We are now officially told by the President and by members of Congress that the long anticipated IGII FISA report will be released to the public on December 9, 2019. Timing and optics. The time has come. We also are told that the IG Horowitz will be testifying before committee on December 11, 2019. This changes everything. This is now being treated as a criminal investigation. There will be indictments, charges and justice will be served. IG Hororwitz, AG Barr and John Durham are now ready. Remember this, the hunters have now become the hunted. Let’s have a look at this.
Current Scene
The impeachment approach was DOA out of the gate soon as Schiff did his parody before the American people with the release of the transcripts by President Trump, oops-too late! And yes, Schiff will be indicted. This “sick puppy” is in serious trouble. What they have on him will make you sick. It’s coming folks, it’s coming.
As recent history has shown the world, this impeachment farce further imploded upon the deep state, the dems. and the fake news media. No witnesses, just disgruntled chosen operatives with no facts, no evidence whatsoever to lay a case for impeachment. All they did through this circus show, is implicate themselves and others. What a wonderful thing when your enemy is destroying themselves. Furthermore as part of this circus and story telling hour led by treasonous Adam Schiff, is the manner in which it has been and is being conducted. Making rules along the way, changing the rules once broken and so forth and so on. There never was an official whistle blower and there never was anything to whistle blow. I stated this on October 9, 2019 in an interview with RT America. I enter at time marker 8:46
President Trump was on FOX NEWS last week just after the last impeachment circus charade basically stated that the upcoming FISA report will be “historic” and that this will be the biggest scandal in the history of our nation. We recently heard from Mark Levin, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr and even Geraldo Rivera and so many others, who concur and conclude that this is in fact another sham, another failed attempt to remove and prevent the re-election of President Trump. Everything the deep state, the Democrats and the fake news media are doing is collapsing in on on them. The self created cascading avalanche that I have been talking about has just reached a new level. Wait until the second and third week of December!
Twelve Step Program
On June 13, 2018, I wrote an article tilted “Scale of Discovery and Action“. You can read the article. Below is the twelve step program which was discussed in the article. I bring this to your attention because we are now solidly at steps 6, 7 and 8 as forecast by me way back when, (in the thick of the seemingly hopeless Mueller investigation), with steps 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the near term horizon (2020 and beyond).
We discover that something is not quite right and not quite good.
Ask ourselves – Why all this havoc and chaos?
Who is creating this?
How are they creating it?
Where are they geographically located?
Expose their crimes and transgressions.
Convene probes, investigations, grand juries and hearings.
Conduct trials and or military tribunals.
Enforce the law and the Constitution.
Charge the individuals with their crimes.
Hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law including execution if necessary for high crimes and treason.
Eliminate and take all powers away from the Deep State and put in measures to prevent this from ever occurring again.
Winning With Impeachment
As stated above, the impeachment was DOA. Another set of reasons, besides what was mentioned above at the onset of this article to consider is, this charade has opened up Pandora’s Box. They boxed themselves in. Can you say “Burisma”? Had they known Trump was to release the transcripts, I bet they never would have proceeded, well at least not with the talking points they proceeded with. They would have conjured up some other angle, some other hoax. Too late. So they are dammed if they do and they are damned if they don’t.
If they do not go for a vote in the house following the impeachment inquiry hoax, well they lose. No impeachment. Egg all over their face. End of story. If they do proceed with a vote, A) They may not get enough votes in the house although I think they would) and B) This opens up the flood gates to an absolute victory for Trump and the Patriots. Why? Because this then allows for the Republicans in the senate to call upon witnesses under oath for questioning. Witnesses like Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, and scores and scores of others. Lights out-game over. Senate hearings as part of impeachment alone would bring down the house. I discussed this on impeachment hearing eve with Will Johnson of Firepower. I enter here at time marker 1:06:36.
If it goes to a vote in the House and passes, it is DOA in the Senate and the President will NOT be removed from office and furthermore the “scar” of impeachment by the dems. in the house may be stricken from the records in due time because of the fact that how it was conducted was unconstitutional, and illegal.
Carry on Patriots we are winning with impeachment either way it goes. And yes, barring assassination (God forbid), and or rigging the election against Trump successfully this time vs. the unsuccessful 2016 attempt that I wrote about in a ground breaking and revealing chapter in my book, “Trump and the Resurrection of America“, as long as we do our part and vote and get others to do the same, it will be an historical popular vote and electoral college landslide for President Trump’s re-election. Then there is Don Jr’s. eight years, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves just yet.
What’s Next?
So what’s next? Like I have commented on for quite some time in my articles and in my public speaking engagements, we can expect the following.
Actual suicides
More “suicided’s”
People becoming “fatally ill”
The guilty ratting each other out – every man and woman for themselves
More False Flags some of magnitude
Additional coup attempts and endless baseless attacks as last ditching desperate efforts
Potential take down of the robust economy and stock market valuations
A key step towards the final blow to the Fake News (of which many will also be implicated due to their aiding and abetting a treasonous coup based upon their knowingly reporting of false information as journalists thus violating US Sec. Codes 2384 Seditious Conspiracy and 2385 Advocating the Overthrow of a Government), will be the airing of all this for the people of the world to see. Then they will know. So buckle down, real evil, sick and ugly things are being revealed. From dark, to light. Remember this is Trump, truth and the age of transparency. The rule of law reset has begun.
Remember This As We move Forward Now
We have IGII FISA report coming out in less than three weeks now. Then there is the Epstein case. This alone will bring down the deep state as I have written about long ago that pedophilia is the Achilles Heel of the deep state.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has been nailed and this opens up the heart of the matter with UK Royalty and will lead to the Mossad and others as well. We will soon see former President Clinton and scores of politicians left and right and on a global basis, the Hollywood elites, corporate executives, people in the media and so on, we will see them for who and what they are, criminals, Satan worshipers and pedophiles. You see, although Epstein has been “suicided”, we have the flight logs, NSA files, scores of witness reporting in daily, pictures and films. Oh yes films. You see Epstein had cameras everywhere. What ammunition this is to be released at the right time. They are in serious trouble and global support is coming soon for President Trump.
So there is IGII FISA, Epstein files and whichever direction this impeachment hoax takes us, we win. They are all going down. It’s either us or them and now the tables have turned. The hunters have become the hunted. Get ready for the show of a lifetime. You have a front row seat.
This battle will rage on for the rest of our lives. Pray for our President and his family. No Trump-no hope. What we do right here, right now is for posterity. So when your children and grandchildren ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to U.S.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2019-11-25 14:25:312019-11-25 14:27:47Impeachment Trump vs Deep State – What’s Next?
The essence of any economy is built on the production and exchange of goods and services. And one of the most important and effective ways we know to achieve the fulfillment of people’s wants and needs in any society is through the market process.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-11-25 13:46:552019-11-25 13:49:27VIDEO: Invisible Hands — The Market Process
The first few years of Plymouth colony were fraught with hardship and hunger. Economics had a lot to do with it.
Next year at this time, Americans will mark the 400th anniversary of the landing of the Mayflower in 1620 and the subsequent founding of the Plymouth colony by English Puritans we know as the Pilgrims. They, of course, became the mothers and fathers of the first Thanksgiving.
The Common Property Approach
The first few years of the settlement were fraught with hardship and hunger. Four centuries later, they also provide us with one of history’s most decisive verdicts on the critical importance of private property. We should never forget that the Plymouth colony was headed straight for oblivion under a communal, socialist plan but saved itself when it embraced something very different.
In the diary of the colony’s first governor, William Bradford, we can read about the settlers’ initial arrangement: Land was held in common. Crops were brought to a common storehouse and distributed equally. For two years, every person had to work for everybody else (the community), not for themselves as individuals or families. Did they live happily ever after in this socialist utopia?
Hardly. The “common property” approach killed off about half the settlers. Governor Bradford recorded in his diary that everybody was happy to claim their equal share of production, but production only shrank. Slackers showed up late for work in the fields, and the hard workers resented it. It’s called “human nature.”
The disincentives of the socialist scheme bred impoverishment and conflict until, facing starvation and extinction, Bradford altered the system. He divided common property into private plots, and the new owners could produce what they wanted and then keep or trade it freely.
Communal socialist failure was transformed into private property/capitalist success, something that’s happened so often historically it’s almost monotonous. The “people over profits” mentality produced fewer people until profit—earned as a result of one’s care for his own property and his desire for improvement—saved the people.
Socialism Destroys
Over the centuries, socialism has crash-landed into lamentable bits and pieces too many times to keep count—no matter what shade of it you pick: central planning, welfare statism, or government ownership of the means of production. Then some measure of free markets and private property turned the wreckage into progress. I know of no instance in history when the reverse was true—that is, when free markets and private property produced a disaster that was cured by socialism. None.
A few of the many examples that echo the Pilgrims’ experience include Germany after World War II, Hong Kong after Japanese occupation, New Zealand in the 1980s, Scandinavia in recent decades, and even Lenin’s New Economic Policy of the 1920s.
Two hundred years after the Pilgrims, the Scottish cotton magnate Robert Owen thought he’d give socialism another spin, this time in New Harmony, Indiana. There he established a community he hoped would transcend such “evils” as individualism and self-interest. Everybody would be economically equal in an altruistic, fairy-tale society. It collapsed utterly within just two years, just like all the other “Owenite” communes it briefly inspired. Fortunately, because Owen didn’t have guns and armies to glue it together, people just walked away from New Harmony in disgust. They learned from socialism, even if today’s socialists don’t. You can read all about it in this splendid 1976 article by Melvin D. Barger, “Robert Owen: The Wooly Minded Cotton Spinner.”
Socialism flops even when it’s the “pretend” or “voluntary” variety. Imagine the odds against it succeeding when it’s compulsory! The use of force prolongs the agony but doesn’t breed any less bitterness, resentment, or decline. It magnifies the calamity, in fact.
Be Thankful for the Profit Motive
Consider this as you feast at the Thanksgiving table this week: The people who raised the turkey didn’t do so because they wanted to help you out. The others who grew the cranberries and the yams didn’t go to the trouble and expense out of some altruistic impulse or because of some nebulous “sharing” fantasy.
Sacrificial rituals, even if they make you feel good, rarely bake a bigger pie. Charity is laudable, and I engage in it, too, but it’s not an engine of production or prosperity. For that, you need profit, incentive, and private property.
In North Korea and Venezuela, socialist regimes work to see that almost nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won’t be anything like widespread Thanksgiving dinners in either country this week, and that’s no coincidence. I wonder if that lesson is still taught in schools these days; polls that suggest young people are attracted to socialism suggest maybe it isn’t.
I’ll be offering gratitude for more than just good food on Thanksgiving Day. I’m going to give a prayerful thanks for private property and the profit motive that has made abundance possible. When God instilled a measure of peaceful, productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-11-25 13:35:582019-11-25 13:35:58Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Common Ownership for Private Property
Students at Oberlin College in Ohio erected a memorial for jihadi terrorists on school grounds.
The terrorists the students were memorializing were members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a violent Islamist group and Iranian proxy in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. in 2001. Other countries, including Canada, Japan and the entire European Union, have also designed the group as a terrorist organization.
The PIJ terrorists were killed after the group launched an onslaught against Israeli civilians, shooting 450 rockets and mortars into Israel and injuring 60 over the course of a few days in November.
The barrage was a response to the targeted killing of senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander Baha Abu al-Atta on November 12 by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) after Israel learned that Atta was planning an imminent attack.
According to Palestinians sources, 34 people were killed in the IDF’s response to the firing of rockets and mortars on Israeli citizens. By the end of the episode, the IDF said 25 of those killed were members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Since 4am Tuesday, we targeted terrorists involved in firing rockets at Israeli civilians. We killed 20 terrorists, most of them from Islamic Jihad.
Our mission is to defend the people of Israel.
We will fulfill this mission relentlessly, as these 9 terrorists have learned👇🏼 pic.twitter.com/UkLE8RvclR
The student group at Oberlin – Students for a Free Palestine –which erected the memorial for the jihad terrorists wrote in a sign next to the memorial that stated, “Last week, Israel unleashed violent airstrikes on the Gaza Strip to assassinate Bahaa Abu al-Atta and his wife on Tuesday, November 12th. In the process, killing 34 unarmed Palestinian civilians, including 8 children.”
In fact, the killing of Atta was a precision strike that only damaged his third-floor apartment.
PRECISION STRIKE: This is the building we surgically targeted overnight to thwart the imminent threat of Islamic Jihad commander in Gaza, Baha Abu Al Ata.
Although the students are demanding a “free Palestine,” Palestinian Islamic Jihad is based in the Gaza Strip, an area Israel fully withdrew from in 2005.
By 2007, the terror group Hamas became the elected government of the Gaza Strip. Since that time, Islamist terror groups have used the territory to launch attacks on Israel.
A recent report on harassment of Jewish students on U.S. college campuses due to anti-Zionist fervor stated,
“While acts of classical anti-Semitism in the US reached near-historic levels in 2018 and included the deadliest attack against Jews in American history, the nation’s colleges and universities revealed a somewhat different but nonetheless troubling story.
On US campuses across the country, harassment motivated by classical anti-Semitism actually decreased, and significantly so. At the same time, however, the number of Israel-related acts of harassment increased significantly.”
A recent event at York University in Toronto featuring the group Reservists on Duty (comprised of IDF soldiers) was violently disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. Students reported hearing the protesters shout, “Go back to the ovens, go back to Europe!”
At the University of Toronto, the Graduate Student Union recently proposed that kosher food be banned on campus since it was “pro-Israel.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2019-11-25 11:01:012019-11-25 11:01:01College Students Erect Memorial for Jihadi Terrorists
“How would the Rainbow Jihad react if we were trying to fly the Christian flag over the state Capitol? The Rainbow Jihad is not OK with simply living their lives. They are so hellbent on pushing their beliefs on us that they would go so far as to fly that flag over the state Capitol. It’s one of the most egregious acts of political aggression I’ve ever seen.” – Iowa State Rep. Skyler Wheeler
There is a growing fear that those few who are part of the LGBTQ movement have gotten out of hand. A recent interview with Iowa State Representative Skyler Wheeler put it into perspective. Rep. Wheeler called the LGBTQ movement’s “most egregious acts of political aggression“ a “Rainbow Jihad.” What was Rep. Wheeler’s concern? Flying the LGBTQ flag over the Iowa State Capitol Building.
Is Representative Wheeler right?
Let’s take a look at what has happened overtime to understand why people are increasingly nervous, if not outright against, about what is happening within the LGBTQ movement and one major political party’s support of homosexuality, including celebrating the first gay running for president.
In 1933 Eleanor Roosevelt and her lover, journalist Lorena Hickok, begin their voluminous correspondence as Roosevelt moves into the White House. During one separation Hickok writes: “I’ve been trying today to bring back your face. Most clearly I remember your eyes, with a kind of teasing smile in them, and the feeling of that soft spot just north-east of the corner of your mouth against my lips.”
In 1934 Hollywood adopts the “Hayes Code,” which stipulates, among other things, that “sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden on the screen.”
In 1947 the State Department begins firing suspected homosexuals under President Truman’s National Security Loyalty Program.
In 1948 Alfred Kinsey’s study of sexuality in the U.S. is published and found that 50 percent of American men and 28 percent of American women have “homosexual tendencies,” shocked Americans. Kinsey’s study was deeply flawed. A series of videos published in the column The Secret History of Kinsey’s Pedophiles interviews those involved in Kinsey’s research. Those interviewed tell the true story of what Kinsey did to come up with his false notion about homosexual tendencies in men and women.
In 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower issues Executive Order #10450, banning the employment of homosexuals by the federal government. Many state and local governments soon adopted similar policies.
The Rainbow Jihad’s “Homophobia” hammer.
In 1966 Dr. George Weinberg, a Manhattan psychotherapist with a doctorate in clinical psychology from Columbia University, first coins the term “homophobia.” According to Dr. Weinberg’s biography:
He coined the word “homophobia” (in his 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual) to propose that those who harbor prejudice against gay people and not gay people themselves are suffering from a psychological malady, an irrational state of mind. Weinberg, though heterosexual himself, became a leader in the ultimately successful struggle to have homosexuality removed as a diagnostic category from the DSM, the professional therapeutic index of mental disorders. He has been instrumental in shifting public perception of homosexuality.
Weinberg began using the word homophobia in 1966 and soon the then minute, pre-Stonewall “homophile movement” began using it. Weinberg next prevailed on a friend, Al Goldstein who published the underground newspapers Gay and Screw, to introduce the word. He wrote articles for the underground press himself. He then persuaded a young student, Ken Smith, to do a research study for his master’s degree on homophobia and they designed the questionnaire together. It was the first published scientific study of homophobia.
The term “homophobia” has become a pejorative to silence those who are heterosexual. Including but not limited to anyone who believes:
There are only two sexes male and female
That marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
That sodomy is an unhealthy lifestyle.
That teaching under aged children that homosexuality is normal is wrong
And that sodomy is a sin.
Daily individuals, politicians, small businesses and large corporations are beaten down and made to submit to the “Rainbow Jihad” or face being labeled homophobic or sued.
In 2000 Vermont became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.” It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines as heterosexual.
In 2003 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence vs Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”
In 2004 Massachusetts legalizes same sex marriage, officially becoming the first state in the U.S. to do so.
For more than a half century, most developed nations have been undergoing a “sexual revolution.” This radical shift in traditional sexual norms, values and expectations has led to the liberalization of laws regulating sexual behavior. This in turn has caused a dramatic increase in heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity contributing to the breakdown of the family and other social problems.
Many of these dramatic changes in sexual norms and laws can be traced back to the fraudulent sex “research” and sexual ideologies of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, founder of the Kinsey Institute. Kinsey has been called the “father of the sexual rights revolution” because many sexual rights advocacy organizations rely on his ideologies to support their positions.
The Kinsey Institute’s philosophy that “children are sexual from birth,” has been used by pedophiles to justify sexual crimes against children. The Institute’s sexual ideologies also form the basis of harmful sex education programs commonly known as “comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).”
Today the LGBTQ movement has infiltrated public schools, colleges, universities, the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts of America.
Each of these organizations has submitted to the Rainbow Jihad. Each of these governmental, religious and social organizations has destroyed its religious and cultural foundations in the name of “tolerance.” But where is the tolerance from the Rainbow Jihad?
Answer: The Rainbow Jihad has no intention of being tolerant or of giving up it’s political power to anyone, unless and until everyone submits to it’s ideology.
Editor’s note: House Democrats’ drive to impeach President Donald Trump sparks some strong sentiments from The Daily Signal’s audience. Here’s a sampling.—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: I just read Katrina Trinko’s podcast interview with Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky on House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, and found it to be very enlightening (“Impeachment Evidence Not Even Close to Bribery, Heritage Legal Expert Says”). This Trump impeachment process is being handled exactly as von Spakovsky pointed out.
The problem I see is that the people of this country don’t know the legal powers of the president to do the kinds of things he is being accused of. I talked about this very thing with von Spakovsky at Heritage Action for America’s Regional Sentinel Summit a few weeks ago in Atlanta.
I always have depended on the vision and insight of our Founding Fathers to address any issue or problems this country has faced in the past and faces today. I have found that they already anticipated what the future would bring, but in the case of the impeachment process I think they made a mistake.
Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>
Our judicial system has someone in place who is supposed to be impartial, to make sure the laws are followed and that everyone gets a fair trial by judge and/or jury. In this case, however, we have the leader of the prosecution in charge of initiating a (fair) hearing and the defense being denied due process.
Hans von Spakovsky is right about what the Democrats are doing and right about what the president is doing. I just hope people recognize that these Democrats, while saying we must stand by our Constitution and support the principles our Founding Fathers established, are doing everything in their power to overturn our Constitution and replace it with a form of democratic socialism.
As president, Barack Obama pushed us toward socialism as no other president has, and the socialist Democrats would have really advanced if Hillary Clinton had been elected.—James V. Burnette, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
Dear Daily Signal: I want to thank Fred Lucas for his daily summary report in The Daily Signal on the House impeachment hearings. I can’t force myself to suffer through this third-rate circus.
I also think Lucas deserves a long vacation once this is over. Call it PTSD prevention. Sitting and listening to this all day is like being forced to ride It’s a Small World at Disney World continuously all day long.—Stephen Regan, M.D., Lancaster, N.H.
***
As a practicing attorney for over 50 years, I have been deeply concerned about due process in reading and watching about the House’s impeachment proceedings.
Dear Daily Signal: President Trump’s following on Twitter reached 66.6 million early this month. Given the apocryphal interpretation of this number, it might not hurt to ground its significance in some basic facts.
A few months ago, the size of Trump’s Twitter following broke his popular vote total in the 2016 election. Ever since, that number has been growing at a rate of over 34,000 a day.
Like clockwork, the number ticks up by 100,000 new followers every three days. Or a million a month. This has been happening regardless of the news of the day.
No matter what the latest impeachment accusation, charges of foreign policy incompetence, or cries of unpresidential behavior, Trump’s Twitter followers keep coming.
They show no signs of stopping, so if this trend continues, he will have over 78 million followers by Election Day 2020.
I am a retired software engineer, a former entrepreneur, and a writer of novels for middle-graders and young adults.
Not all of the president’s Twitter followers will be voters, or even Trump supporters, but the bulk of them probably are. Which means that every day, tens of thousands of voters are joining Trump’s coalition and are interested in hearing what he has to say.
No matter how they spin it, this is not good news for Democrats. Trump already has more Twitter followers than voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Those numbers did no good for Hillary, since evidently no one bothered to tell her about the Electoral College.
But it’s a good bet that Trump’s supporters are representative of the overall population, rather than the main population centers where Hillary focused her campaign.
Aside from sheer numbers, this trend highlights another fact. People like to read Trump’s tweets. They must, or they would not be subscribing to his Twitter feed at this staggering rate.
Maybe it is because Trump is giving them the real news. Every day. Without spin. Without hedging. Without lying. Without scripting.
He’s the first president in history to do this. Now we sometimes get the news before The New York Times or The Washington Post.
You know what? This is real freedom of speech. And we love it.—Rudy Vener, North Haven, Conn.
Dear Daily Signal: Nancy Pelosi is the queen of impeachment. The Trump impeachment process is often compared to the Nixon or Clinton impeachments. It is, however, more similar to the Bush impeachment effort.
Pelosi has been the House speaker or the Democratic leader for three years with President Donald Trump, and for every one of those years her caucus has tried to impeach the president. She may seem to be a reluctant impeacher, but prayers and exhibitions of inner turmoil aside, she is a politician who has determined that impeachment is a legitimate political tool.
It is not the first time she has used this tool. She used impeachment against President George W. Bush, and is now using it against Trump. That constitutes a pattern.
Pelosi’s first voted impeachment effort came when she was House speaker and Bush was in the White House. That vote, referring articles of impeachment (House Resolution 1258) to the House Judiciary Committee, occurred June 11, 2008.
The referral of articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee has yet to occur in the Trump impeachment effort.
Pelosi had been House speaker since January 2007, when the impeachment of Bush was already in high demand.
In 2005, Rep. John Conyers introduced House Resolution 635 to investigate wartime issues to determine whether impeachment was warranted. It failed, and further efforts were not supported by Pelosi, then the minority leader.
Democrats continued efforts to impeach Bush until Pelosi approved the vote on HR 1258 vote. The pattern of reluctance before approval was at work then and is at work now.
The Constitution’s provision for impeachment has been interpreted by Democrats and Republicans as appropriate for high crimes and misdemeanors, but not for political goals. The Bush impeachment effort speaks to a different interpretation.
The 35 articles of impeachment for Bush included articles on 9/11, the Iraq War, Medicare, global warming, use of signing statements, wiretapping, war with Iran, obstruction of justice (Valerie Plame), imprisoning children, and others.
It was a laundry list of points of disagreement that Democrats had with President Bush, not high crimes and misdemeanors. Pelosi presided over this vote, once again reluctant and once again moving forward despite her reluctance.
It seems she is not so reluctant to use impeachment after all.—James Smith, Virginia
Dear Daily Signal: What a scam. We have the best president we’ve ever had, who follows his heart, listens to the people, has done what he promised or is attempting to with all the distractions and hatred toward him by those in our government who want to rule the people, not lead the people.
To destroy our nation with lies, deceit, injustices, all the things that “We the People” have had to endure with nearly every other president in our history.
If President Trump were allowed to actually do his job instead of fighting the indignities of these people who are distracting our nation from realities, he could do some incredible things to make our country look great again, instead of being the laughingstock of the world.—Kacee Hayden
***
Dear Daily Signal: As chief point man for President Barack Obama in U.S. energy policy, Vice President Joe Biden used taxpayers’ money in the form of a $1.2 billion loan guarantee as leverage to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign nation, Ukraine.
We saw the forced firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who apparently was investigating Biden’s son, Hunter, and his relationship with a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch’s energy company, Burisma.
Biden’s act of extorting influence from Ukrainian officials is on tape. His mandate: Either fire the prosecutor or no loan guarantee.
Yet both the mainstream media and many Democrats continue their collective state of denial of this pressurized wrongdoing in spite of a treaty between the United States and Ukraine to investigate corrupt practices.
This entire Ukraine mess fails to even begin to pass the smell test.
And all President Trump wanted in that July 25 call to Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was a favor: that Zelenskyy “look into” this corruption thing. Looking into something is not tantamount to digging up dirt. When does a favor become a threat?
Before releasing almost $400 million of taxpayers’ money to a Ukrainian government reputed for corruption, Trump wanted due diligence. There was no quid pro quo, as the transcript of the call manifests.
House Democrats’ entire impeachment process can only be characterized as one of the most colossal examples of legislative malfeasance perpetrated upon the American people in the history of the republic.
The clowns on Capitol Hill have yet to legislate fiscal year 2020 spending levels for agencies, departments, and programs of the federal government. These should have been in place and signed into law by the president by no later than Oct. 1.
A week before Thanksgiving, these politicians had yet to do anything toward completing the authorization and appropriations process, including funding for the armed forces.
As the House played its ongoing impeachment games, the Senate considered sending a stopgap spending bill back to the House for a vote to avoid another moronic government shutdown as the money runs out.—Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.
Dear Daily Signal: No one seems to notice that the Drudge Report has been moving to the left on President Trump for a couple of months—the viewpoints/links lead to stories that favor the “resistance.”
One example is Drudge links on Nov. 17. There was no story that says that, so far, there is no evidence of impeachable offenses. Drudge was reporting anti-Trump stories, but seemed to be spiking viewpoints that counter the left’s bashing.
Either Matt Drudge has been letting someone else edit his page, or he has moved left in an effort to be more objective. Which is it? If the latter, he’s gone too far, by spiking conservative voters’ viewpoints.—Lanelle Bracher Samms
***
The Democrats have decided they will prevail in taking over the government through a constant barrage of accusations and proceedings.
The American people are not interested. However, the average person on the street parrots the BS he or she has been fed. Very few ask important questions such as “Why doesn’t this add up?”
The long-term goal is to sacrifice a few Democrats in vulnerable places and take over the government by solidifying the stupidity everywhere else. Keep the focus on how bad President Trump is, and communism will prevail.
Barack Obama had a childhood mentor with a KBG handler, and remained chummy with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hillary Clinton has close ties to those in the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the cry against Trump is “Russian collusion.”—Arthur Solvang, Willow, Alaska
***
As we heard in EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony Wednesday in the House impeachment inquiry, he clearly stated that President Trump told him he wanted “no quid pro quo” from Ukraine.
So why did The Wall Street Journal indicate the opposite in its lead story the next day? The sub-head states: “Sondland cites ‘quid pro quo’ between Ukraine probes and a meeting with the president.”
Why the biased coverage?—Kay Carson, Florida
***
Why can’t we impeach Nancy Pelosi? Surely real reasons can be found, including incompetence, obstruction of government functions, mental and moral insufficiency, and constitutional ignorance.
This tiresome and vicious interference with the smooth running of our country requires more than a timid pushback. A strong offensive is required, not martyrdom.—Elizabeth Ward Nottrodt, Baltimore
(1) Christians cannot stand by their convictions and succeed in the marketplace. (2) LGBT agitators can win if they just bully and harass us for long enough.
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Daniel Davis’ outstanding commentary article with regard to Fortune 500 companies “driving” the culture war, and trying to out-virtue signal each other (“Chick-Fil-A, Your Compromise is Demoralizing”).
That’s exactly what’s happening, and its poisoning our culture and making it unfit for children. Davis’s analysis is accurate and his use of words to describe it excellent. Maybe it will convince Chick-fil-A to reconsider.—Randy Malcom, Limon, Colo.
***
I expect The New York Times or CNN or MSNBC to put words in the mouths of others, but the news article about Chick-fil-A [from The Daily Caller News Foundation] is not up to the normal standards of The Heritage Foundation (“Chick-Fil-A to Stop Donating to Charities Criticized by LGBT Activists”). I believe I will reconsider my giving patterns.
I am disappointed in the headline; the article was better, but the headline is eerily similar to all elements of the mainstream media.. Sad.
How about a headline like “Chick-Fil-A Reevaluates Charitable Giving” or “Chick-Fil-A Foundation Announces New Charitable Giving Plans”? Or many other options.
My point, in part, is that The Heritage Foundation normally avoids such; it shares clear facts without mixing emotional content or making editorial comments.
In this case, in my opinion, the word choice was not totally accurate, as the refocus of Chick-fil-A’s giving priorities may include educational entities that hold to values aligned with those of, say, the Salvation Army. Think: Will all entities supported at some point by Chick-fil-A’s giving never be opposed by the LGBT activists?—John Bole
***
Regarding Chick-fil-A’s decision, I’m contacting you to say that the Salvation Army supports homosexuals too. I am not opposed to feeding the hungry, including homosexuals. However, when it comes to giving them special rights, I am against it.
You have to draw the line. If you are a true Christian organization, you should not go beyond the giving of food as well as the giving of biblical direction.
If an organization such as the Salvation Army allows special rights to homosexuals, and doesn’t stand their ground, then they have truly caved in to the homosexual agenda.
If homosexuals are given special rights and privileges, with no one to speak out against their wickedness, then this allows for the continuation of their perverted ways. And because of the Salvation Army’s nondiscrimination policy and their desire not to speak out against homosexuality, that makes them hypocritical and they are in opposition to God’s holy word.
We as Christians are fighting against those who oppose God. We should not be funding those who oppose him.—Lisa Jenkins
***
Thank you for Daniel Davis’ commentary, “Chick-Fil-A, Your Compromise is Demoralizing.” The compromise Chick-fil-A made because of pressure brought by LGBT activists saddened me greatly.
I immediately recalled Genesis 19:4-11, the account of homosexual men coming to Lot’s house for the two men (angels) who were in the house. The homosexual men pressed hard against Lot to have the two men brought out to them so they could “know” them.
One of the angels pulled Lot back into the house and caused blindness to strike the men, making them weary of trying to find the door to Lot’s house.
I think that Scripture accurately depicts LGBT activists’ push against Chick-fil-A. However, neither the president or chief financial officer know Ezekiel 3:8-9, in which God states that he will make their face strong against the faces of their adversaries, and their foreheads strong as adamant stone against the flint faces of their adversaries.
As Davis pointed out in his article, Chick-fil-A has chosen to serve mammon rather than God. Unfortunately, mammon will not serve the company well. It is a huge mistake to run to the world for help. God is the only source of help we need. He never fails to provide for all of our needs in accordance with his riches in glory through Christ Jesus.
Therefore, God can meet the growth goals Chick-fil-A desires if management will seek him. God can put the company’s outlets in places that appear to be impossible to go and make them successful there.—Homer Crothers
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: I read your work on a regular basis. It is clear, precise, informative, and enjoyable to read. I do enjoy reading.
I especially appreciate your journalists, unlike the rest of the organizations that receive scripts that are written for them by their editors. (No investigation needed.)
You investigate, you hold yourselves accountable. You write clearly in the English language.—Rexford Ames
***
The term “conservative judges” is a misnomer. President Trump more accurately refers to appointees as judges who will interpret the Constitution as written.
“Conservative” implies the introduction of a bias in interpretation.—R.S. Overstreet
***
I’ve been getting your daily emails for about several months now. It’s great to get the “right” news every day. Keep it coming. We have to save our country before the leftists take it over.—Rob Kaiser, Victorville, Calif.
***
Kudos. I really appreciate your concise, accurate news and commentary in the Morning Bell email.
I’m able to get daily highlights and click for more information on subjects that I need to delve deeper into. Keep up the great work.—Elizabeth C. Ferrari, Buffalo, Texas
***
Thank you for your researched and rational examination of today’s issues. Your site is indispensable to understanding what is happening in our country today.—Mary Ritzmann
Great job. A+++. Keep it up.—Neal McKinley
I sincerely appreciate your help in sorting out the details of our political issues in such a concise fashion.—Damian Neeld
You beat around the bush too much, get to the point. I don’t have time for your long, drawn-out stories.—Danny Owen
***
We truly appreciate being made aware of issues and news that the rest of the media won’t cover.—Craig Cuddy
The headlines and articles Nov. 19 lacked encouragement.—Robert Sherrill
Great articles. Keep up the good work. Right is right, left is left, I’m on the right.—Scott Hendrickson
Top website. Very impressed. Keep up the good work.—Jack Olson
Ken McIntyre, a 30-year veteran of national and local newspapers, serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation’s Marilyn and Fred Guardabassi Fellow in Media and Public Policy Studies. Send an email to Ken. Twitter: @KenMac55.
As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.
We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.
The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?
The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
Like a lot of staffers at the Harris County Jail, Jason Spencer didn’t expect to be fielding media calls about a surprise visit from one of the most recognizable celebrities. But then, a lot about Kanye West’s last few months has been a surprise. A life-changing one, judging by the inmates at Friday’s impromptu concert. “This is a mission,” the newly-converted Kanye insisted, “not a show.” And he proved it, doing his best to set even these prisoners near downtown Houston, free.
“Say what you want about the man,” Jason posted, “but Kanye West and his choir brought some light to people who needed it today…” Watching the inmates on their knees, some crying, others lifting their hands high in praise, Sheriff Ed Gonzales had never witnessed anything like it. “It was really like a worship service,” he told reporters afterward. “…Even some of our teammates [were] brought to tears.” Maybe it wasn’t the crowd of thousands Kanye had two days later at Joel Osteen’s church, but the impact was just as profound.
We’re not all so different from those prisoners, Kanye seemed to say on Sunday to a much bigger audience at Lakewood Church. We all need Jesus. We all need to repent. But, he promised, “Following the Bible can free us all.” For twenty minutes, the singer stood on stage in front of a massive “Jesus is King” backdrop, talking about a range of issues as they came to him. His priorities, he insists, are different now. “There was a time I was letting you know what high fashion had done for me. I was letting you know what the Hennessey [liquor] had done for me. But now I’m letting you know what Jesus has done for me… that I’m no longer a slave — I’m a son now, a son of God. I’m free.”
“I know that God’s been calling me for a long time,” Kanye said, “and the devil has been distracting me for a long time. But making this change, and this new gospel album, he explained, wasn’t easy. There’s a culture of celebrity that doesn’t want to hear about Christianity, because they don’t want to be reminded about their sin. People don’t mind the ads for alcohol or strip clubs, but then we bring up the name of Jesus and we’re told to be quiet…”
“The Devil stole all the good musicians, all the good artists, all the good designers, all the good business people — and said, ‘You gotta come over and work for me.'” But that’s all going to change, he insisted before breaking out into a grin, “Because now, the greatest artist that God has ever created is now working for him.” While the audience stood and clapped, he went on to say that, “[A]ll of that arrogance and confidence and cockiness that you all see me use before, God is now using for Him, because every time I stand up, I feel that I’m standing up and drawing a line in the sand…”
Even when it comes to taking that message to his own industry. “You know, as rappers, there’s so many things we’ve done to maintain the idea of coolness. We have our own daughters, and we’re still rapping about hooking up with somebody [else’s] daughter — like not taking the responsibility as a man…. I now have a family — I’m 42 years old and married for five years — there’s a blatant responsibility for me to become more like my mother and my father [who took us to church three times a week]…”
Of course, Kanye’s whole evangelistic outreach is taking place in a society where people think the church has lost its influence. Just this month, Pew Research did a survey that essentially says religion — at least according to 78 percent of Americans — is losing its grip on society. And most people think that’s a bad thing. Why? Because religion is often a force for good. Even in a culture as hostile to faith as ours, the majority in this country (55 percent) believe it has a positive effect. Like strengthening morality, 53 percent say. Or bringing people together, another 50 percent point out. People can argue about Kanye’s authenticity or his approach, but they can’t argue about this: the message he’s bringing is a transformative one.
“The more and more this entire country follows Christ and sets the example that we are a Christian country… When you remove the fear and love of God, you create the fear and love of everything else. But let me word that not in a negative way, but in a positive way: Reinstate the fear and love of God — and eliminate the fear and love of everything else…”
As I explained in the Federalist, we need to encourage Kanye’s growth in the faith. He isn’t daunted by the criticism or by the culture’s expectations. He cares about one audience. “The only superstar is Jesus,” he told people. And we need to be serving Him “every millisecond.”
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC Action senior writers.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-11-24 07:14:072019-11-24 07:14:07Honesty Is the West Policy
One of the primary arguments made by those opposed to including a citizenship question on the 2020 census was that doing so would deter Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and other immigrants from participating. Preliminary results from the 2019 Census Test conducted this summer actually show it would have little impact on response rates.
“The major finding of the test was that there was no difference in self-response rates between forms with and forms without a citizenship question,” said Dr. Victoria A. Velkoff, the Bureau’s associate director of Demographic Programs, in an Oct. 31 blog post explaining the findings.
“Self-response rates from this test were similar to other mid-decade tests, including the 2018 Census Test conducted in Providence County, RI, which had a 52.3 percent self-response rate,” she continued.
For the households that received the questionnaire without the citizenship question, the response rate was 52 percent, while the response rate for those asked about citizenship, it was 51.5 percent, which falls within the standard statistical error range.
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross’ March 2018 announcement that a question about citizenship status would again be included on the decennial census questionnaire was met with fearful rhetoric and lawsuits.
“This is a brazen attempt by the Trump administration to cheat on the census, to undermine the accuracy of the census and to attack states that have large immigrant populations — states, most of which just happen to be Democratic states,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) at an April 2018 press conference announcing the first lawsuit challenging the question’s inclusion.
New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James predicted in April 2019 that “this question would incite widespread fear in immigrant communities and greatly impair the accuracy of the Census.”
After numerous lawsuits and lower court rulings, the Supreme Court heard arguments and issued a decision in June 2019 agreeing that the question itself is constitutional, but the pretext for adding it offered by Ross was not.
The Census Bureau moved ahead in June with plans to ask almost 480,000 households in the U.S. to fill out test questionnaires – some with and some without a question about citizenship.
The randomized test measured the impact of the inclusion of a citizenship question on self-response rates for the purposes of allowing the Census Bureau improve its plans for performing follow-ups with nonresponding households and public communications.
The report found no difference between forms with and without a citizenship question for internet and telephone self-response rates. With regard to those mail responses, the response rate for forms without the citizenship question were an insignificant 0.3 percent higher.
The results likely will not be enough to convince opponents. Responding to the results, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed suit against the Commerce Department, asserted that “There’s not enough information in today’s blog post to understand what precisely it means.”
Somehow, it is hard to believe there will ever be “enough information” to satisfy activist critics.
Jennifer joined FAIR as Web Content Writer in 2017 and brings to the role extensive communications and media background. She began her career as a policy research analyst on multiple national and state political campaigns before entering journalism. In addition to spending over a decade writing for several broadcast and print news outlets, Jennifer directed communications strategy for a member of Congress and a military nonprofit.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2019-11-24 06:49:572019-11-24 06:49:57Fears That Citizenship Question Would Lower Response Rates Fizzle Out
I have been reluctant to post much on the HK protests because something didn’t seem at all right about how they were going. It didn’t make sense. This report however explains much of these anomalies better than most. Most reports in fact, seem to be amplifying Chinese government 5th column tactics and activities.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2019-11-24 05:56:462019-11-24 05:56:46VIDEO: Avi Yemeni video on Hong Kong protestors.
Liberals, leftists, socialists and secular folks may not like being told this, but the following are truths that cannot shrivel away.
So when did it become an accepted truism that a delusional peace between Israel and the predominately Muslim Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, require that Israel give to them it’s very own Biblical birthright in its Jewish heartland for a mess of potage? When did the Oslo Accords, the Wye Agreement, the Roadmap, ad nauseum, supersede the eternal possession of the Jewish people to their God given homeland? To even ask the question would seem to be a monstrous tragedy, so enormous as to spit in the face of God and make the very angels in heaven weep.
“Who are they who dare divide the land that the Almighty bequeathed to Abraham and to his descendants through Isaac and Jacob? Who are they who would give any part of tiny Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) to the descendants of Ishmael who possess vast land throughout the Middle East and North Africa?
All this political disloyalty by leftist Israeli politicians was designed to appease those U.S. Presidents who displayed pro-Muslim policies, which were a clear and present danger to the very existence of the Jewish state and, may I suggest, to the very spiritual and physical future of our beloved America itself. Remember Genesis 12:3.
And then there was Barack Hussein Obama whose hatred of the Jewish state surpassed even the lamentable Jimmy Carter. Remember Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, who came numerous times to pressure and threaten Israel, thus ushering in a baleful time for the Jewish state?
The so-called Palestinian Authority was encouraged by Kerry and Obama to harden its demands to insufferable and arrogant levels. It required Israel to essentially commit national suicide. And how many times did we hear Mahmoud Abbas, the Holocaust denying leader of the fraudulent Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, tell Kerry that the “Palestinian Arabs” will never accept Israel as a Jewish state. Period.
Kerry spewed his own poison by stating, as he stood shoulder to shoulder with Abbas, that Israeli “settlements” are illegal. The PA and the PLO, along with the Iranian funded and supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza were thus encouraged to instigate more criminal violence and murder against Israelis by the Kerry’s of this world and so the Jewish death toll mounts.
All these notions of “land for peace” and a “two state solution” erode the millennial and inalienable rights of the Jewish people to the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. But tragically too many Israeli leftwing politicians have allowed themselves to believe in false Muslim promises of peace (tekiyah) when there is no peace. Do they not remember Jeremiah’s prophetic words: ”Peace, peace but there is no peace.”
Indeed, there should instead be demands made upon the artificial Arab entity known as the Kingdom of Jordan (which sits upon four fifths of the geographical territory which was known as the Palestine Mandate) for the return of Biblical Gilead – in north west Jordan – which is the ancestral home of the Biblical Jewish tribes of Gad, Manasseh and Reuben. But this it seems would be too courageous for an ever timorous present Israeli government to demand.
Tragically Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, as well as previous governments stretching back to those of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, have all betrayed Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. Long wasted years since the liberation of the Jewish heartland during the 1967 defensive war against Arab aggression has emboldened a hostile world and allowed it to demonize Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria. Thus these Jewish communities are delegitimized with the use of the pejorative term: “settlements.”
Too many Prime Ministers and leftist Israeli politicians have tragically conceded to the Arabs the blatant lie that Israel “occupies” Arab territory – specifically territory claimed by a fraudulent Arab people who have come to call themselves Palestinians. This absurdity has given birth to a grievous, self-inflicted wound which afflicts Jews within Israel and the Diaspora. Remember, there has never in all of recorded history ever existed a sovereign, independent state called Palestine.
Jewish communities, (villages and towns) do not consist of “settlers.” The Jewish population of Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) consists of the descendants of the native and indigenous Jewish people who are now inhabiting and redeeming their own ancient land. These men and women and their children are not “settlers” in what is already theirs by virtue of millennial physical and spiritual attachment. Indeed, many present day Jewish villages, especially throughout Judea and Samaria, are built on the very sites upon which Biblical Jewish communities once existed. On the Golan, for instance, numerous sites abound where ancient synagogues existed thousands of years ago.
I personally consider it anathema to describe Jewish communities in the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria with the odious term, “settlements.” They are villages and towns and for so many Israelis themselves to continue calling them “settlements” without thinking is almost as if they have resigned themselves to calling their land, ‘not our land.’ How odd that every Arab community, especially the majority of them can trace their origins back only to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet, they are automatically called villages and towns. Jewish communities, on the other hand whose origins can be found in Biblical times are still dishonored with the term, “settlements.” This is rank anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli hatred.
Notice that Judea and Samaria have still not been annexed. The time to restore Judea and Samaria to all of Israel is well overdue. These lands are the very warp and woof, the very fabric and fiber of Jewish history, both during and after Biblical times.
Ted Bellman, writing several years ago in the Israpundit blog, pointed out that once again an Israeli government and Prime Minister have missed a golden opportunity to exert to the entire world the Jewish state’s empirical and unassailable historical rights to the territories known as Judea and Samaria, but which a hostile world prefers to still call the “West Bank.” He writes as follows:
“In accepting UNSC Res 242, Israel also accepted “recognized and secure borders” rather than rejecting such resolution and such borders and demanding our right to all of Judea and Samaria. Nothing has changed since then. Even now, as Israel negotiates a final settlement, she doesn’t start by demanding all the land and supporting such demand with strong historical and legal arguments. Instead she doesn’t make such a claim and meekly says she will settle for security and recognition.
As long ago as 2003, Professor Talia Einhorn wrote about Judea, Samaria and Gaza, or as it is known by its Hebrew acronym, Yesha: meaning Yehuda, Shomron and Azza.
She was commenting on the ‘slip of the tongue” by then Prime Minister Sharon who used the word “occupation” in reference to Israel’s presence in Yesha. In 2003, Yesha still included Gaza. It was abandoned in 2005 for the sake of peace! And what a monumental disaster for the Jewish state that abandonment became. Hamas, the junior branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, now occupies Gaza and its charter calls not only for the destruction of the Jewish state but for the extermination worldwide of all Jews.
Professor Einhorn stated clearly then that Israel, the Jewish state, is not an “occupying force” in Yesha. This is what she said:
”Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip and Jordan too illegally took Judea and Samaria, and called it the so called ‘West Bank.’
“Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This illegal annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it – and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem.
“In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories – which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation’s National Home according to the Mandate Charter – were liberated and returned to Israeli control.”
Professor Einhorn added that,
“according to international law, Israel has full right to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense settlement and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920.
“At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British and an introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with ‘ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'”
We, of course, know how that turned out. Britain reneged on its promises and undertakings. Britain tore away 80% all of the mandate territory east of the Jordan River in 1922 and gave it away to a Saudi who became the Emir Abdullah. Professor Einhorn pointed out that the UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 merely recommended that a Jewish and Arab state in what was the geographical territory known as Palestine “shall come into existence.” Thus Palestine is in reality present day Jordan.
Though the Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted the partition plan, it was, as we all know, rejected utterly by the Arab states, which invaded Israel thus voiding the UN’s recommendation of any legal basis.
The decision by the Jewish leadership to accept the UN Partition Plan was deeply painful for them. After all, the armistice lines where the invading Arab armies had been stopped left the Jewish state a mere nine to 15 miles wide and with Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) and half of Jerusalem occupied illegally by hostile Jordanian Arab Legion troops.
The assessment was also motivated by the desperate need to give sanctuary to the 800,000 Jewish refugees driven out of their ancient homes throughout the Arab world, and to provide a haven for the remnants of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust.
Israel was forced to fight yet another defensive war of survival against Arab genocidal aggression in the June, 1967 Six Day War. It liberated Yesha – Judea and Samaria – from Jordanian occupation and Gaza from Egyptian control. It therefore must be understood that this precious – yet minuscule territory – is empirically the very heart of the Land of Israel by all that is holy. And if that’s a dirty word to some, so be it.
Simply put: The Jewish people are not settlers in land that already belongs to them from time immemorial. And the Jewish people cannot be called “settlers” in their very own ancestral, Biblical and native homeland.
Now if those facts are understood and hammered home again and again by every Israeli and pro-Israeli throughout the world, think of the power and the glory that will ensue. Finally, the world will hear about unassailable Jewish rights to the Land and not the fraudulent claims of an Arab people who call themselves Palestinians. As Ted Bellman wrote about the Zionist leader, Theodore Herzl:
“Herzl rejected Uganda when it was offered because, even though he was secular, he realized that the only place for the Jewish state he envisaged, was in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) which includes Judea and Samaria, because it is to Eretz Yisrael that the Jews prayed for two thousand years, while in exile, to return home. Nowhere else would suffice.”
And may I make a special plea to all who read this.
Please help to finally honor the Jewish villagers and townsfolk living now in the ancient and Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria – often in great danger from Arab terrorism – by rejecting the use of the hurtful and illegitimate terms; settlers, settlements and West Bank. Thank you.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Victor Sharpehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVictor Sharpe2019-11-24 05:16:362019-11-24 05:16:55A people cannot be called “settlers” in their own ancestral and Biblical heartland
“It is the communists who think like Christians.” – Pope Francis
VATICAN (ChurchMilitant.com) – Pope Francis has confessed to being profoundly influenced by communism when discerning his vocation and says that, while he rejected its materialism, he found its other elements in harmony with the social doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The frank admission of Pope Francis’ Marxist leanings has ignited fresh controversy in the Italian media following the publication of the pontiff’s interviews with Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari. His book paints the Holy Father as a modernist revolutionary determined to change the Church, fight inequality, abolish sin and dismiss evangelism as the “solemn nonsense” of proselytism.
In one of the most controversial interviews on Sep. 24 at Casa Santa Marta, the atheist Scalfari asks Francis how he discerned his vocation in his younger days.
The pope says he was at university and had a teacher he respected and befriended who was a “fervent communist.”
“She often read me and gave me to read texts from the Communist Party,” the pontiff explained. “The woman I’m talking about was later arrested, tortured and killed by the dictatorial regime then ruling in Argentina.”
The woman, who remains unnamed in Scalfari’s book, has been identified as Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, a Paraguayan marxist terrorist who also founded Paraguay’s first feminist movement.
A Catholic establishment media interview confirms “the person who introduced him [Pope Francis] to political thought was Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, a Paraguayan activist who identified with communist postulates, founder of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, who was finally killed by the dictatorship of General Videla.”
According to the leftwing Guardian, Bergoglio and Careaga met around 1953 or 1954 in the laboratory where she worked as a pharmaceutical biochemist and he as an apprentice chemical technician.
Careaga’s parents had a large library of books on Marxism and she asked Father Bergoglio to hold them in safekeeping. Bergoglio hid the marxist library in Maximo Colegio, a Jesuit university in San Miguel, Argentina, and returned them to Careaga’s daughters some four decades later.
In the Scalfari interview, Francis denies being “seduced” by Careaga’s communism, insisting “her materialism had no hold on me.”
But in 2015, he told Careaga’s two daughters at the Vatican: “She taught me to think and introduced me to social concerns.” Pope Francis.
Careaga’s daughter Ana Maria reaffirmed the influence of her mother’s communist ideas on Bergoglio:
My mother left a flood of influence on the young adolescent. We understand that these waves are present in the ideas he spread during his visit to Latin America [in 2015]. We see them in the denunciation he made of the exhaustion of the capitalist system, the danger of the monopolistic media and the need to transfer it to the hands of the poor, a continuation of the ideas of my mother and the militants of the ‘70s.
The theme of Communism surfaces in a later interview when Pope Francis told Scalfari that Jesus’ commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself,” had to change to become “[Love your neighbor] more than yourself.”
“You therefore dream of a society dominated by equality. This, as you know, is the program of Marxian socialism and then of communism. So do you think of a Marxian society?” Scalfari asks.
“It has been said several times and my answer has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians,” Francis replies.
‘Proselytism Is Solemn Nonsense’
In the same interview, Scalfari jokingly asks the Pope if the Holy Father will attempt to convert him to Christianity.
Francis smiles and answers: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it doesn’t make sense.” Rather, the pontiff advocates “listening to each other” because the world is “crossed by roads … that lead to Good.”
When Scalfari asks if there is “a vision of the Unique Good” and who establishes such a vision, Francis says, “Each of us has a vision of Good and even Evil. We must encourage him to proceed towards what he thinks is the Good.”
“I think this is one of the boldest statements made by a pope,” replies Scalfari. Francis repeats his assertion, adding, “This would be enough to improve the world.”
Francis supports his claim with a highly reductionist view of the Incarnation: “The Son of God became incarnate to infuse the soul of men with the feeling of brotherhood.”
In a theological response, U.K. Deacon Nick Donnelly told Church Militant that the pope’s interviews offered a “very impoverished presentation of the Faith,” as “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation,” as set forth in section 161 of the Catechism.
“Bergoglio presents a very humanistic interpretation of the Incarnation, reducing it to the affirmation of humanity. The authentic Catholic understanding of the Incarnation is that it accomplishes man’s salvation from sin,” Donnelly insists.
Towards the end of the interview, Scalfari again asks the Holy Father if he has any intention of converting him. “I still have no intention,” Francis replies.
Donnelly observes:
Scalfari is a notorious atheist. The Christian can never accept a dialogue with an atheist ‘free of preconceptions’ as if atheism is equal to Christianity as a form of knowledge. Vatican II’s Guadium et Spes [GS] didn’t accept this dialogue with atheism without preconceptions. GS holds that atheism is against reason. The Church must always start from the preconception of God’s Revelation, and denial of that revelation is profoundly erroneous and irrational.
In his reading of Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium, Scalfari says “the abolition of sin is the most shocking part” of that document. “Francis abolishes sin by using two instruments,” i.e. Christ’s love, mercy and forgiveness and attributing full freedom of conscience to the human person.
A God Who ‘Does Not Judge’
Scalfari commends Francis’ papacy for proclaiming “a God who does not judge but forgives.” He comments: “There is no damnation, no Hell. Perhaps Purgatory? Definitely repentance as a condition for forgiveness.”
When Scalfari asks what happens to those who reject the Christian God, Francis proposes obeying one’s conscience as a valid alternative. The pope then rejects the propositional conception of “absolute truth” even for Christians, and links truth for Christians to “the love of God for us in Jesus Christ.”
“Bergoglio reveals why he doesn’t like ‘absolute truth,’ because he prefers subjectivism, truth that expresses itself from ‘within,'” Donnelly notes. “Metaphysics and morality derive from objective truth, from God’s natural law and from God’s Revelation. Bergoglio’s subjectivist approach was condemned by Pope St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor.”
Scalfari also praises Francis for seeking dialogue and brotherhood with other faiths in the name of a “unique God” because he thinks “all religions must be inspired.”
Donnelly challenges this indifferentism:
Here we see the precursor of Bergoglio’s Abu Dhabi Declaration and the heresy that God wills the plurality of religions. He tells Scalfari that the unique identity of Christianity centres on the Incarnation (which is true) but then goes onto to write that ‘other faiths’ have their origin in God’s transcendence, as if the same God is the source of other faiths.
Throughout his book, Scalfari interweaves his own commentary with his papal interviews but separately reports the pope’s words as if they are verbatim.
The Vatican has repeatedly asserted that “the words Dr. Eugenio Scalfari attributes in quotation marks to the Holy Father during the interviews cannot be considered a faithful account of what was actually said, but rather represent a personal and free interpretation of those who listened.”
Pope Francis has never directly addressed the accuracy of Scalfari’s writing.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2019-11-23 07:11:362019-11-23 07:11:36Scalfari Book Exposes Young Bergoglio’s Communist Leanings
You know the Left loves to tell their ‘stories’ to play on your emotions, well this one should play on ours and needs to be widely shared.
Samuel Jackson (right) survived Vietnam only to die on his own PA street. This is a news story and photo you won’t see on CNN! Can you imagine what an uproar there would be if the alleged killer was a Trump supporter! Cable news might have had to interrupt their impeachment extravaganza!
Illegal Alien Allegedly Killed Vietnam Veteran Day Before Veterans Day
An illegal alien living in Pennsylvania is accused of killing a Vietnam War Veteran the day before Veterans Day, according to law enforcement officials.
Nemias Perez Severiano, a 31-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, is accused of killing Samuel Jackson, a disabled 69-year-old who served as a Marine in the Vietnam War, the day before Veterans Day this year in Norristown, Pennsylvania, according to the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office.
On November 10, police said Severiano was driving drunk when he hit and killed Jackson before fleeing the scene of the accident. According to court records obtained by CBS Philly, the illegal alien had been drinking for five hours at a nearby bar before the fatal crash.
“While at the bar [Severiano] indicated he consumed seven to eight Modelo beers,” the arrest records stated. “[Severiano] informed the detectives that when he left the bar, he was ‘a little drunk.’”
Jackson’s sister, Peggy Jackson, said her brother “loved the Marines” and was “so proud to have served his country.”
“It was basically his day, it’s what he fought for,” Jayden Guidici, Jackson’s grandson, told ABC 6 News of his grandfather’s love of Veterans Day.
[….]
As Breitbart News reported, Marine Corp Veteran Richard Dunn donated his uniform to Jackson so he could be buried in uniform.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2019-11-23 05:12:262019-11-23 05:13:38Pennsylvania Police: African American Vietnam Vet Run Over and Killed by Drunk Mexican
While Americans sometimes take their democracy for granted, turnout shouldn’t be a problem in Hong Kong this Sunday. That’s when the region heads to the polls to choose their local leaders. Normally, foreign affairs reporter Gordon Chang pointed out, the district elections don’t attract very much attention. This time around, things are different. Five months into Hong Kong’s violent protests, the people want to be heard. And not just about their districts. About everything.Despite political banners in tatters and fears that Sunday’s elections will invite even more clashes with police, the people of Hong Kong plan to show up in force this weekend. “It’s is one of the few avenues we have left to express our voice,” said Lokman Tsui, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong: “When you are continually and structurally being disenfranchised, you hold onto any right you have left.”
Thousands of miles away, American leaders are doing everything they can to give the locals more leverage. Led by congressmen like Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who’s been trying since 2014 to pass a bill just like it, the Hong Kong Rights and Democracy Act sailed through both chambers and is on its way to the president’s desk. What it does, Chris explained on “Washington Watch,” is lets China know that if they don’t support an autonomous Hong Kong, all of the special benefits and protections they currently enjoy will go away.
“When China got Hong Kong back from the U.K. they made solemn promises that Hong Kong would be autonomous–that human rights, as you and I understand [them]… would be enjoyed. [T]he basic law reads like our own Constitution. It’s just in the Bill of Rights. It is wonderfully written. And now it’s eroding under the current dictator, who wants to take religious oppression to Hong Kong itself.” But America has leverage, Smith explains. “Its economy is based on exports. Without exports, it will implode. We can impact those exports in a very serious way if we say there’s conditionality to having that special status for Hong Kong.”
Unfortunately, Chris pointed out, a lot of these problems started years ago when America gave away its biggest bargaining chip. “Bill Clinton gave away everything [with the permanent most favored nation trade status],” he lamented. “He was weak and vacillating. And in May of 1994, he delinked human rights from trade. And that’s when the Chinese government took the view of the United States that all we care about is profits and that the rule of law… and especially fundamental, universally recognized human rights are all negotiable. So he gave away the store. I believe May 26, 1994 was a day, frankly, we lost China.”
He’s right. Most people truly believed that trade would change China. And unfortunately, trade ended up changing American business more than China. We have sports leagues like the NBA refusing to speak up, because the regime threated to pull their pre-season games. Then there’s Hollywood, who’s embracing censorship as an acceptable price of putting more movies in Chinese theaters. Then there are American businesses, building factories with what can only be described as slave labor.
“People went on thinking if we just trade a little more, somehow China will matriculate from dictatorship to democracy. That has not happened. They’re now a global threat. And a threat to their own people. It’s unconscionable. The Uyghur Muslims, the Christians, the house church movement. [China is] on a tear. And Hong Kong is next.”
Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2019-11-23 04:59:592019-11-23 05:01:05PODCAST: Hong Kong Strong
When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on November 18 that the Administration did not regard Israeli settlements in the West Bank as violating international law, there was weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Great and Good in our media. The New York Times characteristically did not bother to address the truth or falsehood of Pompeo’s statement. It merely damned the remark for constituting a “reversal of decades of American policy that may doom any peace efforts.” Readers were made to understand that this claim as to the legality of Israeli settlements must be wrong – and all those previous administrations, headed by the likes of the antisemitic Jimmy Carter, and the anti-Israel George H. W. Bush and anti-Israel Barack Obama, that declared them “illegal,” must surely have been right.
What’s more, the Times article on Pompeo grimly predicted that this “reversal…of American policy…may doom any peace efforts.” One might have thought that “peace efforts” – through treaties rather than through deterrence – had long been doomed not by anything the Israelis have done, but by the persistent refusal of Mahmoud Abbas to engage in negotiations. One might also have thought that “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians might be maintained most effectively not through treaties, given that Muhammad’s breaking of the Treaty of Hudaibiyya – that he made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. — has served as a model for all subsequent treaty-making, and treaty-breaking, by Muslims with non-Muslims. Instead, such a peace can only be maintained through deterrence – the same policy that kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. 620,000 Israeli Jews living in towns and cities in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem constitute a major part of that deterrence.
The Times also noted that the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice have all said that Israeli settlements on the West Bank violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. We can dismiss as hopelessly biased the General Assembly and the Security Council of the U.N., but what about the International Court of Justice? In 2004, when the Court rendered its advisory opinion as to the legality of Israeli settlements, three of its fifteen judges were Muslims, the largest single bloc. And since then there have always been at least three Muslim judges on the court at time.
Despite the fact that the U.N. General Assembly, and the U.N. Security Council, and the International Court of Justice, have all claimed that by building settlements in the West Bank, Israel violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, their judgments are flatly contradicted by the facts. We mustn’t let ourselves be overawed.
First, the Fourth Geneva Convention came out of World War II, a response to the behavior of the Nazis in the countries they occupied and where they both moved peoples out – including Jews who were rounded up and sent to death camps, and also Poles and other Slavic peoples considered as untermenschen — and moved in more ethnic Germans, to parts of Poland, the Baltic states, and Czechoslovakia. But Israel was never an “occupying power” in the West Bank; it was there by right, the right conferred on it in the Mandate for Palestine and, one might add, by the fact that Jews had lived in the West Bank continuously for the past two thousand years. It was only between 1948 and 1967 that the West Bank was rendered Judenrein by the Jordanians. Second, Israel did not move any people out of the West Bank, nor did it forcibly move Jews into the West Bank. Those Jews who moved into West Bank settlements did so of their own volition.
It bears repetition: Israel’s status as the only legal claimant to the West Bank (see the Mandate for Palestine, and accompanying maps), renders the Fourth Geneva Convention — with its statement that “an occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” — inapplicable. Israel is not an occupying power in the West Bank, and furthermore, the Israeli government has not forcibly “deported nor transferred parts of its own civilian population” to the West Bank.
Many in the media treated Secretary Pompeo’s remark as just one more deplorable pro-Israel act by the Trump administration, with the obvious suggestion of political pandering. But the truth is quite the reverse. It was pandering to the Arabs that led successive American administrations to adopt, and to incessantly repeat, the claim that the West Bank settlements, even if they were not strictly illegal, were “obstacles to peace.” No one even felt it necessary to refer to the legal basis of that claim, if such existed; no mention was ever made of the Mandate for Palestine, which supports not those “decades of American policy,” but rather, the Trump Administration’s “reversal of decades” of such policy.
Pompeo’s remark ought not to have raised any eyebrows among those who knew both the relevant history and international law. He was at long last merely recognizing a truth that should have been insisted upon ever since 1967, when Israel came into possession of the West Bank. All of the West Bank — this has to be constantly underlined, given that merely by constant repetition of the claim that the “Jewish settlements are illegal” so many have been misled – was included in the territory which, according to the Mandate for Palestine, was intended to become the Jewish National Home. Here is the map of Mandatory Palestine just before the 1948 war. Had Israel captured the West Bank in 1948-49, that would have been the end of the matter. The Western world would have recognized Israel’s right to settle everywhere in the West Bank (it would become known by that name only after 1949, when the Jordanians, as occupiers, imposed the toponym “West Bank” to replace “Judea” and “Samaria”), and moved on.
But it was Jordan that won the West Bank, and from 1949 to 1967 held it as an “occupying power.” Israel’s legal right to the West Bank was not extinguished during this period, and when Israel came into its possession in 1967, the Jewish state could at long last enforce that legal right. That is all that Secretary Pompeo and the Trump Administration have done: they have recognized that legal right of the Jews to settle in the West Bank, a right that originates in the Mandate for Palestine itself. Article 6 of the Mandate requires the Mandatory authority to both “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “encourage…close settlement by Jews on the land.” That is exactly what has been going on since 1967 in the West Bank, which remained part of the territory assigned for inclusion in the Jewish National Home: “close settlement by Jews on the land.” It is a source of constant amazement that so many people feel qualified to dismiss those settlements as “illegal” without having read the Mandate for Palestine or studied the Mandate maps. Few seek to study the matter, but instead simply repeat what they have heard before. Laziness and fear also play their part. Politicians and members of the media think to themselves “why should I have to do research on my own when others have told us, with great certainty, that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are ‘illegal’? If the U.N. General Assembly, and the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice, all declare them ‘illegal,’ who am I to say them nay? And besides, it takes fortitude to upset geopolitical applecarts, and dare to question the received wisdom that insists – wrongly, but so self-assuredly – on that ‘illegality.’”
This would be the opportune moment for those who know why the Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable to Jewish settlements in what was always meant, by the Mandate for Palestine, to be part of the Jewish National Home, to produce articles reinforcing the Administration’s welcome conclusion. It should not be left to Secretary Pompeo to face the mickey-mockers alone, nor should Israel be left alone at the U.N. and similar kangaroo courts to explain, as it now has an opening to do, why those settlements in the West Bank are not only legal, but through the increased deterrence they provide against potential aggressors from the east, will help rather than hinder the cause of peace.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-11-23 04:43:552019-11-23 04:43:55Pompeo States a Home Truth, and the Media Mostly Mocks by Hugh Fitzgerald
Is it just an Islamist response to call programs preventing extremism part of the surveillance state — or is there more to it?
The answer may depend on which country we’re discussing and who is being brought to the table to have that discussion.
Over in the UK, Roundtable recently hosted a conversation that brought together four experts in the field — two of them Muslim — to talk about the progress and pitfalls of programs to prevent extremism.
Watch:
While there is a concern in the UK to make sure prevention programming doesn’t unfairly spotlight Muslims, the same standards don’t necessarily apply in the U.S.
To date, there is no national umbrella organization in the U.S. for countering violent extremism as there is in the UK.
There is also no cohesive conversation on genuine concerns that can arise in such a space.
Yet in the U.S., instead of a conversation that moves the needle, we have Islamists and their allies setting the tone without participation from non-Islamist Muslims — meaning, there is no nuance or balance in that conversation.
The most recent of these narrow dialogues will be hosted by the Muslim Student Association on November 25, 2019, in Minneapolis Minnesota. Speakers include Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-Minnesota’s Director, and Hassan Shibly, CAIR-Florida’s Director.
Hussein is a known provocateur and disrupter in Minneapolis. In 2017, he refused to condemn the terrorist organization Hamas. Hussein operates a CAIR chapter which includes members who have openly lamented that Hitler wasn’t alive to “add more casualties” to the Holocaust.
Two months ago, Hussein faced further public humiliation after the U.S. Census Bureau backed out of a town hall with CAIR-Minnesota after public backlash.
The director of CAIR-Florida, Hassan Shibly, is on record as saying that Hezbollah isn’t a terrorist organization. He supports sharia law for Muslim-majority countries. Shibly also entertains conspiracy theories that the U.S. government and Israel frame Muslims for terrorism. He twice posted a video on his Facebook page titled, “Former American Terrorist Denounces American Terrorism.”
(a) There’s a need to have critical conversations about counter extremism programs, but they will never be had in a meaningful way if they only occur in spaces dominated by Islamists, and
(b) There’s a difference between countering violent extremism (CVE) and preventing violent extremism (PVE). CVE focuses on deradicalization programs whereas PVE looks to prevent radicalization from targeting vulnerable populations in the first place.
