5 Reasons Serious TV Debates Are Impossible by David & Daniel Bier

If you’re looking for a sober intellectual dialogue on the state of American public policy, don’t watch presidential debates.

They repudiate every requirement for such a discussion. They remove serious ethical questions from their philosophical foundations and offer answers fit only for bumper stickers and thirty second soundbites. They teach us one lesson: that no economic or moral issue is too important or complex to be solved with a slogan — hocus pocus campaign cure-alls for every social ill.

The blame lies partly with a political class devoid of substance, but it is impossible to ignore the forum in which the country has chosen to discuss the fate of its government.

“The medium is the message,” Marshall McLuhan asserted in his 1964 book Understanding Media. McLuhan overstated his case, but it is true that certain media lend themselves to some kinds of messages more readily than others. And, much like trying to send a sonnet via smoke signals, television’s form precludes certain content.

The kind of message that TV transmits most easily is entertainment. There’s nothing wrong with entertainment, but it is not a substitute for sober, rational analysis. The medium of television imposes almost insurmountable constraints on thoughtful conversation, and that’s why even if candidates with serious ideas were allowed into the debate, it would do little to help them.

Serious TV debates are impossible for at least five reasons:

1. Television is entertainment.

Almost by definition, television is not serious — it’s entertainment. It is where the vast majority of people go to turn off their brains and relax. If you invite friends over to watch the debate, I’m sure you won’t forget the chips and beer.

The TV debate setting invites citizens to join the challengers for America’s highest political office at a location that is the political equivalent of a circus, a movie theater, a ballpark, a clown show, a strip club, or a porn studio, because the location — your television set — is the same location as all these other diversions.

Even worse, it is as if they are all going on simultaneously in other rooms. Upset your audience — talk about children being burned alive by U.S. bombs overseas — and the burlesque is always just one click away.

Everything about television debates screams diversion, not rational discussion. Commercials reduce any candidate to the level of a Cialis ad, minus the disclaimers. The flashy promo and the upbeat intro-music transform political discourse into reality TV. Its not-so-subtle message is, “This is going to be fun!”

TV’s demand is that debaters be more amusing, not more intellectual. It’s why CNN runs stories on “Hollywood Debate Advice.” What does Hollywood know about public policy? Nothing, but in the age of TV, “politics is show business,” as Ronald Reagan put it.

Reagan was not only right — he excelled at it. After his 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, a single joke by Reagan about his age was replayed over and over again in post-debate coverage. Even today, that joke lives on as the most successful debate moment ever.

2. Television is about image.

Books — the media of lengthy, intelligent discourse — have substance: words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, which form propositions about the world. They have meaning that takes real intellectual effort to grasp.

By contrast, images appeal to our eyes, not our minds. Images lack propositional content, so they can be viewed without any mental effort. Their appeal is mainly emotional (fast moving = exciting). The appeal of constant visual stimulation is why Michael Bay kept the average length of any shot inTransformers to about 1 second. People are absorbing views on the candidates (“Trump looks more presidential”) that have no intellectual content whatsoever. They might as well be choosing new drapes.

As Michael Shermer explains in Scientific American, when voters are given the choice between an educated, experienced, and ideologically-aligned candidate and a good-looking one, they overwhelming choose looks. Famously, Nixon won the first televised debate with John F. Kennedy among radio listeners, but lost it among television viewers — lighting and makeup might have changed history.

Dozens of academic papers have been published on how TV viewers can believe they are learning material while they watch, but can’t correctly answer even basic questions about the show’s content (see herehere, and here).

Because books force people to think and create abstract ideas from concrete shapes, readers do much better at holding information. TV debates create the illusion of informing the public, but as many talk shows and opinion polls demonstrate, most Americans lack even elementary information about the candidates — and the political system they are running in.

To most Americans, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two faces, not two sets of ideas, and the content of their speeches reflects that reality. Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina are just two less “presidential” faces, and they get less “face-time” on cable news.

In print, there are no faces: there is only idea-time.

3. Television precludes lengthy exposition.

Any candidate that refuses to dutifully repeat conventional beliefs faces an insurmountable hurtle: time constraints.

“The beauty of concision — saying a couple of sentences between two commercials — is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts,” notes linguist Noam Chomsky. “Suppose you say anything the least bit controversial. People will quite reasonably expect to know what you mean… If you say that, you better have some evidence. In fact, you better have a lot of evidence because that’s a pretty startling comment. But you can’t give evidence if you’re stuck with concision.”

In a TV debate, anything that requires more than two minutes to explain will never be explained. This makes debates ripe ground for platitudes about “cutting red tape,” “eliminating waste,” “investing in America,” and “fixing the tax code.”

Anything complicated or controversial — a serious conversation about the causes of terrorism, for example, or the adverse consequences of drug prohibition — is out of the question. They hate America, bomb their countries; drugs are evil, save the children. Now for words from our sponsors.

Almost as bad for libertarians, concision presupposes every problem can be solved not just in two minutes, but in two minutes by the president. Before Rand Paul finishes explaining why it’s not the president’s job to create jobs, his time is up.

The workings of voluntary society never figure very prominently in presidential debates, because every single social problem, real or imagined, is being posed to a politician. One can’t simply say, “the president can’t do anything about recessions” or “curing drug addiction isn’t my job” — the presumption is, it is your job, since you’re here and we’re asking you.

4. Television forbids complexity.

Debate success leaves no viewer behind. Complexity is banned, not just because of time constraints, but because the TV waits for no one. There is no time for pondering or digesting. The rip tide of sounds and images drags you along.

The first 2016 debate allowed 60 seconds for candidates’ answers, but, even if it had given them 5 minutes, it still allowed zero seconds for audiences to think about them before the next soundbite — and so that is the maximum amount of thought candidates can require of viewers.

Successful candidates make sure to require nothing of viewers because a viewer who is confused will change the channel or miss the punch line. A person lost in thought ceases to watch, which is the whole point of TV.

Knowledge of history is irrelevant on TV — the only thing that matters is now. Books are written in past tense: history is their domain. TV is made in the present — who cares what led to 9/11 or the recession or the rise of ISIS: what will you do now?

Neil Postman writes in Amusing Ourselves to Death that after “be entertaining,” TV’s central commandments are “thou shalt have no prerequisites, no perplexity, and no exposition.”

Nothing should go over the head of a single potential voter, so preach to the lowest common denominator. You can’t expect your viewer to bring any prior knowledge of issues with them — and you can’t provide them with any — so just appeal to common emotions and conventional wisdom.

It’s no wonder typical debate transcripts read on a sixth grade level. Matt Welch says of the current Republican front-runner, “Trump’s real adversary is the full-length transcript. These aren’t speeches, they’re seizures.”

And audiences love them.

5. Television is anti-intellectual.

Television forbids complexity and exposition, and it exalts entertainment and image. It is, in other words, a fundamentally anti-intellectual medium. It communicates emotions, not ideas.

Consider the most famous moment from the Bill Clinton-H.W. Bush debates. During the “town hall” debate, a woman asked a barely coherent question about how the national debt personally affected the candidates.

Bush launched into a discussion of interest rates, only to be interrupted, and told to “make it personal.” He responds defensively and staggers through his answer. But Clinton understands his medium, and rather than answering, simply says, “Tell me how it has affected you.”

That’s what a debate is really about: us. Just as commercials aren’t really about products, but about the desires of their consumers (“beer will make you attractive to women,” “shampoo will make you sexy,” “Rogaine will get you a promotion”), so too are debates about candidates emotionally connecting with voters: reassurance, not uncertainty; strength, not weakness; understanding, not disinterest; warmth, not distance.

“Mitt Romney still has an empathy or connection gap,” explained CNN’s John King in 2012. An empathy gap? In this world, truth is an afterthought, the job of nit-picky “fact-checkers.”

Debates aren’t about the truth, they’re about verbal reassurance — in the moment, with a calm look and a steady voice. Rationality has no part in this world.

A version of this piece was first published in 2012 and is unfortunately still relevant.

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

A tribute to County Clerk Kim Davis by David Carroll

Throughout the recorded history of mankind, there is no record of any culture having recognized same-sex marriages. It is astounding that five persons in black robes sitting in Washington D.C. can overturn millennia of marriage customs with the stroke of a pen or with fingers on a keyboard.

Not only do they find same-sex marriage permissible under the United States Constitution, but they impose upon the entire country a mandate based upon the 14th Amendment, adopted nearly 150 years ago primarily to protect former slaves in former Confederate states. No framer ever conceived that the Constitution could be so used to twist the institution of marriage.

I begin with the Bible, but I end with secular law.

For Christians and Jews, the Bible could not be clearer. Homosexual sex is a sin. God destroyedSodom and Gomorrah, which were described in Romans 1:26-27 as steeped in sinful homosexual activity.

In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul writes: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites … ”

And in 1 Cor. 7:2: “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

Still, Paul also said in 1 Cor. 5:9-10 (NKJV):

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.

Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of the world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since you would need to go out of the world.

Paul recognizes that Christians will keep company with the sexually immoral outside the church, because the world is full of the sexually immoral.  Paul does not advocate the persecution of same-sex relationships, but neither does he approve their celebration.

So that is the Bible’s take.  What about secular law?  Here we have five Supreme Court justices creating a right to state licensure of behavior that mankind, over the millennia, has deemed to be sexually immoral.

Which brings us to the case of Kim Davis. Kim Davis is an elected county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky. As county clerk, she issues marriage licenses. Her name goes on each license her office issues. When she was elected to the job, Kentucky law authorized marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples: one man, one woman.

On June 26, 2015, five of the nine Supreme Court justices turned the Christian world upside down in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the 14th Amendment requires the states to issue licenses for the marriage of two people of the same sex. The plaintiffs in the case brought suit in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, claiming that those states violated the 14th Amendment by denying homosexuals the right to marry each other or to have their marriages recognized when performed in other states.

Kim Davis was not a party to the Obergefell case, but the state of Kentucky was. The Supreme Court held, “The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

Immediately after the Obergefell decision, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said, “Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same-sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky.” The Kentucky legislature has not changed the Kentucky statutes. Nor have the people of Kentucky amended their state constitution, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The Kentucky Constitution’s definition of marriage (passed with 75 percent of the vote in 2004) and the Kentucky statute defining marriage as being between one man and one woman were declared unconstitutional. It seems, therefore, that without an act of the Kentucky legislature, Kentucky has no marriage law for anyone, because its statutes are unconstitutional.  Kim Davis viewed it exactly that way. After the Obergefell decision, she decided that her office would issue no marriage licenses to same-sex couples – or to anyone else.

On July 2, 2015, homosexual activists filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Kentucky against Kim Davis to force her to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The plaintiffs requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction to force Davis to issue same-sex licenses.

Ms. Davis asserted her right to refuse to issue licenses based upon, among other things, the failure of the Kentucky legislature to act and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Based uponObergefell, the U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When Ms. Davis refused to obey the preliminary injunction, the judge ordered her to jail. The judge released her only after her deputies promised to issue the licenses.

The remaining debate is over whether Ms. Davis, as a matter of conscience, has a right to refuse to issue marriage licenses that approve something the Bible condemns.

On one hand, Ms. Davis is a state official with a duty to follow the law as determined by the courts having jurisdiction, however ill-founded the law is. This side argues that her proper protest would be to resign rather than issue the license.

(In unrelated news, a Muslim flight attendant is fighting on religious-discrimination grounds the termination of her employment, after she refused to serve alcohol to passengers. She was not under a court order, so she is not going to jail, but she is not resigning either. Will there be consistency in the interpretation of religious conscience?)

On the other side of the debate is the duty of every citizen of conscience to disobey tyrannical laws that are offensive to the constitution as it is reasonably interpreted and understood, notwithstanding any twisting of meaning by five black-robed justices. If public officials must resign rather than disobey laws that are wrong, their positions will be filled by people without the conscience necessary to right these wrongs. And with these people in office, the wrongs will stick around.

Before the Civil War, the state of Wisconsin refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act. Any state officer was barred from assisting federal officials in the return of escaped slaves. More recently, Washington, California, and Colorado are thumbing their noses at federal drug laws relating to marijuana. The states could simply refuse to obey the law and refuse to appear in federal courts on the subject. This is called “nullification” and is a response that the states can and should make to federal overreach.  For more about this strategy, read Nullification by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Alas, according to the polls, it is a losing proposition in our secular culture to protect the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. More than half of all Americans approve of gay marriage. It is likely that the various legislatures and state constitutions would have eventually succumbed even without the Supreme Court, unless there were a serious religious revival in this country.

I salute Kim Davis, not for the rightness of her legal position,  but because she stood up for her Christian beliefs to the extent of being willing to go to jail for them. In the Bible, Daniel refused to worship a statue and got himself thrown into the lion’s den for exercising his religious conscience. The black-robed five have made it perfectly clear that in their brave new world, traditional Christian morality and believing Christians are unwelcome.

ABOUT DAVID CARROLL

David Carroll is an Ohio lawyer who has been practicing for 39 years. His work has included public interest litigation defending Judeo-Christian values, and he has served as chairman of the board for Christian Action Network for over 20 years. Mr. Carroll graduated cum laude from Capital University Law School in Bexley, Ohio in 1976 and has practiced law in Ohio and Arizona.

How Do You Define Destructive?

Recently, on one of the rare and I truly mean rare occasions of watching an episode of Extra, the television gab fest that regularly expounds upon the likes of liberal/progressive luminaries like Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and Miley Cyrus.  However, this particular episode they were extolling about the virtues of Hillary Clinton, which is why I bothered to watch it.  I was able to tolerate that program because every so-often we must pay attention to what the enemy has to say or what they are up to.

So on this particular Hillary appearance she boldly labeled republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as destructive.  Now before I go any further in regards to the Hillary situation I will elaborate on the definition of destructive as defined in the 1828 American Dictionary of The English Language by Noah Webster.  Destructive: Causing destruction; having the quality of destroying; ruinous; mischievous; pernicious; with of or to; as a destructive to the morals of youth.  I’ll add destructive to an economy; destructive to the family structure; destructive to the military or even an embassy staff.

So when Hillary Clinton yelped about how destructive Donald Trump is, believe it or not I kind of agree, to a point.  For decades Mrs. Clinton has promoted the wicked concepts of big government and so-called nanny goat solutions to all facets of life.  She honestly believes or more accurately, has fooled millions of Americans into believing that government health care, high taxes and government deficit spending are actual paths to prosperity or good living.

However, there is much evidence to the contrary.  For example Texas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio along with several other states have proven that actually, the opposite to be the truth.  Those states all have growing economies, with budget surpluses which fully demonstrates the false nature of Hillary’s thinking.  In fact, Donald Trump along with many other mega business tycoons have demonstrated how the policies that Hillary supports are not good for business by taking a lot of their business dealings to other nations where laws are not nearly as oppressive as those here in this onetime land of opportunity.

Whether it’s the American corporate tax (the highest in the world) or extreme environmental regulations that have so damaged our nation’s economy that she no longer has one of the top ten living standards among nations.  Also, before Obamacare the United States was blessed with the overall best medical care in the world, but now that is no longer the case.  Those destructive policies are fully supported by one Hillary Clinton, of course.

By all means, Hillary’s proclamation that Donald Trump being destructive is as insanely stupid as her handling of emails.  Whether you like Donald Trump or not, it cannot be denied that he has definitely invigorated the presidential campaign process by bringing to the forefront issues of most importance that could potentially soon harm our Republic beyond the ability to repair her.  Even now, it seems as though, that without a direct intervention from God, the United States may soon be one nation gone under.

Perhaps when Hillary Clinton squawks about Trump being destructive, she might be thinking about when the Donald called her the worst secretary of state in our nation’s history.  His point is well taken because under her watch, along with the worst president of all time, Barack Hussein Obama the United States needlessly lost embassy personnel at the hands of murdering muslims in Benghazi.

The only thing she was concerned about was shifting the blame to a supposed video defaming Mohamed, the pedophile founder of the muslim political movement masquerading as a religion.  The woman has no discernable conscience.  Also the mere fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president illustrates the moral depravity of our times.

It is my hope and desire that as light destroys darkness that truth from whatever source, whether it is Trump, Dr. Carson or Jesus Christ will continue to be brought forth and enlighten those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Then together, “We the People” can re-establish America as that shining city on a hill republic under God with liberty and justice for all.

Hillsdale College Students on the GOP Presidential Debate

HILLSDALE, Mich. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Hillsdale College students joined nationally syndicated Salem Radio Network host Mike Gallagher during live coverage of the CNN Republican Presidential Debate and in a post-debate focus group. Student reactions to the debate included:

students hillsdale college

Students at Hillsdale College engage with nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher during the Republican Presidential Debate on Sept. 16, 2015.

Christy Allen, senior, political economy major from Paradise Valley, AZ:Chris Christie had a great performance tonight, but Carly Fiorina did something really special. There is no question she belonged in that debate, and she went a long way in showing that she belongs in the White House.”

Mary Catherine Meyer, senior, English literature major from Littleton, CO:Marco Rubio did well by addressing the issue of family several times. That is an important factor in our country’s future. Carly Fiorinaperformed wonderfully. She spoke about the torch and the sword; she showed us a bit of light tonight, and in her character, the strength that she would fight for it.”

Kristin Berg, senior, history major from Shelby Township, MI: “I went into tonight’s debate with an open mind, but it became obvious that Carly Fiorina is the strongest candidate. She was articulate and knowledgeable, and she made it very clear that her priority is the security and character of the country. She knows what America needs, and I look forward to seeing how she does in the race.”

Michael Aavang, senior, politics major from Stevens Point, WI: “I came into tonight’s debate a reluctant Trump supporter because of his assertiveness and expressed interest in doing what is good for America, but Carly’s true merit and grit came through, eclipsing his attempt at showmanship. She stoically and confidently addressed every question with articulate and educated responses. She showed she has the country’s interests at heart. I think she rightfully captivated the audience and will see a huge bounce in the polls.”

Dom Restuccia, senior, politics major from South Lyon, MI: “Rubio established himself as the commander-in-chief in the room with the most substantive answers, the greatest handling of foreign policy issues, and a clear articulation of conservative values. He demonstrated himself as the champion who can bring the many factions of the Republican party to bear with a 21st century campaign to face down the Democrat electoral machine. Yet Fiorina trumped “the Donald.” She had the two best moments of the night, going after Trump for attacking her looks and responding to questions on Iran, where she connected the issue of the Iran nuclear deal to the defense of innocent life.”

Jacob Weaver, sophomore, philosophy and history major from Novi, MI: “Tonight’s debate proved that we have a field of incredible candidates, all with unique backgrounds and qualifications. However, a good field of candidates does not save our country from jeopardy. I urge voters – for the sake of Americans past, present, and future – to seek a leader of passion, of prudence, and of principle.”

Conner Dwinell, junior, economics major from Lincoln, NE:Carly Fiorina won in a landslide. If I wasn’t absolutely in her camp before, I am now. If you are looking for a firecracker and someone who is going to stick it to the man, I would move out of Donald Trump’s camp and into Carly’s.”

Emily Runge, senior, politics major from Newton, KS:Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina stood out to me tonight. They articulated their positions well, along with an overall vision for the nation. Particularly, they both did an incredible job overall on foreign policy. Over the next months, I want them to prove to me that they will follow through with their policies and deliver as President.”

Sarah Onken, senior, politics and mathematics major from Seymour, IN: “To say Carly Fiorina made an outstanding appearance this evening is the understatement of this campaign season. I appreciated Marco Rubio’s comments on the necessity of the strength of the family in our nation. This debate demonstrated that principled, articulate candidates such as Fiorina, Rubio, and Cruz will continue to do well in this primary season.”

Alex Buchmann, senior, politics major from Broomfield, CO: “Trump didn’t lose any followers, Carson maintained his followers, and Fiorina gained new followers. Everyone else on the debate stage has effectively been reduced to political pundits contributing to what has now become a privatized republican race.”

Bailey Amaral, senior, political economy and Spanish major from Houston, TX: “I’m proud to remain a staunch supporter of Ted Cruz. He demanded that conservatives stop surrendering and start standing on principle when asked about defunding Planned Parenthood. I was also blown away by Carly Fiorina and her commitment to defend America from its enemies abroad and restore its culture from internal decay. We have an American Thatcher on our hands. Fiorina won’t back down.”

Veronica Lyter, Ph.D. candidate in politics and statesmanship from Chicago, IL: Carly Fiorina said that a leader challenges the status quo and produces results—this election, for Fiorina, is about changing the system. I would have liked to hear her speak more about what that change might look like and on what principles she would implement that change. The candidates seemed to agree unanimously that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded, but the Planned Parenthood video scandal overshadowed the abortion issue as a whole. Also, I would have liked to hear the candidates speak more on abortion generally. Finally, the question of Kim Davis came up, but it overshadowed the whole issue of marriage. I would have liked to hear the candidates speak more about marriage and the family.”

John Brooks, MA candidate in politics and statesmanship from South Lyon, MI: “I was most impressed with Fiorina’s concern about the character of the American people as she discussed Planned Parenthood. The American Founders thought virtue to be of utmost importance for the perpetuation of the Union. Fiorina’s worry is well founded: can a nation that justifies infanticide long endure?”

Zachary Reynolds, MA candidate in politics and statesmanship from Alleyton, TX: “I was looking for substance, someone to get beyond political rhetoric. A few candidates gave us that, but none better than Carly Fiorina. She offered us a strong ideal connected to concrete policies and plans.”

Hillsdale College is one of the crown jewels of American education,” said Mike Gallagher, nationally syndicated radio host and moderator of the student focus group. “I cannot think of a better place to be in America tonight than with these bright college students. I was so encouraged to see this group of Millennials so committed to the political process.”

Selected students will also be featured during The Mike Gallagher Show radio broadcast from 9 a.m. to noon EST on Sept. 17 to discuss the Republican debates.

About Hillsdale College

Hillsdale College, founded in 1844, has built a national reputation through its classical liberal arts core curriculum and its principled refusal to accept federal or state taxpayer subsidies, even indirectly in the form of student grants or loans. It also conducts on outreach effort promoting civil and religious liberty, including a free monthly speech digest, Imprimis, with a circulation of more than 2.9 million.

About the Salem Radio Network

Dallas-based Salem Radio Network (a division of Salem Media Group) provides 24/7 national news to over 1600 terrestrial radio stations and SiriusXM’s Patriot Channel on satellite radio through its SRN News and Townhall.com news services. SRN also produces national talk shows including Bill Bennett’s MORNING IN AMERICA, The Mike Gallagher Show, The Dennis Prager Show, The Eric Metaxas Show, and The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Pope Karl Marx I: Blaming Capitalism

In FrontPage today I discuss how the Pope has blamed the refugee crisis on…capitalism:

Did Karl Marx become Pope on March 13, 2013?

As the leader of a Church that encompasses the globe, one might expect Pope Francis to be a bit more…spiritual. Instead, he has more than once had recourse to Marxist analysis to explain global events, appearing to see economic deprivation as the cause of all the world’s evils. He did it again in an interview published last Monday, when he opined that the root cause of the refugee crisis engulfing Europe was economic inequality:

It is the tip of an iceberg. These poor people are fleeing war, hunger, but that is the tip of the iceberg. Because underneath that is the cause; and the cause is a bad and unjust socioeconomic system, in everything, in the world – speaking of the environmental problem –, in the socioeconomic society, in politics, the person always has to be in the centre. That is the dominant economic system nowadays, it has removed the person from the centre, placing the god money in its place, the idol of fashion. There are statistics, I don’t remember precisely, (I might have this wrong), but that 17% of the world’s population has 80% of the wealth.

Let’s see. Are the Syrian refugees fleeing war and hunger? Certainly. Are they, however, fleeing an unjust economic system? Are they fleeing Syria because Bashar Assad on the one hand and the Islamic State on the other are top-hatted plutocrats puffing cigars and chuckling as they send the proletariat off to back-breaking labor? Are Assad and the Islamic State fighting one another for an increased market share? Are the Syrian refugees streaming into Europe because Syria is in love with the god money and the idol of fashion? (The Pope actually may be on to something with that idol of fashion bit: certainly women in the Islamic State holdings in Syria will get killed if they don’t bow to the Islamic State’s idol of fashion and cover everything but their hands and face.)

In reality, the refugees are leaving Syria because the Sunnis of the Islamic State and other jihad groups are waging jihad against the Alawite regime of Assad and his Shi’ite Iranian allies, and have torn the country apart in the process. But to acknowledge that would require the Pope to admit that there is such a thing as jihad violence in the first place, and he is not at all disposed to do that; back in November 2013, he proclaimed his “respect for true followers of Islam” and declared that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

So the peaceful Koran couldn’t possibly have anything to do with this refugee crisis, could it? It must be those heartless Syrian tycoons, or more precisely the European and American ones who are presumably keeping the Syrians in a perpetual state of poverty and deprivation.

Meanwhile, the refugees are not all fleeing hardship in Syria at all. Last February, the Islamic State promised to flood Europe in the near future with as many as 500,000 refugees. And an Islamic State operative recently boasted that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had entered Europe. “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.” He explained: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.”

And last Monday, Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bou Saab warned that Islamic jihadis make up as much as two percent of the Syrian refugees in his country alone. Since there are 1.1 million Syrians in refugee camps in Lebanon, that amounts to 20,000 jihadis. How many more are already in Europe?

Despite his Marxist analysis, in the same interview the Pope acknowledged the possibility that there could be Islamic jihadists among the refugees: “I recognize that, nowadays, border safety conditions are not what they once were. The truth is that just 400 kilometres from Sicily there is an incredibly cruel terrorist group. So there is a danger of infiltration, this is true.” He even admitted that Rome could be at risk: “Yes, nobody said Rome would be immune to this threat.”

Despite this, however, he reiterated his request that Catholic parishes take in refugees: “What I asked was that in each parish and each religious institute, every monastery, should take in one family. A family, not just one person. A family gives more guarantees of security and containment, so as to avoid infiltrations of another kind.” And he applauded Europe’s welcoming of the refugees: “I want to say that Europe has opened its eyes, and I thank it. I thank the European countries which have become opened their eyes to this.”

Yet in so many important ways his own eyes appear to remain firmly closed. Is societal suicide really a requirement of Christian charity? Must Europe allow itself to be overrun by hostile invaders in order to prove its lack of racism and willingness to extend help to the needy? These are questions that Church leaders ought to be considering, but they’re too busy with their “dialogue” sessions at the local mosque to busy themselves with such trivialities. No doubt that “dialogue” will result in calls for more redress of economic inequalities, in accord with the Pope’s own world view – and more money will be showered upon Muslim countries, enabling the purchase of more weaponry and the onset of more jihad. At least Europe, as the blade plunges into its collective throat, can congratulate itself that even unto death, it always welcomed the stranger.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim migrant mob screaming “Allahu akbar” tries to break through Hungarian border

Hamas TV: “Palestinian” boy wants to become engineer “so that I can blow up the Jews”

U.S. Ambassador to UN Samantha Power: Bring more Muslim Syrian refugees to America

This news is a day old, so who knows maybe Obama has already decided the magic number of Syrian (mostly Muslim) refugees he will be dropping into America towns and cities in the coming year.

Samantha Power

Obama appointee, UN Ambassador Samantha Power.

Last week we learned that Sec. of State Kerry consulted with key House and Senate committees, as the Refugee Act of 1980 requires, and it seems the number he was bandying about was 10,000 (some say Kerry said 5,000) for FY 2016.

If Obama approves a different number just two weeks before the start of the fiscal year, Kerry is required to go back to the Hill for additional “consultation,” and, in any case, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are required to hold hearings on the Presidential Determination.

The fact that the lazy (scared?) committees have not held a refugee ‘consultation’ hearing since before 9/11 is no excuse not to have one for this very critical decision!

(The last hearing held on the President’s refugee determination appears to be this one from 1999.  Has there been no hearing since then because they didn’t want you to know how many Muslims were being admitted to the US through this program?—ed)

A hearing can’t stop the President, but it sure can help the American people understand what is about to happen to them!

Where are you Reps. Goodlatte and Gowdy?  Prove me wrong!  Tell us you are doing something and I will apologize!

Here is a bit of interesting news at Bloomberg (hat tip: Joanne).  Again, it is a day old, so who knows if Obama has made a decision.

Check out Samantha Power (bff George Soros)!  The nerve of this woman.  You can credit her, Hillary and Susan Rice with the destabilization of North Africa and the  invasion of Europe because she was a driving force behind the ousting of Col. Gaddafi (who was able to hold back the migrant hordes) and the subsequent destruction of Libya.

As Iraqi Refugee Czar in the early days of the Obama White House, Power famously said she was tired of doing ‘rinkey-dink-do-gooder’ stuff  like helping Iraqi Christians!  See our complete Samantha Power archive here.

Here is Josh Rogin at Bloomberg:

The Obama administration is preparing to announce a plan to admit more refugees over the next two years, but at this point the numbers being proposed are too small to relieve the crisis streaming out of Syria.

Wednesday at the White House, the most senior national security officials will discuss raising the limit on the number of refugees from around the world allowed to enter the United States — from 70,000 this year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017, three administration officials told me. If members of the National Security Council Principals Committee agree on the plan, it will be sent to President Obama’s desk, and administration sources say he is likely to quickly approve it.

The plan has the strong support of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, whose priorities often differ on the Syria issue. McDonough is focused on the fight against ISIS. Power wants to confront Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and do more to protect the civilians being killed by both.  [So what does confront mean?  Does Power want the US military to bring down Assad?—ed]

The throngs of desperate migrants fleeing Syria and the images of children washing up on European shores have spurred the Obama administration into action, officials said.

Continue reading here.

Note that there is much discussion about how long it would take for the flow to get underway. Don’t believe it!  

We know that the UNHCR has 17,000 (or more by now) prepped to come to America from their camps which house Muslim Syrians.  As soon as October 1 is here, the floodgates will open!

RELATED ARTICLES:

CIA Director Worried Iran Might Outsource Nuke Program to North Korea

America’s Biggest Problem

When I read that 71% of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. I knew that Americans are not well educated on Soviet Fascism, but… I also knew that they were the fairest people in the world. Their loath for PC showed them out as even more sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against the American interests. They did not know that PC was the Stalinist ideological invasion into our culture, they felt it intuitively. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about Soviet Fascism and the real source of PC, yet, with his magnetic personality he is symbolizes them all. It is an uprising against the ignorant political class in Washington.

Political Correctness—Ideological Tool of Soviet Fascism

I dedicated many pages to present to America Political Correctness, its real author and architect, and his agenda.  If you read my books, you could see that I started approaching the subject by introducing the new terms like WWIII and Soviet Fascism decades ago.  I did it because Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the Ideology of Soviet Fascism. Do you remember the four main components in my definition of WWIII? They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness.

Moreover, I gave you my definition of PC:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of leis and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

Yes, the Stalinist agenda is the creation of One World Government under the Kremlin auspices by using PC, its two arms of secrecy and deceit. If other two components of WWIII, drugs and assassinations are the physical force applied in the war by Soviet Fascism, recruitment and Infiltration are more a psychological one, aiming at the destruction of our culture.

It is needless to repeat the history of the 20’s century and talk about PC’s manipulation and brainwashing of human mentality, I have done it in my books and articles. And I am delighted by the recent article that brilliantly narrated and introduced an American understanding of the subject, presenting it even better than I could’ve done with my lack of eloquence in English.

The Thought Police 2016

In Obama’s America, political correctness reaches new heights of madness

America’s “big problem,” declared Donald Trump during the first GOP presidential debate, “is being politically correct.”

Many Americans first heard about “political correctness” back in 1990 from Newsweek’s iconic “THOUGHT POLICE” issue.

Newsweek’s astonishingly candid cover story accurately described the “PC” phenomenon – then blossoming on college campuses nationwide – as “Marxist” and “totalitarian” in origin.

Since then, political correctness and the powerfully totalitarian leftist agenda underlying it have turned many of America’s top universities into what historian William Lind calls “small, ivy-covered North Koreas.”

I can sign every word presented above. Please, go to my definition to PC: it was created and used since 1920s, when Stalin had been transforming Russia to the Soviet Union. Today we are experiencing the same transformation of America by Obama. And that is the reason, I am writing about Stalinism, which I call Soviet Fascism.

As I wrote in preceding columns: contemporary politics for me presents a dark room, Trump, as a real product of a successful American capitalism entered the dark room and turned light On. I do not know whether he knew that illegal immigration is one of the fronts in WWIII.  Perhaps, as the majority of American people he felt it intuitively and he was right. And again, I am signing every word written below:

“Donald Trump is right about political correctness,” said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian. “It is like a disease that has infected America and is destroying it. The cure is truth, spoken boldly and courageously, but without hate. That’s what readers will find in abundance in “THOUGHT POLICE 2016.”

The Mechanism Political Correctness Operates

In my articles written in 2011-2013, I gave several examples of PC’s machinery that infiltrated all spheres of our society: politics, the art, education, and so on. I do not know whether it is possible to recover some of the articles. Hence, I have to present some examples again and the recent one is the Nuclear Deal with Iran. Above mentioned Editor David Kupellan is right: The cure is truth, spoken boldly. Yes, and you are the witnesses of the system and incredible Lies the recent administration operates on. Look at the recent Nuclear Deal with Iran and how Obama and his administration is following Stalin’s precepts. Look at them:

  1. Establishment of a false premise for a future theory or action.
  2. Usage of the false premise as a foundation of the theory or action.

While introducing Stalin in the beginning of the series, among other epithets, I called him a charlatan of a highest class. Today, I’d like to show you the dreadful harm, which has been brought to the world by Stalinism and his PC. Please, look at the real definition of the word Premise in the Dictionary:

Noun

1. a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion. “if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”

1.Verb base an argument, theory, or undertaking on. “the reforms were premised on our findings”

Let’s take as an example the Nuclear Deal with Iran: the false premise was established by Obama in the beginning of the discussion—Nuclear Deal or War.

The alternative given to you by Obama is a false one and created in the best traditions of Stalinism and its Political Correctness against the American interests and our national security. The premise or assessment has been FALSE. There are definitely several alternative to deal with Iran to prevent the war. The logical one was–To double the sanctions that have already existed and to punish Iran for being the biggest sponsor of global terror while proclaiming “Death to America!” The double sanctions in reality could prevent the war and served our national security interests. Obama has done just the opposite.

On the top of that, look at the “yes-men” Democrats and the media, serving  one party system, repeating the myth.  Eugene Robinson is one of them:

“The Iran deal, in my view, is another remarkable (Obama) achievement. Beyond the fact that it definitively keeps Tehran from building a nuclear weapon for at list 15 years, the agreement offers Iran’s leaders a path toward renewed membership in the community of nations. The mullahs may decide to remain defiant and isolated, but at least they now have a choice.” Washington Post Writers Group. 9, 8, 15.

What world is Mr. Robinson live in? What does he know about the ideology of Soviet Fascism that was implemented in Iran by the Soviets and Russian KGB for the last decades? He, together with Obama invites to the community of nations the country that in cahoots with Russia is Balkanizing the world for the decades and killed 500 our soldiers in Iraq. What does he know about WWIII waged against Western civilization and millions innocent killed around the globe? Does he know anything about five secret agreements and Iran’s secret nuclear complex near Esphahan, never mentioned in the deal? Maybe Mr. Robinson knows that mullahs will self-inspect their nuclear and military facilities?

I would suggest to Mr. Roberts reading an excellent article written by the man, who reflects a real life of our times. Maybe Mr. Roberts can learn the dreadful network of our enemies who are weaving a rotten plot against American interests with both ‘slick Willi” and Obama for many years preceding the deal. For this reason, I am giving you the piece that confirms my opinion:

Tablet Magazine

MEET THE IRAN LOBBY

In the fight over sanctions and the nuclear deal, how did the supposedly all-powerful pro-Israel lobby lose to the slick operatives of the National Iranian American Council?

By Lee Smith September 1, 2015

“Trita Parsi, the Iranian-born émigré who moved to the United States in 2001 from Sweden, where his parents found refuge before the Islamic Revolution, should be the toast of Washington these days. As I argued in Tablet magazine several years ago, Parsi is an immigrant who in classic American fashion wanted to capitalize on the opportunity to reconcile his new home and his birthplace. And now he’s done it: The founder and president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby, has won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action not only lifts sanctions on Iran, a goal Parsi has fought for since 1997, but also paves the way for a broader reconciliation between Washington and Tehran across the Middle East.”

I was amazed reading the analyses presented by Lee Smith. The depth of knowledge of the subject and its intriguing history reflects the reality of our days. Furthermore the usage of the term “Agents of influence” presented by the Soviet military document of 1955 that I had given you many years ago and the term “slick” in describing Parsi is speaking for itself. Reading the article will also bring you to the September of 2015, as Hillary Clinton’s emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America’s strategy with Iran.

The Clinton Gang and 9/11/2001

Please remember my description of the Clinton Gang, its infiltration into all our intelligence agencies during Bill’s presidency and systematic activities against the American interests. Jerome Corsi is right: WALL STREET EXPERT: CLINTON FOUNDATION A ‘VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’. I have been writing about Clinton since I saw him in 1991. I knew who he was and if you take any of my books, you’ll see my loath for him and suspicious for his intelligence agencies. I was his enemy, a knowledgeable one and a victim of his intelligence agencies since 1993. If you read the last page of Baltic Winds, you will see the letter of the University’s Dean dismissing me from a teaching position, dated May 1993. It was a beginning of my constant persecution by Clinton’s intelligence apparatus.

Here is my cry and description of numerous abuses by our intelligence against me written in 2011:

“In the meantime, I continue living in the iron cage. My computer is monitored and my e-mails are going with the warning stamp or seal “suspect.” My telephone is wiretapped, I cannot talk freely and my mail is arrested the way it used to be in the Soviet Union. Some defaming information has been spread about me and a few of my “friends” stopped communication with me. I can’t call any radio show—my phone will be disconnected immediately. Moreover, this manuscript is read by Obama’s campaign—he is changing his behavior in accordance with his exposure by me. This means that the Kremlin read it also and is changing its politics accordingly. I do not know how many days are left for me.” P.331, What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction. Xlibris, 2012.

It took me a couple of days to complete this column, my computer was unexpectedly shut down several times. I can add more to that: All my books are a forbidden read—our intelligence agencies have been blocking information about them from the moment of their publication. Russia’s aggressive strategy and ideology are changing the world, yet, the White House and our Intelligence playing down the danger.

As you can see, the news that our intelligence agencies in 9/11 were working against our interests is not a revelation for me they are doing the same today. At the time of 9/11, I lived in New York- New Jersey and I knew John O’Neal, a man thinking alike me, a real patriot of America. A week or so prior to the crime of 9/11 he was assigned as a Chief Security to the Towers. Today it is an evidence of the intentional murder of almost 3.000 people including John O’Neal, a man who loved America the Beautiful. Please, remember the mechanism of Political Correctness in WWIII—recruitment and infiltration—a social and psychological front keeping fighting against Western civilization.

Reading this series of articles, you should know my opinion about some in our intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Russian Intelligence. I can give you a recent example of that. In November-December of 2014, I have watched a huge Russian military operation—cyberattacks on the websites of the organizations and persons who was exposing Soviet Fascism. You probably remember only a cyberattack on Sony. We were told that North Korea was doing it. Wrong! North Korea is the Stalinist State, inextricably tied to Russia, it can’t exist without Russia and completely subordinated to it. What we saw was the usual Russian camouflage to cover-up its own cyberattacks activities using the satellites.

Among November-December cyberattacks were many other victims including the person writing this column—my website, informing about me and my books was eliminated. There were also eliminated other websites that had been exposing and fighting against the Russian Intelligence for years. The most important was Hartia 97, a human rights group from Belorussia and other analogous human rights groups in the world.  The news about the traitors in our intelligence is not news for me, I have been warning about the traitors for the last two decades, but my writings was blocked. Alas, that is a result we are now dealing with the sponsor of terrorism Islamic Iran. Do not be surprised by a recent trip of General Qasem Soleimani, a Chief of Quds Force to Moscow—The KGB has built a Revolutionary Guard, Quds Force, and the entire system of Soviet Fascism in Iran for the last decades. (read What is happening to America?) I expect Russia and Iran will fight in Syria to secure Assad.

The time has come now to expose both leaders of the party called Democratic, I was warning you for decades.The Obama/Putin Joint Venture, I named Destruction of the American Republic is a continuation of the Clinton Gang deeds, the actions against our interests by the Democrat Party—the enemy within. Mike Huckabee, has gone further “as to argue that Obama “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” Don’t you sense a small and a warning of Soviet Fascism keeping fighting Western civilization? The 21st century needs a President Reagan No.2, who realizes that Russia and now China are working hand-in-hand against us for decades.

Wake up America! Stop a catastrophic Iran’s Nuclear Deal!! Prevent the Iranian criminals from receiving $150 billion! Hold accountable the banks releasing the money. It is the time for America To BE or NOT TO BE.

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Media’s Bias

Have they no shame? Can America’s ideologically constipated, left wing, mainstream media get any worse? The answer appears to be yes. After largely ignoring the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos and instead focusing on Marco Rubio’s wife’s driving violations, they have now moved on to Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

You likely saw the widely reported story about the two brothers from Boston who allegedly beat up a homeless man and, after being caught, were reported to have told police officials, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” But, did you see the other headline? The headline that read, “Alleged Manhattan Gunman was an Elizabeth Warren Supporter”?

Unless you read Conservative Review, Breitbart, or Heavy.com, then the odds of you reading this story are minuscule. The general premise the ideologically slanted mainstream media has been working with in its attempt to ensure maximum distribution of the Trump headline while suppressing the Warren headline, is “Conservativism inspires violence.”

Exposing media bias in cases like this is critical because the members of the media who are promoting the Trump story were not saying, “political speech inspires violence” they were saying “CONSERVATISM inspires violence.” Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen this theme appear in the writings of media figures on both the reporting, and opinion, sides of the media house.

Far left opinion columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post tried this same sleight-of-hand trick when he disingenuously tried to pin some of the blame on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Loughner, writing that she should “consider being quiet for a while” after the shooting. Robinson, either not bright enough to realize that his Palin hit piece was an anti-free speech screed, or so ideologically married to hard-left ideology that he was blind to the irony, penned a piece just three years later, absolving President Obama, Al Sharpton, and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for the actions of cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley (who was reported to have been inspired by a movement these far left political figures vocally supported). Robinson jumped the credibility shark in his subsequent piece by writing that they “are in NO WAY responsible” (emphasis mine).

Other committed leftist columnist, Dana Milbank, also of the Washington Post, is another hypocrite anxious to sacrifice his credibility for Internet clicks from rabid leftists. Milbank, who was quick to celebrate civil disobedience on the part of immigration activists who aligned with his ideologically leanings, even asking the President to join in the protest where illegal immigrants were present, was, hypocritically, quick to condemn civil disobedience in the case of Kim Davis. Milbank ridiculously attempts to explain away his hypocrisy by claiming that ignoring the law is okay as long as it doesn’t involve “ignoring court orders.”

Sadly, Milbank is serious with his outrageous attempt to be logical and consistent. In Milbank’s bizarre world, it’s okay to violate clearly written laws which conflict with far leftist ideology because this is the “good” civil disobedience, not involving “court orders” but, when a registered Democrat such as Kim Davis, engages in an act of civil disobedience, based on a sincere religious objection, and the cause conflicts with leftist thinking, then she deserves to be jailed. Don’t try to make sense out of this because you will pull your hair out in the process.

These blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies are not an accident. The organized left doesn’t believe in principled civil disobedience, they believe in the accumulation of power at any cost, the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. If jailing Kim Davis in perpetuity would advance their end game of dismantling the traditional family and instilling cultural relatively from the home, to the school, to the government, then that is exactly what they would do. The far left’s inclination will always be to suppress opposing political views because the movement’s scandalous flirtations with socialism can only evolve into a successful marriage if government force is involved and, tragically, history is clear on this.

Whether it’s punishing religious freedom, verbal policing on college campuses, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel’s push for regulating political speech online, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s push for expanded control over the web, the IRS, and their targeting of conservative groups, or the President’s dangerous rhetoric, directed at his political opposition, they will continue to take every opportunity to try to intimidate conservatives through the media, the regulatory and law enforcement infrastructure, and the legislative process.

So just stop pretending. People in positions of public influence such as Eugene Robinson and Dana Milbank should just be honest and tell America how they really feel. If you disagree with us we will support whatever means we need to do, including, but not limited to, destroying your name, jailing you, lying about you, and creating disingenuous false narratives, to ensure that we crush and silence you.

Information is power and the ability to see and bring attention to the constant stream of obvious media hypocrisy is a weapon we must employ to counter their endless feed of bogus narratives. It can be depressing to watch leftist activists pretend to be unbiased journalists or rational opinion writers but, on a positive note, we are winning the long game. Yes, we are winning due to the commitment of many conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans to exposing media trickery. Pulling back the curtain and exposing media bias has dissolved the trust between the media and Americans searching for the truth. Keep up the fight and whenever you see these examples of bias, get your letter to the editor ready, fire up your social media accounts, cancel your subscriptions, and get your game face on. This fight is too important to lose.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Dharapak | AP Images.

They call them ‘Syrian Refugees’ but are they really just ‘Refugees’?

This past week, 14 years later we, as a nation, took pause to remember September 11, 2001.  Yes it has been 14 years already since that deadly attack on the American people and it is something that will be burned into our collective psyche for the rest of our lives.  We will never forget September 11th, 2001. Or will we? Or have we already?

Currently, there is a ‘crisis’ in Syria and the people are fleeing the multi-faceted civil war going on in that small Middle East nation.  There are at least three major factions fighting each other and it is creating havoc for the people of that nation. So much so that the men, women, children are fleeing for their lives and are flooding European nations that are near to Syria Or are they really?

Some studies have suggested that in many groups of refugees, the makeup of the people include women and children and elderly but that 80% are men between the ages of 18 and 30 and that is the age of a soldier. In fact we know that some of those young men are indeed members of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Muslim extremist groups that are bent on the West’s destruction.  The problem is we don’t know which of them are or how many there are.

The media has portrayed this as a mass human exodus with unimaginable suffering.  What we hear from people on the ground in the areas affected is that this is not true.  In fact many European nations have closed their once open borders in an effort to stop the free flow of these people for the simple reason those countries know for a fact that some of those crossing their borders have nefarious reasons on their minds.

France, England, Belgium and other European nations are all too familiar with these kinds of immigrants because they have caused death and destruction on a massive scale. These nations have also learned that there is no integration of culture when they cross into their lands.  France thought they could appease Muslims by giving them whole towns to basically run as they please and that has not caused a drop in terrorism in France.  In fact, it has increased.

And now the French are beginning to take some hard line stances to curb this terrorism and England has begun to do the same thing for the same reasons.  Even those who do not love the USA are taking or have taken hard line stances. Take Russia for example, they do not tolerate deviation from its national culture because you either assimilate or President Putin will kick you out or put you in prison.

China has all but banned Islam within its borders by banning all Mosques.  Even Chinese citizens have been turned away and prevented from re-entering their own nation because of their Islamic affiliations. So with much of the world turning their back on Syrian refugees and radical Islam, one has to ask the question why is it that the American left is so open to the idea of bringing even more of these people into the country?

Does the left not understand that Islam hates them the most because they support all kinds of ideas that are a complete and total offense to Islam such as Atheism and homosexuality.  In the Middle East, they still hang or behead atheists and homosexuals.  Yet the left still thinks it’s worth bringing these haters into the USA.

It would seem to me that the left has forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001.  Don’t get me wrong I feel for the people of Syria.  I really do.  But only a fool would let their emotions rule the day and let terrorist into their midst willingly. This is the modern day version of the Trojan horse because if Women and Children and the Elderly are the refugees, how could we possibly refuse to take the young men as well?

I have not forgotten September 11, 2001 and I say it is easy to deny entry to those who have as their base religion, our very destruction as their agenda.  So it is written, so they say it will be done. We have to remind liberals that their illogical bleeding hearts could get people they know and love killed and then we would have another 9/11 to remember 14 years later.

It’s not humane to do such a thing.  It’s foolish.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syrians to be distributed across America

Judiciary Chairman Grassley wants Kerry to clarify position on Syrian Muslim admissions to U.S.

Lawmakers Push to Declare ISIS’ Targeting of Christians ‘Genocide’

Refugee Crisis Has European Union Grappling With Its Destiny

Jared Fogle’s Rise to Infamy

jared fogle new york postMonths ago, I published an article about Indianapolis teenagers being marketed in photos posted on the Internet – months before Indianapolis native Jared Fogle‘s arrest for child pornography and sexual relations with multiple minors.  How is it that Jared, reported to be worth 15 million dollars and at the top of the national hall of fame heap as Subway’s spokesman par excellence, fell from fame into infamy in a moment’s time?

Actually, Jared Fogle, born, raised, and living in Indianapolis, Indiana – the nation’s heartland – trafficked children around the world, according to testimonies, but his sentence is remarkably slight – a maximum of five years in prison and minimal restitution to certain child-victims.  Jared’s family, whom I have known since childhood, know some of the marketed teens well, as do I.

For two years, every Saturday morning and many other times as well, I picketed against child trafficking beside the Indianapolis Jewish Community Center (JCC), where Jared’s dad is a devoted Board member.  I reported child abuse at the JCC to law enforcement, the JCC Board, and to dozens of persons and agencies, to no avail.  For reporting the child abuse I personally witnessed at the JCC – a huge 350-pound man lying on top of a child, who was pinned to the floor against a cement block wall – I was targeted by leaders in our own Jewish community, where a code of sexual abuse silence has persisted for generations, as in the Catholic church. By this code, victims are abandoned by both communities in staggering numbers.  Predators are protected in both communities by members of the hierarchy and authorities.

I repeat … Jewish teenagers that I know and Jared’s parents know are freely and openly posted in photos on the Internet with captions like “the prostitute” and “Spank me.”  No matter how many reports are made to the authorities of ongoing Indianapolis child trafficking, the fates of the child-victims are sealed by freedom from punishments for their predators.

For 10 years, according to testimonies, Jared Fogle’s depraved conversations about his exploitation of children were recorded as part of a criminal investigation.  For many years, Jared Fogle met with Russell Taylor, his best friend and fellow pornographer, at a Broad Ripple bar, near my home, in what is known as the “Little Man’s Club,” in the VIP section, boasting of their crimes against children.  In Indianapolis, who even cared?

Picketing photo 2Born, raised, and living in Indianapolis virtually my entire life, I know that it is a predator-friendly city of which I am ashamed.  It is nearby to Bloomington, Indiana, where Alfred Kinsey’s name, as the Indiana University professor who made pornographic films in his home starring his wife in sexual acts with Kinsey’s fellow professors, is revered beyond words by officialdom.

Are we naïve enough to believe that predators do not nest in safe places for their insidious crimes against children to be overlooked?  Indianapolis is a safe place for predators.  Indianapolis is unsafe for children and for mandatory reporters of childhood sexual abuse.

In my years of picketing beside the JCC, I received credible death threats, stones hurled at me, and cars veering to hit me.  I was regularly harassed by officers and staunchly protected by neighbors, who, as myself, understand that there is no more heinous evil than to defile a child.

As for my fate, since my picketing ended, both my husband and I have been targeted for our public protests against child abuse in the Jewish community.  My husband was fired by his boss for my legal actions against the JCC, and his boss, an Indianapolis lawyer, who never knew my Dad, was appointed as the executor of my Dad’s estate instead of me.

As Jared relaxes at home instead of prison, those of us on the front-lines of the war against child trafficking are harassed, intimidated, and threatened ….

Congress must press Obama Administration on Muslim Syrian refugee policy

Update:  It appears the last time either Judiciary Committee held required hearings on the annual refugee consultation was in 1999 (here).  If anyone can find a more recent hearing record, please send it. Why haven’t they been doing their jobs?

We’ve been aware for several years that the Administration each September must consult with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the President’s refugee resettlement plan for the upcoming year which must lay out how many refugees we will take, from where they will come, and why this is in our national interest.

(Last year’s Presidential Determination is here and an accompanying report can be found here.)

Reports I’ve received over the years are that the Committees responsible for “consulting” don’t change anything the President requests.  I could be wrong, but at least in the 8 years I’ve followed the Refugee Admissions Program, the consultation and the required delivery of a lengthy report amounted to no more than State Department reps dropping off the report with committee staff.  (I want to be corrected if there has been much more than that over the last decade!).

kerry richard

Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard and Secretary of State John Kerry

On Wednesday, Sec. of State John Kerry and Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard made a trip to the Hill to meet with Senators Grassley and Sessions (others?) where they discussed the 10,000 (some reports say 5,000) Syrians for FY2016 proposal.

They are calling that meeting a “consultation.”  Were Members of the House Judiciary Committee present as the law requires?

Opening the floodgates?

This is what the Office of Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley said after the meeting with Kerry.  It appears that Kerry left the door open for a much larger number of Syrians than the 10,000 being mentioned by the Administration so far.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley made the following statement after a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry and Anne Richard, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees and Migration. The consultation regarding the number of refugees that the United States will admit into the country is required by law. In the event of an “emergency refugee situation” the administration may admit an additional number of refugees, but only after additional consultation with Congress.

“Secretary Kerry initially said that the Obama administration is seeking a reasonable increase in refugees allowed into the United States in the upcoming fiscal year. But when pressed, the administration indicated that they were considering opening the floodgates and using emergency authority to go above what they proposed to Congress in today’s consultation. The administration also has not ruled out potentially paroling thousands of Syrians into the United States.

Where is the hearing?

Below is a section of the Refugee Act of 1980 which lays out the process which should be happening right now regarding the “consultation” and subsequent final determination.

Calling any lawyers out there to help decipher it!  But, as I see it, both House and Senate Judiciary Committees are required to hold hearings!

((It can be confusing because the text intermingles two processes.  One is for the annual determination (where we are right now in mid-September) and the other is for an emergency situation that might come up during the year.))

Below are the sections I’ve selected for your consideration.  I doubt most of this ever happens! This is the statute: STATUTE-94-Pg102

“SEC. 207. (a)(1) Except as provided in subsection Q)), the number of
refugees who may be admitted under this section in fiscal year 1980,
1981, or 1982, may not exceed fifty thousand unless the President
determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate
consultation (as defined in subsection (e)), that admission of a
specific number of refugees in excess of such number is justified by
humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

“(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees
who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal
year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before
the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is
justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national
interest.

“(3) Admissions under this subsection shall be allocated among
refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States in
accordance with a determination made by the President after appropriate
consultation.

[….]

“(d)(1) Before the start of each fiscal year the President shall report
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and of the Senate regarding the foreseeable number of refugees who
will be in need of resettlement during the fiscal year and the
anticipated allocation of refugee admissions during the fiscal year.

The President shall provide for periodic discussions between designated
representatives of the President and members of such committees
regarding changes in the worldwide refugee situation, the
progress of refugee admissions, and the possible need for adjustments
in the allocation of admissions among refugees.

“(2) As soon as possible after representatives of the President
initiate appropriate consultation with respect to the number of
refugee admissions under subsection (a) or with respect to the
admission of refugees in response to an emergency refugee situation
under subsection (b), the (Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate shall cause to have printed in the
Congressional Record the substance of such consultation.

“(3)(A) After the President initiates appropriate consultation prior
to making a determination under subsection (a), a hearing to review
the proposed determination shall be held unless public disclosure of
the details of the proposal would jeopardize the lives or safety of individuals.

[….]

“(e) For purposes of this section, the term ‘appropriate consultation*
means, with respect to the admission of refugees and allocation
of refugee admissions, discussions in person by designated
Cabinet-level representatives of the President with members of the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives to review the refugee situation or emergency refugee
situation, to project the extent of possible participation of the United
States therein, to discuss the reasons for believing that the proposed
admission of refugees is justified by humanitarian concerns or grave
humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest, and
to provide such members with the following information:

“(1) A description of the nature of the refugee situation.

“(2) A description of the number and allocation of the refugees
to be admitted and an analysis of conditions within the countries
from which they came.

“(3) A description of the proposed plans for their movement
and resettlement and the estimated cost of their movement and
resettlement.

“(4) An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and
demographic impact of their admission to the United States.

“(5) A description of the extent to which other countries will
admit and assist in the resettlement of such refugees.

“(6) An analysis of the impact of the participation of the United
States in the resettlement of such refugees on the foreign policy
interests of the United States.

“(7) Such additional information as may be appropriate or
requested by such members.

To the extent possible, information described in this subsection shall
be provided at least two weeks in advance of discussions in person by
designated representatives of the President with such members.

Where is the report?  Was it delivered two weeks ago?

What you can do!

Contact members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (listed here) and tell them to hold PUBLIC hearings on the President’s plan!

It would be preferable to hold field hearings around the country in some of the largest resettlement locations in the country so that citizens who will be most affected by large numbers of Middle Eastern and African refugees could be heard.  If those hearings hold up the official beginning of the resettlement year—October 1—so be it!

Note to Presidential candidates, this may be the most important issue America ever faces!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Congress shirking its duty to America on refugee admissions? Yes, and has done so for more than 2 decades!

Council on American Islamic Relations: Bring Syrians to St. Louis!

German highway banner: “Your children will pray to Allah or die!”

Open letter to Pam Stewart Florida’s Commissioner of Education

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from collecting taxes to be used for funding education. This, in effect, makes the Department of Education (DOE) an unconstitutional body funded illegally by the Congress against the will of the tax payers of the United States. It gives power over the states and the schools managed by the states and local school districts by the federal government which in turn creates turmoil and unconstitutional dictates placed upon local school districts.

In order to continue to receive this illegally collected tax money by the federal government schools are forced to follow federal mandates like Michelle Obama’s box lunch program. This includes illegal search and seizure of boxed lunches packed by parents who do not want their children to die of malnutrition during the school day. This illegal search of children’s box lunches to ensure compliance with Michelle’s mandates is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The new government which will be seated in January 2017 will be most likely led by Mr. Donald Trump the next President of the United States. Due to the current unsustainable debt placed upon this nation by the Republican and Democrat parties, cuts and budgetary changes will be happening in 2017 to offset the massive recession facing us next year in 2016. The ducks are coming home to their eggs. Start preparing.

With discussions at the highest level and in order to restore our nation back to constitutional law and governance I would start planning on not receiving any more money from the Department of Education. I am pretty sure its future will include the dismantling of this illegally funded and operated body created by the Jimmy Carter – George Soros progressives.

These tax payer funded employees and the illegal redistribution of wealth though grants and student loans to ensure a federally compliant school system at the DOE will soon be terminated.

I would start now Mr. Commissioner by refusing all money and grants and kick backs from the Department of Education in Washington D.C. The state of Florida will once again stand on its own feet under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. We will flush away the progressive agenda that is flowing into our schools like a broken septic tank feeder valve. The Jeb Bush Common Core agenda will be eradicated and our children will be again very soon be learning the U.S. Constitution in our schools right after their prayers are completed.

The Department of Education’s website reads:

“Our mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access”

This is totally unconstitutional and the DOE have no such authority.

Under laws and guidance on the Department of Education website it states:

“Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels. So, if you have a question about a policy or issue, you may want to check with the relevant organization in your state or school district. “

The federal government has admitted on its own website what it is doing is wrong. Mr. Trump will correct this illegal and unconstitutional collection of tax payer money for the centralized Marxists currently operating out of Washington DC and in the Dept. of Education. Time to defund it and shut it down.

To the Florida Department of Education I say to you….. stop accepting this illegally collected tax payer dollars from the Department of Education now. It will be less painful for you when it goes away in 2017.

Also start planning on removing all references to Islam, Mohammed and Muslims from Florida public school textbooks. It is time to teach Judaic-Christian values being in our curriculum. Saudi Arabia’s days of injecting money into our schools is coming to an end and soon, very soon.

God Bless America.

The Rock Hill Herald’s lovefest with Islamic terrorists

There’s a strange love-fest going on between a newspaper in South Carolina and an Islamic group with a history of terrorism.

The newspaper, The Herald, is located in Rock Hill, S.C., about 15 miles east of York, where an armed Islamic group has an encampment. Over the past few years, The Herald has published a number of glowing articles about this Islamic organization, which has a history of criminal acts, kidnappings, firebombings and murder – all in the United States.

First, a little about this American-based Islamic group.

The spiritual leader of Muslims of America is Sheikh Mubarik Gilani, shown here shooting a rifle in a Soldiers of Allah recruiting video.

The spiritual leader of Muslims of America is Sheikh Mubarik Gilani, shown here shooting a rifle in a Soldiers of Allah recruiting video.

It is best known as “Muslims of the Americas” (MOA), though it has also operated under such names as “Jamaat ul-Fuqra” and “Muhammad Commandos of Sector 5.”  None of that really matters.  What does matter is that the FBI considers this group to be an Islamic terrorist organization.

Here is how the FBI described MOA in a 2007 report:

“MOA members have participated in ten murders; one disappearance; three fire bombings and one attempted fire bombing and; two explosive bombings with one attempted bombing.”

Now that’s a lot of bombings INSIDE the United States.  But the FBI has more to say about MOA.

“ … The leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam which includes the U.S. Government.”

So the MOA is after you and me, the United States government and anyone who disagrees with them.

MOA has nearly three-dozen Islamic camps inside the United States, in New York, Georgia, Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Michigan, to name a few. The MOA encampment nearest to The Herald newspaper is called Holy Islamville.  Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

Holy Islamville has existed in York, S.C. since 1983. It encompasses 36 acres of land and has about 150 members. Gunfire can be regularly heard inside the community, which makes neighbors extremely nervous.

And why wouldn’t they be nervous, when the FBI has also said this about MOA members:

“Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

The Holy Islamville compound is located near York, S.C.

The Holy Islamville compound is located near York, S.C.

Neighbors are worried, no question. I have spoken with them on several occasions. Anyone who has any doubts can go speak to them as well: The camp is located right on Islamville Way in York.  (Hey MOA – this is no secret, so don’t pretend I’m giving anything away.)

So the big question is: If neighbors are worried and – more important – if the FBI is worried, then why isn’t The Herald newspaper worried?

Instead, The Herald treats members of the group as if they are nothing more than the Muslim equivalent of a Quaker commune – nonviolent, self-sufficient and understandably reclusive.

The newspaper’s morally superior, one-sided and shoddy journalism can be found herehere, and here. None of them ask any tough, investigative-journalistic questions.

The Herald says about MOA members, “They are as American as any of us.”

Really? Here is what the FBI says about those same MOA members:

“The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

Does that sound American to you?

Maybe The Herald just wants to give these people a break, given the FBI’s dire warnings about MOA. Or maybe they are afraid. Maybe The Herald is simply practicing lazy journalism – finding reasons not to ask the tough questions. Maybe The Herald wants its readers to believe that these people are our friends, and that readers are just too backward and ignorant to realize it.

One thing is for sure: MOA wants you to believe they are your friends.

A videotape obtained by our organization called Soldiers of Allah was produced by MOA, and offers instruction to its members on how to fight, kidnap, murder and detonate bombs.

In that tape, the spiritual leader of MOA tells his followers:

“You are most welcome to join one of the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare – special training if you wish. You can get in touch with the commanders.”

That spiritual leader’s name is Sheikh Mubarik Gilani and he lives in Lahore, Pakistan.  Sheikh Gilani even claims that the property in York, Holy Islamville, is a place where his “Soldiers of Allah” can go to receive guerrilla warfare training.

“We are establishing training camps,” Sheikh Gilani says on the tape.  “And you can reach us in upstate New York, or in Canada, or in Michigan, or in South Carolina.”

He’s very clear about the mission of his MOA camps, like the one in York.

“As you know,” he says, “we have already established an organization under the auspices of Muslims of the Americas Incorporated.  Our organization is called, ‘Soldiers of Allah.’”

While his members are going through weapons training in the video, an instructor tells his new trainees:

“Act like you are a friend, and then kill him.  Just like from the book.”

So that’s what they want: to be your friend.  The Herald of Rock Hill is doing all they can to help.

September 11, 2015

I was probably the last person on the planet to learn about 9/11.  I was in the midst of writing my dissertation at the University of Georgia and did not log in to my email until mid-afternoon.  We all remember the horror we felt when we heard that our nation was attacked.

That evening NPR, however, was full of cluck-clucking about attacks on Muslims.  Virtually all of those claims turned out to be bogus.  First responders were dying as they searched for survivors, and the people at NPR were more concerned about a Muslim being called a bad name. Further horror came as one of my colleagues told me how he had conducted discussion in his freshman composition class the following day: he used the New York Times to explain the “history” behind the attack, and how American policies brought it on.

Fourteen years later, we have an entire college course devoted to the study of 9/11.  The online literature class at the University of North Carolina teaches that American imperialism was to blame for 9/11; the reading assignments are sympathetic to the terrorists.  This fact is all the more distressing considering that today’s college students were only 4 or 5 years old at the time.

They should be assigned instead Bruce Thornton’s “The Unlearned Lessons of 9/11” at FrontPage Magazine and Daniel Greenfield’s “This is the America We Live In Now” at his blog, Sultan Knish.

We are not to even speak of terrorism. In the last seven years the word “terrorism” has been declared verboten by our government.  And so it is in schools.

Except that attention is diverted from real horrors and mass murder to “microaggressions.”  Gestures, looks, and thoughts are now monitored and declared forbidden on our college campuses.  A slip of the tongue can get you into deep trouble.  Thought police masquerading under such titles as “diversity coordinators” collude on methods for controlling faculty and students.  Where will it end?  I speculate and make a “modest proposal” at theFederalist.  (Inspiration in part from a short story I used to teach, Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.“)

The good doctor Ben Carson has a remedy for microaggressions.  It’s from his 2014 book, One Nation.

Carson recounts an experience he had while working as an intern at Johns Hopkins around 1977 and being confused for an orderly by the nurse.  He would be told by the nurse that the patient was not ready for the operating room.  The good doctor realized that the sight of a black physician was decidedly rare in 1977.  This is how he puts it:

After many years of hard work to achieve the title of doctor, many might say that I would have been justified in reacting angrily to the suggestion that I was an orderly, especially given the racial overtones of the misunderstanding.  However, I tried to look at things from the nurse’s perspective.  The only black males she had seen come onto that ward wearing surgical scrubs were orderlies who were coming to pick up or deliver a patient.  Why would she think differently in my case?  A highly sensitive individual would have created a scene and everyone would have felt uncomfortable.  I would simply say in those situations, ‘I’m sorry that Mr. Patient isn’t ready yet, but I’m Dr. Carson and I’m here for another reason.’

He continues, “The offending nurse would often be so embarrassed that I actually felt sorry for her or him and I would say, ‘It’s quite all right and you don’t need to feel bad.’  I would be very nice to that person, and I would have a friend for life. . . . that was a whole lot better than having someone who would always feel ashamed, embarrassed, or hostile when they saw me.”

So isn’t that so much nicer than sitting around and mooning over such mistakes as if they were the slings and arrows felling the potential top-notch surgeon?

Ben Carson MD

Ben Carson, MD.

This is a good tip to give to the perpetually affronted wandering our campuses, as well as to those perpetually frightened that any comment or gesture could be taken the wrong way.

The doctor has other tips, beginning with the recognition of the Alinsky strategy of goading opponents:

  1. Try to identify one instance of artificial outrage.  Explain to one other person why this is a contrived issue and outline the way it agitates people and cultivates political support for the agitators.
  2. Readily apologize to a person who is offended by something you said.  Explain what you had hoped to convey.
  3. Attempt to politely disagree with someone who makes a political statement with which you disagree.  (Be sure that you choose an appropriate setting.)  Engage in a civil discussion of the matter.
  4. Read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to get an idea of how the political correctness police work.

Good tips to give to students.

In case you missed them. . . I’ve had several articles at Selous Foundation on Common Core and gaming in the classroom.  Read them here.

Will America Glean From Her Glorious Past Or Crash In The Present?

If you move your feet, you lose your seat.  Almost everyone has experienced sitting in a chair in a public setting such as a doctor’s office waiting room.  But you had to get up to go to the rest room or sign a document at the desk.  However, when you returned to your seat, someone came in the office and sat there, so there you stand until you are called in to see the doctor because you no longer have a claim on the seat.

Similarly, the church in America has given up her seat at the table of influence­ and authority in the United States of America.

In the beginning there was the influence of the Christian church. The first permanent settlement was the English colony of Jamestown in 1607, in what is now Virginia.  Just like the other twelve original colonies, Virginia was governed according to a Christian oriented charter called the First Charter of Virginia.  It like the charters of the other twelve colonies emphasized the Christian character of their purpose.

When the Colonial settlers arrived in America, the influence of the Bible on their lives came with them.  For many, their Christian faith was as much a part of who they were as their brave spirit, and it touched all that they touched.  This stands out boldly as one observes the goal government based on scripture being affirmed over and over by individual colonies, such as in the Rhode Island Charter of 1683, which begins:  “We submit our person, lives and estates unto the Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and absolute laws He has given us in His Holy Word.”

Later, as the colonists became disenchanted with the tyranny of British rule under King George, the leaders in that fight for liberty and the recognition of the unalienable rights of individuals, leaned heavily upon who they called God for his Providential guidance.  Thus the seeds were planted, that grew and matured into the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Such luminaries like John Adams, George Washington, Samuel Adams and the lion of Liberty Patrick Henry along with the overwhelming majority of the great men and women who fought to establish the United States of America all expressed in their conversations, numerous actions and many writings their love for and faith in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

The founding fathers were also endowed with immense insight, discernment, and wisdom, not only about the adventurous times in which they lived, but also in regards to the future.  For they plainly understood that in order for America to become and remain a nation of true liberty for all men, she had to be good.  Not perfect mind you, but good. To the point where individuals would govern themselves according to the principles of God I every facet of life, thus eliminating the need or excuse for an intrusive big government to dictate the lives of sovereign citizens from cradle to grave.

In fact it was Samuel Adams who wrote in a letter to James Warren in 1779 a general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.  While people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.  How necessary then is it for those who are determined to transmit the blessings of liberty and a fair inheritance to posterity, to associate or public principles in support of public virtue.”  It is most unfortunate that the Christian church seemingly got up from the table of authority in America and lost her seat.

Either many Christians are waiting to fly out of here via the fly away doctrine or they have a stubborn disinterest in the well-being of our country, or both.  Still, many others declare their unwillingness to learn about the issues of the day and stupidly act if it is a sin to care about and know about politics and what it takes to reestablish the United States as a great nation under God.  If the Founding Fathers had that attitude, the United States would never come to fruition. I guess based upon the actions, desires and mission of today’s Alinsky inspired progressives, they want to rid the earth of the United States as a constitutional republic and replace with an evil new world order dictatorship.  If the majority or Christians maintain their present stubborn posture, they will rue the day they helped America to die because they as good people, chose to do nothing.

Because of the wimpy posture of far too many of today’s Christians, in many circles Christianity and even God himself is continuously kicked to the curb.  Meanwhile the federal government has gone rogue and is working against our society to the point of making deals with enemies like Iran who daily declare death to Israel and America.  Such unwise actions and stupid thinking is the result of not seeking the wisdom of he who shed his grace upon our republic.

Please!!! Wake up America before it is much too late.