate scientist. More speculatively, if sufficiently reinforced, some of these youths might even develop some neuronally hardwired (unchangeable) biases as the brain matures.

2. As is true in all fields, college climatology professors encourage the most dedicated students in introductory environmental studies classes to pursue climate science as a major. Other students—such as those who are skeptical—may never again see the inside of a climate science classroom. The selection of academic major is Distillation Step 2.

3. When students pursue their master’s degrees, the crop of future climate scientists is further distilled. Those who don’t align with their professors’ views are less successful getting into PhD programs. Then, success within a PhD program relies (in any field) on abiding by one’s dissertation committee’s wishes so as to get their PhD in as few years as possible and finally make some money. During this phase, those who best comply will be more likely to obtain their doctorate and get set up in post-doc positions working for experienced senior scientists. Distillation Step 3 has occurred, along with further psychological reinforcement to agree with those more senior. The climate liquor is getting more concentrated.

4. To succeed in academia, the newly minted PhD must apply for grants, mostly from government agencies or his own university. He chooses hypotheses and writes his grant application with care, knowing he’ll need the approval of committees populated with scientists who are invested in promoting their previously published papers and who make their living from government-funded studies of climate change. If he fails to craft his project to appeal to the needs of the reviewers on the committee, he won’t get funded. Funding failure increases the likelihood that he will wash out of academia. This selection of research grants to write is Distillation Step 4.

The process of nurturing and selection of the climate scientist starts in kindergarten and proceeds through high school and college, then to grant funding, manuscript preparation, and publication. His research is then only seen through the lens of the media’s selective presentation. The many reinforcing layers of bias create a distillate of pure concentrated climate orthodoxy, and this liquor is what we are offered to drink.

5. Successfully obtaining funding allows the young academic to perform a research project that will buttress the beliefs of the grant committee that channeled funding to him. Research studies are these days (improperly) designed to accomplish the affirmation of the hypothesized outcome as opposed to examining the truth of a hypothesis. If his project (done well or done poorly) appears to prove his hypothesis, then he tries to publish a paper to join the ranks of the “actively publishing.” He will craft the conclusion and abstract to promote his bias (again, this is true in any field). By the way, we should not underestimate the pressured academic’s skill at justifying to himself the removal of any data from his dataset that adversely affect his ability to get a publishable p value of “less than 0.05” (an arbitrary cut off in statistics that is needed for publication).

Note that if the project fails to prove his hypothesis, the young scientist probably will never write a manuscript about it, and therefore he won’t yet be “actively publishing.” Oh, and often there are multiple hypotheses in a project, and if only one of them is proven, it will be the only one written up and submitted for publication. The disproven hypotheses will not be written up and will never be seen by us. This is all part of Distillation Step 5.

6. Even if a scientist goes to the effort to write a manuscript that fails to support climate change concerns (which would be called a “negative manuscript” as it negates the hypothesis), it will be harder to get it published. Such “negative manuscripts” are, in any field, commonly rejected by the editor before going to peer review.

If a negative manuscript does get to peer review, the reviewers will be more critical because the manuscript will conflict with their prior publications. Then the scientist will have to go to the considerable effort of resubmitting the manuscript elsewhere or have to respond to the reviewers’ critiques by getting more grant money and doing more studies, which will prove difficult. And it just isn’t worth it because publishing such a paper could only hurt his career. So the young academic understandably sticks the rejected manuscript and its data in a desk drawer, never to be seen again. This is Distillation Step #6.

Selective manuscript writing, editorial bias, peer-review bias, and selective re-submission are four important biases in any field. This could be a reason—completely unrelated to scientific facts—as to why climate literature slants the way it does.

After these multiple distillation steps, almost all impurities have been distilled away. Perhaps only 3 percent remains. It should be no more surprising that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree with the climate change consensus than that 97 percent of actively preaching seminary graduates believe in their religion.

7. Those who make it onto the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), are the most highly distilled, fully vetted climate scientists of all. Pure 200 proof. For this reason and others, consensus at the level of the IPCC is even less useful than “expert opinion.”

In response to climatologists’ complaints that the IPCC is biased against nuclear power, Jonathan Lynn, an IPCC spokesman, rejected the accusation, telling Axios: “We completely reject the idea we are biased about nuclear power or anything else.”

I would call Mr. Lynn’s statement psychological denial. Of course the IPCC is biased. Everyone who cares, one way or the other, is biased. To say otherwise is poppycock.

8. Now, if it bleeds it leads. The lay world only hears the most dramatic climate stories. What self-disrespecting mainstream click-baiting journalist will bother to read anything beyond a research abstract or would waste their editor’s time with anything positive (or even innocuous) regarding climate change? Answer: none. Furthermore, journalists now manage to stick a scary line about climate change in any article they can. Bees, birds, ticks, human migration… it’s all climate change. This continual exposure to unsubstantiated statements from journalists will bamboozle many readers.

What we in the lay world get to read and hear is a highly distilled climate change liquor and the most catastrophic fears of what climate change may cause. The climate-concerned lay reader is unlikely to be presented with, or click on, a climate story that opposes his worldview. Those with defensive personalities will reflexively lash out with vitriol at an author of such an article, as if the author were an infidel, often without reading past the title.

We need to get our heads around the climate in an intellectually comprehensive way. We need science to do that. Unfortunately, the politicized climate field has many reinforcing biases entrenched within it. This must lead to the dissemination of biased or incomplete facts and biased conclusions.

Yet it is important we don’t get this wrong because people suffer and die when science becomes unquestioned dogma.

We need private watchdogs who go to the effort to examine the research that the climatologists produce, looking for flaws, biases, misrepresentations, malincentives, and even manipulations. Instead of demonizing such skeptics, we need to encourage and respect such people who work hard to identify where biases have interfered with the pursuit of truth.

I recognize the importance of a healthy climate. I am not ignoring facts, and I respect the scientific method. I’m not brainwashed by oil companies nor in psychological denial. To the contrary, any skepticism I have arises because I do not deny the weaknesses of the academic process that create a scientist and the research he produces. Reinforcing layers of bias can occur in any field, but politicization exaggerates it.

Let’s remember what saved the whales. It wasn’t Greenpeace. It was, rather, the successful distillation of petroleum that replaced the demand for the renewable fuel known as whale oil. That distillation made petroleum purer and more flammable. The distillation of climate science makes it purer, too—and more incendiary.

Policymakers, teachers, journalists, environmentalists…all of us…really know nothing about climate change other than what trickles down from the climate scientists’ desks. Are the many reinforcing layered biases of the climate field sufficient to have relevant effects on the research results that are presented to us? Are the climate scientists getting some of it wrong, or maybe exaggerating it?

It has happened before—with DDT—with horrific consequences.

And the climate change field is even more politicized.

This article was reprinted from International Man.

COLUMN BY

Doug Casey

Doug Casey

Douglas R. Casey is an American writer, speculator, and the founder and chairman of Casey Research. Casey is a real estate investor, as well as an advisor on how to profit from market distortions and periods of economic turmoil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Chill of Solar Minimum

Why Won’t Liberals Look at the Evidence On Climate?

Gov. Brown blames climate ‘deniers’ for worsening wildfires – Scientific evidence refutes him: ‘Less fire today than centuries ago’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.